The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-08-13

DEcoYs.-In a recent Leeds Mercury we
find report of decision OF an English
court in q case which will remind our read
ers of certain exposures here in railroad
management. We will hope that when our
courts baye to deal with such offenders the
rules OF common honesty will be as clearly
recognized and enforced:
Some four or five years ago, as may be 10
the recollection Of some OF our readers, a
Mr.. Lopebottom desired to induce the Grl-
tish public to form 4 company for the pur-
chase of some oil wells in Canada from Mr.
Prince. These wells were represented to be
of very great value; but the names OF Prlnce
and Louybottom not being known so widely
as 10 draw gold from the pockets of suspl-
cious and undesirable generation, Mr. Long.
bottom found it necessary to solicit some
"gentemen of position" to show their con.
tidence in the inexhauStible sources of wealth
possessed by Mr.. Princes wells by allowing
their names TO appear as directors OF
Il company formed to purchase the
property. 1t was not, Of course, to be
expected that those who thus forwarded the
phlanthropic aims of Messrs. Prince and
Longbottom should pay Tor shares, and ac-
cordingly it was agreed that Sir j. Hay, who
became director of the company, should re-
ceiye as his qualification for office forty shares
out of those which were to be given to Dir.
Prince in part payment of the purchase
money. The purchase was to be conditional
90 the favorable report OF deputation sent
out TO America, and the price hXed was f4SO,
OOO-viz., sE320,000 in fully paid-np shares
and GlG0, 900 in cash. Subsequently doubt,
of course merely legal, was raised us to
whether the vendors shares were proper
qualification for Sir }. Hay as director; and
that this scruple might be removed, Mr.. Long
bottom, on receiving one day as agent for lur.
Prince checks signed by the direc ors for EOS.
900 towards the purchase.money, endorsed
aud handed over 10 Sir u. Hay at the directors
meeting, which he attended as director,
check Tor E1 900. Sir J. Hay gave in this
check to his bankers, and on the following
day drew check on them for e1,0O0, which
he paid to the company for his forty shares.
Strange TO say, when, as unfortunately was
the case, the company had subsequently fall
ed, the question actually came up before Vice
Chancellor Malins whether this transaction
could stand, and be decided that it was
mere device, and left Sir j. Hay still liable
for e1 900 on bis own shares. And now the
lords JUSTICES have dismissed Sir j. Hays
appeal against this decision with COSTS.
In emphatic language Lord Justice james
says that by the cbeck given to Sir j. Hay
the money of the company was taken by one
of The directors, by the authority and with
the consent and knowledge OF bis cO-direc-
tors, out of the moneys Of the company, for
the purpose OF paying that which was q
bribe to him for having sold the company In
the transaction. The check never ceased
to be the property OF the company. Both
the lords Justices also point out that it is a
rule of their court that an agent (as was Sir
John Hay) could not be allowed to make any
proGt out of the matter OF his agency with
out the sanction or knowledge Of bis princi-
pal lin this ease the company beyond bis
proper remuneration to others. This case, 1t
may be hoped, will prove warning to many.