The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

LIDEL.nt " THE TlmEs."—An application, on Friday,
for a rule,. calling upon Mr. William Harrison, the pub-
lisher of The Times to show cause why a criminal infor-
mation should not be filed against him, for a libel published
in that journal, against the Hon. Mr. Scott, and other
gentlemen connected with the South Western Railway
Company, was postponed till next term: '

kASTEiN AucifxrEnA.uo:--Judgment was given
on Tuesday in the Exchequer Chamber on the long-
pending case of the Queen v. the; Eastern Archipelago
Company. The present proceedings:arose, primarily, from
a scire facias, issued at the instance of Sir James Brooke,
suggesting that the conditions of the company's charter
had not been fulfilled. The jury found in favour of the
Crown; and the Company appealed:to the Queen's Bench:,
The judges here had to decide upon two questions :
whether the non-payment of the £50,000 within twelve
months, and the commencing of business before that was
paid, were such a breach of the: conditions as to entitle
the Crown to cancel the charter ;. and whether the charter
could be annulled by scire faoias, Lord Campbell and
Justice Wightman decided in.. favour of the Crown, but
Justices Coleridge and Erle held a different opinion.
Judgment was entered for the:Croin, but a writ of error .
was brought, on which judgment was now to be given.
The Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas, Justices Wil-
liams, Talfourd, and Cresswell, and, the Chief Baron, with
Barons Alderson, Platt, and. Martin, were of opinion that
the judgment entered in the Queen's Bench was correct ;
that the Crown had the power to annul the charter upon
a breach of the conditions ; and that any subject of the
realm might proceed by scire faeias, the prerogative of
the Crown being held for the public benefit. Mr. Baron
Parke was the only dissentient from this opinion ; and
judgment was therefore entered for the Crown.
CRIMINAL INFORMA_TION.-1.11 the Bail Court, On
Thursday, before Mr. Justice Crompton, Sir F. Thesiger
said he had to move for a rule to. show cause why a criminal
information should not be filed against the publisher of the.
Morning Advertiser newspaper, for a libel upon Mr. W.. K.
Gardner, late Comptroller of the Customs at the port of Li-
verpool. The libel arose out of the prosecution of the.
Customs against the great dock interests. Mr. Gardner.
was at the time the Comptroller of the Customs at the port
of Liverpool. He was summoned .to London, and he. was
employed to assist the solicitors to the prosecution, but he
did not originate them and did not receive any reward,
either directly or indirectly, for his services. He was
therefore much astonished and hurt to find that on the
28th of October an article appeared in the Morning Ad-
vertiser, generally upon the Board of Customs, but reflect-
ing in a very serious manner upon Mr. Gardner.. The
learned council read the paragraph, which alleged that the
comptroller of one of the northern ports had brought for-
ward false charges in the Customs' prosecutions for his own
sordid purposes. The affidavit, set forth, stated that Mr.
Gardner was the person alluded to by the newspaper. He
(Sir F., Thesiger) could not imagine anything more mis-
chevious or more likely to prejudice the chnacter of an
officer, whose services had been beneficial to the country.
—Rule granted.
EXTRAORDINARY BILL CASE.—In the Bail Court on
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, a case Wilbraham v,
Bickley, occupied the whole of these dap, and excited un-
usual interest. The action was to recover the amount of
a bill of the 22d of May, lin, for £92, drawn by the de-
feudant, and accepted by one Fell, and endorsed by the
defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he
had only endorsed it to enable the plaintiff to obtain the
money from Fell under his bankruptcy. It appeared that
the plaintiff is a gunmaker, carrying on business in the
Strand, and the defendant is an attorney, having chambers
adjoining the Temple, and acting as the attorney for the
plaintiff. According to the plaintiff's statement, the de-
fendant called upon him in June, 1,852, and asked him to
discount this bill, and be gave him £BO, and subsequenty
£lO. On the day it . became due the plaintiff asked the
defendant to present the bill fbr him, and in the evening
he said he had presented it, but it was not paid ; but he
added, "It is all right, old fellow, I will get you the money.
Fell has plenty of property in Ireland." Some time after
he told the plaintiff that they could get the money directly
if they struck a docket against Fell, and the plaintiff gave
the defendant £lO to tape the requisite proceedings. On
the part of the defendant it was said that the statement
of the plaintiff was untrue ; that the defendant had been
in the habit of lending the plaintiff money, and, as re-
garded this bill, that the defendant had endorsed it merely
that the money might be obtained from Fell ; and, as re-
garded all the other bills, they were given expressly for
the accommodation of the plaintiff. On Thursday Mr.
Justice Crompton, in summing up, said he thought that
the jury would agree with the learned counsel and himself,
that on one side or the other most deliberate perjury must
have been committed. The • only question for them to
decide was—to which side they gave credence. The jury
retired for three hours, and, on returning, found a verdict
• for the plaintiff for £l2O 7s. ld.
A CASE OF SIIAREEL—In the Court of Chancery, on
Thursday, the case ea. parte Nielson-in re Edmond came
on before the Lords Justices of Appeal. This case came
before the court in a somewhat irregular manner, the
order brought under discussion having been pronounced
by Lord Justice Knight Bruce, sitting in bankruptcy as
Vice-Chancellor, so long ago as August, 1850, at which
time the learned judge gave the parties leave to submit a
case for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer. The facts
of the case were these :—ln June, 1845, a prospectus was
issued for the formation of a joint-stock insurance office at
Liverpool, called " The Royal Insurance Company," with
a capital of £2,000,000,- in 100,000 shares of £2O each ;
and it was completely registered. In this association Mr.
Edmond became the allottee of 200 shares. He paid all
the calls, but did not execute the deed of settlement, and
was not a registered shareholder as required by the 26th
section of the Joint Stock Companies' Registration Act,
7th and. Bth Victoria, chap. 110. These shares were sold
for Mr. Edmond by Messrs. D. and J. B. Nielson, his
sharehrokers, at Liverpool, and the transfers were executed
but not registered. Mr. Edmond became bankrupt, and
Mr. Commissioner Skirrow decided that the bankrupt, not
being a registered shareholder, the sale was of no avail,
and that the shares formed part of his estate. The brokers
appealed to the Vice-Chancellor, who agreed with the com-
missioner, but gave leave that a case might be submitted
for the opinion of a court of law. The argu=ntS