The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-07-24 00:00:00

BROKERS

The bankrupt was formerly a sharebroker in this town,
and the present was a meeting for the proof of debts.
Mr. FORSHAW appeared in support of a claim made by
certain sharelmkers of this town.

Mr. BARDSWELL objected to the proof on behalf of the
bankrupt. He said his objection was that, inasmuch as
the claim which had been presented arose out of a diffe-
rence between the sale price and the then price of certain
railway shares which had been negociated between the
parties, it could not be maintained. He contended that
the difference between a debt worth so much to day, and
not worth so much on the morrow, could not be held s- 6
proof against the estate in the present instani and that
the debt could not be admitted 'unless it could be proved
that actually some commodity had passed as between the
parties, which was not so in the present case.
Mr. FORSHAW, on the other hand, cited the ca
' e of
Moffat v. Tate, in reference to a tea transaction, i• All' 1
the defendant was held to have a claim, as in t,, 4 W IC
,a 0 present
case.

Mr. BARDSWELL then replled at gm
-0 length. He
contended that the case of Moffat v. T
gous; and, as to the custom which , Act 'wits not anala-
and recently by Mr. Justice r
he stated that it had been held ..ektl been referred to,
. ky the learned j udg es,
the stock exchange might' ,etSwell, that the custom of
but it was not. law in tb
Mr. Commissions ...0 aP IteW on the stock exchange,
lordship's court.
which presented ' .'erievEtrsoN said that the question
an actual sale •EPAI to him was. whether the sale was
of the trad' or Ykit. 'lie was inclined to take the custom
of Bail:" ,P.,,,,a say it was an actual sale. In the case
Lord AP.. Butterworth, cited before the learned judges,
(.: Muttun and Mr. Baron Rolfe had held that a prin.
.tgol! 'An instruct: d a broker to buy or sell goods must
, (sz:lboun'd by the rules of the stock exchange. He must,
7 therefore, treat this as a transaction as bearing upon the
present applicant according to the usual custom as adopted
m such transucti,ms. It did not uppear to him that there
was such an objection to the proof tendered as that offered
I by Mr. Bardswell, and it must, therefore, be received.

PRISON TREATMENT OF DEBTORS.—CIaUSe3 are in-
serted in the timall D_-bts Amendment Bill to prevent the
practice of rutting the hair of debtors committed to the
House of Correction. Where the priQon is at a distance,
the debtors may be confined in a neighbouring gaol, sub-
j,ct to such regulations as may be laid down by the Home
Secretary.

DIVORCE.—HARTLEY V. HARTLEY.—This case, which
will be familiar to the local reader, came before the Con-
sistory Court on Wednesday. Dr. Addams said it was a
suit for a divorce, promoted by the husband against the
wife for having committed the act of adultery with a Mr.
Thompson, who was an engineer on one of the railways.
The act was said to have been committed at Liverpool,
where Mr. Thompson took a house for the purpose of
carrying on the illicit intercourse with Mrs. Hartley.
These was no oppesition to the suit. The court, in con-
sequence, signed the divorce.
The new law affecting the registration of voters came
into practical operation on Thursday last. Hitherto taxes
and 000 r rates due on the sth of April were required to be
paid on or before the 20th of July ; but by the act 11
and 12 Vic., cap. 90, it is declared that after the Ist of
January, 1849, no person shall be required, in order to
entitle him to have bis name inserted in any list of voters
for any city, town, or borough in England, to have paid
any poors rates or assessed taxes except such as shall have
become payable from him previously to the sth of Jan.
in the same year; and that no person shall be entitled to
be on any such list of voters unless the poors ra es and
assessed taxes, payable from him previously to the sth of
January, shall be paid on or before the 20th day of July
next following."
On Wednesday, at Oakham, Mr. Justice Coleridge held
a maiden assize, and was, in consequence, presented by
the Sheriff with a pair of white gloves. The knowledge
that there was little business formed a sufficient excuse
for his lordship excusing a thin attendance of grand jurors,
but at the same time afforded opportunity for some re-
marks on the projected abolition of that body.—" I am
sorry to say," observed his lordship, " that in some parts
of the country an opinion is gaining ground that Grand
Juries are unnecessary. That is a very erroneous opinion,
for I take the institution of Grand Juries to be one of
great value, and which ought to be kept up. I dare say
you have heard that a bill is now before Parliament, or is
likely to be introduced by a high legal authority, for the
purpose of abolishing Grand Juries as regards the Central
Criminal Court of the metropolis. I own that I very
much regret that there should be such an intention. I
may speak with greater freedom on the subject now, as it
has not yet become the law of the land, and I cannot help
saying that I look upon it as a very unconstitutional mea-
sure ; for if the bill should pass into law it will depend
on the decision of one individual—an individual appointed
by the Crown, paid by the Crown, and removeable by the
Crown—as to whether any person shall be prosecuted or
not. There will be an end to all inquiry by the ancient
institution of the Grand Jury, and it will depend on a police
magistrate whether any prisoners shall or shall not be put
out on trial."
A HINT FOR MR. HUDSON.—An anneal i'ac nf cam°
11111JUI tblll e In connexion with Joint-stock Companies was
decided on Tuesday in the House of Lords. A party
having become a shareholder in the Forth Marine Insu-
rance Company claimed to have his liability set aside on
the ground that the law officer of the Company, also a
shareholder, had deceived him with regard to its position
--the concern, owing to the concealment of its losses by
the directors and the distribution of the premiums as
dividends, having actually lost £95,704 beyond its paid-
up capital of £lO,OOO at the time he became a shareholder.
In the opinion of the house, however. the Company could
not be considered responsible for the representations of
its law agent, who neither in that capacity nor as a share-
holder and partner could be authorised to make any
statements regarding its affairs, all powers to that effect
being vested solely in the directors. The appeal was con-
sequently dismissed with costs and the judgment of the
lower court confirmed. In the course of the discussion,
however, the following statement was made by Lord
Campbell, which is of peculiar importance at the present
time. After remarking on the difference between the
transactions of an Insurance Company and a Railway
Company, and that in the present case there was no proof
that the dividends had been paid out of capital, as the
premiums whence they were made had been actually re-
ceived, and there was simply a false estimate of probable
future losses, his lordship observed that " he would state
his opinion in reference to the conduct of directors who,
with a view to raise the price of shares in the market,
ventured to declare dividends out of the capital of a Com-
pany instead of out of the profits. Supposing a Company
was not worked to a profit, and a dividend were made and
was made out of capital, it was quite clear that a gross
fraud was committed, and the directors making such a
dividend were not only liable to a civil action, but were,
in his opinion, guilty of a conspiracy for which they might
be indicted." In these views Lord Brougham fully con-
curred, remarking that there was good ground in such
cases for having recourse to a much severer proceeding
than a civil action."