The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-12-08 00:00:00

LONDON LAW AND POLICE' COURTS.

BOLL'S COURT—Fa/DAY.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. THE 'CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL.
Mr. Bickersteth appeared iu this instance on the part of the
Attorney-General and the same persons
.(Mr. T. Joyous and
T;Bolton). who were relators in the application made last week
for an injunction to restrain the Corporation of Liverpool from
mortgaging a portion of their property in order to make a per-
manent endowment for their clergy. That application having
failed, the present was made in order that the court might re-
strain the corporation from investing the £105,0q), which it had
partly raised and proposed wholly to raise for that purpose, in
the hands of the Grand Junction'ltailroad Company. such an
investment, the learned counsel contended, was wholly impro-
vident in any point of view, while it appeared quite inconsistent
with the. terms of the contact between the company and the
corporation. This great amount of money was to be placed in
the keeping of the former, upon condition that it should be re-
paid upon a short notice. What, iu fact, did a railroad company
do with its funds, or for what purpose did it raise money upon
loan? Surely for none other than immediate outla). It might
not be in a situation to repay at all when called on—it might be in
embarassments which would ultimately lead to litigation. No
one had ever heard of such a security being taken by trustees in
the expenditure of trust property. It was therefore hoped that
his Honour would here decisively interfere, and order the
money, when raised by the Corporation of Liverpool. to' be paid
into the hands of the Accountant-General, to be administered
under the direction of the court, until its ultimate investment
should be determined upon.
Mr. Booth followed on the same side.

Mr. Pemberton, on the part of the Corporation of Liverpool,
observed that he did not well know what could be the object of
this application, or what the parties to it could mean in wishing
to have the fund in question administered by that court. The
case had, he should have conceived, been disposed of by the late
decision. He thought that the nature of that decision could not
be too clearly understood, to the effect that his Honour did not
decide in any degree against either party, but, resolved upon a
balance of inconveniences, came to the conchision to leave the
case open for a future decision. Were it now to be in the
slightest degree prejudged against the corporation, it was not
that one, but a hundred applications of the kind would be made
to the court. Its proceedings were closely watched ; and if they
should appear at all inculpative of the Corporation of Liverpool,
there was scarcely a corporation in the country against which
there would not be found dissatisfied individuals to file informa-
-1
tions. This proceeding had already been attended with great
inconvenience to the parties against whom it had been directed.
It had stopped the raising of the loan on the part of the Corpo-
ration of Liverpool, and rendered it doubtful whether it could
be at all effected. Was it, he would ask, to be borne that two
persons not immediately interested should be enabled to pro-
duce such a tesultby an ill-grounded proceeding ? Taking the
Corporation of LiOerpool as a trustee, and the inhabitants of
Liverpool to be cestui-que-trusts, on what principle could two of
the latter, out of so large a number, be permitted to assume the
right of entering on so important a proceeding in the name of
the whole ? The Attorney-General could not have been de
facto a party to the application, which he could not, upon a true
statement of facts, have countenanced. As to the security
offered by the Railroad Company, it was as good as could be
desired. There was the security of an income of £3,000 a-year
derived from the Birmingham and Warrington Railroad; there
was the security of lands purchased at a price of £165,000, and
of works upon which £516,000 had been expended. There was,
moreover, a right to.4iny one call of 10 per cent. on the proprie-
tary of the company included in the contract in favour of the
corporation. That call alone would produce £lOO,OOO, and all
these securities were given for but £105,000.
Mr. Turner followed on the same side.

Mr. Bickersteth replied shortly.
His Honour observed, that in „uiving his judgment in regard to
the injunction lately applied for, he had intended to abstain from
giving any opinion respecting the rights of the parties. The
sole point which he had decided was that, under the provision of
the municipal reform act, the court had jurisdiction to interfere.
As regarded the effect of the appeal to the King in Council, or
what might be eventually decreed on the subject of dispute, he
had abstained then, as he would on this occasion, from express-
ing any opinion. A jurisdiction he had considered to be vested
in the court, to be exercised according to its discretion, and in
his discretion he had determined so to deal with the case before
him as to leave the interests of both parties open for a future
consideration. He should, therefore, continue to look upon the
subject in that point of view. Inasmuch, however, as. the
legislature had left in the hands of the old corporation their pro-
perty in the interim between the passing of the act and its
coming into execution. subject to the restraint of that court, he
should consider whether what was intended to be done with the
funds in question was calculated to endanger them and decide
upon what was necessary for their security. Ile sliould, there-
fore, read over the acts establishing the Railroad Company,
and the affidavits in the case, and give his judgment to-morrow
(this day.)
SATURDAY.

His Honour now stated that this case had stood over from the
preceding day, that he might have an opportunity of examining
the Acts of Parliament upon the subject, with the view of ascer-
taining whether or not the Grand Junction Railway was a good
and sufficient security for the investment of the money in ques-
tion. He would give no opinion as to the title of the company,
except in so far as it was affected by these acts. The only ques-
tion for his decision was, had such a case been made out as
would warrant the court in granting the injunction prayed for
in the information. He had looked into the Acts of Parliament
upon the subject. These were four in number, but he considered
that two of them only were applicable to the present case, which
were 3. William IV., passed in 1833, and 4. William IV., pas-
sed in 1831. his Honour then made some remarks upon the
various funds of which the Corporation of Liverpool were made
the trustees by the former of these acts. By its 113th clause they
had a power to raise a sum of £316,000 and in the 114th clause
there was a provision giving great security to the lenders of
money upon the funds of the corporation. This clause gave au-
thority to two justices of the peace, in the event of the payment
of interest being delayetl for twenty-one days beyond the time
of its being due, to appoint a receiver of the corporation funds
for behoof of the persons making the complaint. In the second
of the statutes above alluded to there were two sections, 2(X.land
201, which 'night appear to affect, in some degree, the security
of those who lent money upon the Grand Junction Railway,
which formed a large part of the corporation property. Section
200 provided, that if the railway were not coucluded within ten.
years front the passing of the act, all the powers which the cor-
poration had as trustees under the act should cease and deter-
mine ; and section 201 provided, that if the railway were aban-
doned by the proprietors, or ceased to be used as a railway for
the space of five years, the lands which had been purchased for
its formation should become vested in the persons of the propri-
etors of the grounds on each side of the railway—one-half going
to the proprietors upon the one vide, and the other half to the
proprietors upon the other side. He did not apprehend, how-
ever, that there was the slightest chance that either of the events
contemplated by these would happen; and he accordingly con-
sidered that the Grand Junction Railway formed a good and
valid security for the investment of money by lenders.—ln
these circumstances, his Honour considered that the persons
laying the information had failed to make out such a case as
would warrant the court in granting the injunction prayed for.
—The injunction was accordingly dismissed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-FRIDAY.
LIBEL.

WATTS v. FRASER AiiD ANOTHER.—The Attorney-General
in stating this case said that he had the honour of appearing
for Mr. Alaric Watts, a gentleman of high literary attainments,
who had to complain of a libel published by the defendants in a
work of great celebrity, Fraser's Magazine. The defendant pre-
tended to make extracts from the different Annuals, and to in-
duce the readers of Fraser's Magazine to believe that these were
correct extracts from these publications. If these extracts had
been true ones, and had been commented upon with severity,
he should not have complained; but, instead of that, they were
complete fallacies. He would now give them a few specimens
of the manner in which this criticism was carried into execution.
It commenced with " These elegant publications have just
' reached us." It then proceeded with genuine extracts from the
Forget-me-Not and Friendship's Offering. It proceeded : "We
now come to The Literary Souvenir—a publication which once
attracted no inconsiderable share of attention, but which, from
some cause or other, has fallen off in popular estimation during
the last four years. It forms no part of our duty to account for
the capriciousness of taste, nor are we called on to censure our
beloved public for its mode of distributing patronage."." We
think it due to the editor of The Literary Souvenir to state that
his annual is, in every. point of view, as deserving of encourage-
inent now as it was originally."—" One of its features is espe-
cially worthy of commendation—namely, its spirited translaTions
from the living languages."—" Among these translations we
cannot refrain from quoting the subjoined extracts, taken as
they are from the posthumous works of a Polish poet, whose
successful efforts in the Magyar language were long since no-
ticed by Dr. Bowring and ourselves. It may be in the recol-
lection of our readers, that Quaffypunchnvies,the poet in question,
died young—not, however, till he had given abundant promise
of a most brilliant future ;" and then it gave an extract from
this supposed poem, alleged falsely to have been taken from
The Literary Souvenir; but these pretended extracts were not
so absurd as to render it impossible to suppose that they might
have been real ones, but they were dull, stupid, and vapid, and
no person would think of buying a publication which contained
such trash. The learned gentleman then proceeded to read
some poetical extracts from the magazine, which he contended
were injurious to the literary character of Mr. Watts, and,
moreover, were not to be found in The Literary Souvenir. He
then referred to the picture of Mr. Watts, in Fraser's "Gallery
of Literary Characters," in which the plaintiff was designated
as "Alaric Attila Watts, editor of The Literary Soutenir," and
represented him with a picture under each arm, flying down
stairs with caution depicted on his countenance. Ti.) show the
libellous character of this portrait he read the accompanying pen
and ink sketch of the life and character of the original as it ap-
peared in the June number of Fraser's Magazine. Evidence
was their given of the publication of the libel and of the different
newspapers and other periodical works of which Mr. Watts was
either the proprietor, or to which he was a literary contributor.
Mr. Erle addressed the jury for the defendants. One of
them, he said, was the editor of Fraser's Magazine, the other the
publisher, an industrious tradestnan, far removed from the feuds
which irritated literacy men, who had no connexion with the in-
diting of these libels, and clearly was not guilty of any inten-
tion of injuring Mr. Watts's character. His learned friend had
not shown that Mr. Watts bad ever demanded of Mr. Frazer
that the author should be given up, and he was instructed to
say that Mr. Watts had never asked for the author, but had re-
sorted to this action against Mr. Moyes, as well as against the
proprietors, together with the costs of this action. His learned
friend had advocated the criticism of any works that came be-
fore the public and had deprecated the idea of putting any re-
straint upon the criticism of public works. There was no more
intention against the Literary Souvenir than against other An-
nuals ; there was no malice against the proprietor, and no in-
tention to do him any harm. But it was a parody turning the
articles into ridicule, and offered to Mr. Watts a certain style
which he might improve upon in future. If they looked at the
article itself, they would find that the introduction clearly
showed it was a fanciful representation of the different authors
of Fraser's Magazine, some playing at back-gammon, and then
a wager is laid, and two of them, "Mr. Barry Cornwall" and
" The Man of Genius," go out of the room to write articles on
the annuals, which they called rubbish—clearly upon the face
of it, intending to be a mere fanciful production, a mere jest ;
and the Literary Souvenir was handled just the same as all the
others. Barry Cornwall's article is then given, and afterwards
that of the Man of Genius. The editor of the Forget-Me-Not
is then brought forward --

" Now the moon pours down her light !
Now the watching stars burn dearer!
This festive hail's a sacred shrine,
And thou'rt the Saint, Madeira !"
His learned friend said this was intended to prevent the sale of the
work—it was no such thing. They (the counsel) were accustom-,
ed to look at every thing in a'serious way ; .their duties accustom-
ing them to examine upon oath, they took everything as sacred.
The learned counsel quoted other articles from the criticism

`heated
Annuals," to prove that The Souvenir had not been
with greater severity than its euntetnporaties of the
same class. In speaking of damages, he would ask what claim
had Mr. Watts to any privilege here, as he was wont to utter
slander upon slander and abuse upon abuse? If it turned out
that Mr. Watts had mixed the bitterest gall he could get
together, and publish the grossest libels he thought his leaders