The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-07-21 00:00:00

•
Of Parliament on which this •prosecntints—WS
founded. The Defendants bad entered on
venture, which) he conteeded, was prohibited by
the stAtute of the 6th (3V°. I. c. IL it was' in'
adventure to carry-on a very large concern in the
copper business, for the raising of the prodigious
capital of 100,0001. or 150,0001. by subscription,
and fur making the shares of the subscribers trans.
ferable ; by which it would appear that every
bolder of a share was responsible for nothing more

that. the loss of what might fall on such share
by the diminution of its value as a transferable
property ; whereas each holder of such share
must he in law responsible for all the engagements
of the company of which he became a member by
either subscribing to, or purchasing a share.
This was the very thing which the legislature in-
tended to prohibit, and did prohibit by the Act of
Parliament of the 6th of Geo. 1. Here he en.
tcred into a succinct account of the origin of this
Copper Company, on the 30th Sept. 1807, down
to the time of commencing this prosecution. He
read the prospectus which proposed to open a sub-
scription to issue 10()0 shares of 1001. Each
holder of 10 shares to be eligible to the office
of a member of the committee, by whose di-
rection the affairs of the company were to be
guided, &c. Upon which facts (none of which
were disputed, for the case cams on to be tried
upon admissions), he submitted to his Lordship,
that these Defendants had done that which was
strictly prohibited by the Act of Parliament of
the 6th of Geo. I. ch: 18.
Lord ELLENBOROUGU asked if there was any
objection, for either side, to turning this question
into a special case, to be argued before the
Court upon a special verdict.
Ilis Lordship was answered on both sides...
there was nut the least objection whatever to that•
cu.trse being taken.
His Lordship then observed, it might as welt
take that course, because it would facilitate the
parties, should they be so minded, in going to the
last resort fur judgment ; not that he had any un-
willingness, for he was quite ready to deliver the
opinion which he had formed upon this subject;
for he had thought upon it a good deal, and it
would be affectation fur him to say that he haul
any dooht is his own mind upon this case, his
attention having been recently called to the point
its the case of the King and Dodd ; but, however,
if the partiep preferred a special use, it would
'he pcemature in him to deliver in opinion now,
*lmo he understood that he was to be called up-
on• to deliver it amongst his brethren on the
Bench.
Mr. DALLAS observed that this case, when
its facts lame to be stated in the special verdict,
would appear to differ materially from that of
the King and Dodd, in which shares had beets ac-
tually transferred ; in this case there was not a
single instance of such a fact.
The Arroanev-GErteasa. observed, that this
would only go in mitigation of punishment if the
ea,e were so; but the formation of the company,
and the resolutioa to issue transferable shares,
would be equally illegal—to suppress the principle
of Which was the purpose for which this prosecu.
thin *AN itiStililled. He trusted the real merits of
this question should be discussed, in order that the
judgment of the Court should be had upon it, and
the thing may be perfectly understood, and set to
rest ; and that the " go.bYe" should not be given
to the real ease by hooking in some John, itsstead
of William Thompson, unless be was coutrouled
by others whom be had no power to direct; the
case for the prosecution should be argued on its
genuine merits.
Lord Es.r.exaottoucti said, the case was im.
poriatit, and should be argued on the principle
stated by the Attorney-General. On which the
case was turned into a special verdict upon all the
facts, to be argued before the Court of King's
bench.

GOOD 11.1. .%YD ANOTHER V. CODE.
The -NTT° HNEY.G EN ERA I. said, that if he might
be allowed the use of a nietaphurical expression,
the Di I....admits were sick of a disorder to which,
under his Lordship's recommendation, there had
been applied a lenient remedy ; but it had not
produced the effect expected by it, and therefore
the parties were here again. This was an action
for a Naisance, of which the Plaintiffs bad to
complain. The Plaintiffs carried on business on
Garlick-hill, where they succeeded a tine of an-
ceetors su long, that they might almost be now
mode subject to the Statute of the 6th of Gco. I.
referr• d to in a former cause, fur having trans.
ferr:d shares from partnership to partnership, like
a corporation, for a century past; and they had
been 3 I wry, comfortable until the defendant had
erected a .Brewerse, by the working of which, he
sueietinies smoaked them out.... This cause had
been here before ; the Special Jury was nut fall ;
there was an understanding that the nuisance
would be abated ; therefore the cause was not
proceeded in ; since which the Defendant had
abated the nuisance... Why then was this cause
here ? Because the Defendant had brought it
here by proviso, and the Plaintiffs could not help
it ; all they wanted was security that the nuisance
should never again be repeated ; so much were
they actuated by a spirit of moderation, that they
would, even now, withdraw a juror, by which
each party should pay his own costs, upon a
proper security that the nuisance should not be
repeated ; but the Defendant would not be en.
titled to a verdict merely on account of their
having abated the nuisance ; for if it was a
flitisanee at the time of bringing the action, the
Plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict even
now, although it is abated.
One of the seven jurors who had been upon
a view of the premises, declared, that in his
(minion, and that of his brother-jurors, the
working of the Defendant's brewery would oc.
casionally annoy the Plaintiffs iu their dwelling
even now, unless some further alteration took
place.
U e which it was finally agreed
,to be referred
to M'r. Robiett, who shall say holi the Defend-
ant shall hereafter, from time to time, work h;s
brewery, so as net to annoy the Plaintiffs ie
their dwelling, and, his determination to be dual