The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-10-08


Re THE UNDENIABLE SECURITY AND
UNLIMITED DISCOUNT BANKING
CORPORATION (LIMITED).
SIR beg to inform you an order
has this day been made by the regis
trar, calling upon you as eontrIbu-
tory in respect of your fifty (0U) shares
held In the above company (uow un-
der winding-up order), mum bered
respectively from 2,O34 to Z,Ooz IN
elusive. The amount of the call is
five pounds ten shillings (95 10s) per
share. making total of two hundred
and seventy-five pounds (9275); which
sum must be paid at my Office between
eleven and four on Thursday next,
the 18th inst. Signedl,
Official Assignee iR the Bankruptcy.
d fool! l began to vaguely see
now why the clerk told me [ might be
quite sure no one else would claim the
shares. They were not only of no
value, but their possession was subject
TO heavy liability And /, to be idiot
enough to 90 and claim them when
the company was actually bankrupt
and worsel
Night as it was, [ determined to go
at once aud see my wife's brother in
law, Mr.. Blode. He was a barrister
had been one for ten years-but
had never had brief.
20, | shouldn't take any notice of
that" he said, Il don't think they
can fix you with liability. I'll write
to the assignee and manage it for you.
Let me know if you hear any word of
it. You are an innocent; you didn't
buy the shares. but the iron safe. But
how on earth did they know you held
the certificates?
l told him | had given an authority
to have them registered in my name.
He drew In his breath, and pro-
duced a long whistle like a sigh.
Then you've Endorsed their possess
sion. You should have consulted
me. However, / wouldn't trouble
about it. Leave it to me.
1t would take too long to describe
the harrassing anxieties which each
week brought me, while my case as a
contributory was dragging along first
through one court and then another;
but the different lights which various
luminaries of the law shed on my un-
fortunate two guineas' worth deserve
to be particularized.
1t was agreed that, In buying the
safe, I could not have bought the con-
the safe was described in
the catalogue as a safe, and nothing
more, and that, consequently, as
had only bought a safe, whatever was
found In 1t was no more mine than any
other distinct article in the catalogue,
and | could not therefore be RESPONSE
BILE for liabilities attaching thereto.
1t was Tetorted by the opposing coun-
sci, that should his lordship acquiosce
in the view of the case propounded
certainly to his astonishment, by his
learned friend, and decide that the
certificates were not purchased by me,
and not therefore mine, he would
agree to verdict, and Immediately
indiot me for felony, for appropriating
the shares TO my own use, authorizing
their registration in my name.
He submitted that if | had bought
the shares, | was liable as a contribu-
tory; and if not, as a felon. The
learned judge said he could not enter
tain the issue of felony, as that was
question for a distinct tribunal, but
he was inclined to rule that | had
bought the shares. The conditions
of sale were sufficiently explicit TO
his mind Oh that point" the lots to
be cleared with all faults and errors
of description" Iudced, the very
term employed by auction custom APP
peared decisive The item in ques-
tiOn was described as Lot 217-an
iron safe" 1t was the =" lot" which
was put up to competition, and, to
use a common expression, Mr.. TTum-
way had bOught"the lot"-that was,
- all the lot" The question then
arose: Could l be held liable as
eontributory; when in fact, [ had
purchased the shares on the
very day OF the company's bank
ruptcy, and the registry in my name
was not completed until some weeks
later? In other words, that seeing
the company had contracted no La
bilities during the time | held the
shares (haying, in fact, ceased bust
ness). could l be made a contributory?
this it was urged that shares
past possibilities, and
that as Ishould have been entitled to
share in dividend on the past year
Chad one been declared) so it was just
that | should bear my proportion of
the burdens And again; it was
clear that somebody must be liable as
a eontributOry in respect Of these fifty
shares for twelve months prior
to the bankruptcy, and the burden
of proof as to the person so
liable, if not myself, must be sup
posed to rest with their present pos
SCISSOR. The judge thought not, as it
was not to be contended | could have
had either interest or liability in the
company before the date of the sale.
The case, however, was complicated
still further by the opposing counsel
bringing evidence as to the previous
owner of the iron safe, and endeavor.
ing to prove that his liability in re
spect of the shares actually terminal
ed twelve months previous to my
purchase, so as to fix me with re-
sponsibilliy for the interim. 1t ap-
peaTed that the sale and its contents
some eighteen months back, had be-
longed to a Mr.. Wendle, a shareholder
in the company that, In addition to the
certificates, it Lad contained his cash
box aud quantity of gold and notes,
and that the safe had been stolen from
his office, the notes and gold, and cash
box removed by the robbers, who
had obtained a wax impression of his
key, and the valueless safe containing
the shares, sold to an ironmonger,
who put it into the safe. This Mr..
Wendle had applied for duplicates of
the share certificates, which were re.
fused by the company until be could
prove the destruction of the old ones.
Unsuccessful in this, and distressing
the reckless business Of the " Unde-
niable and Unlimited" he at last an
piled to have the shares standing In
his name cancelled, a0htck had been