The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-07-27
BARON GRANT IN COURT.
MS brilliant SPEECH PRODUCES
AN OUTBURST OF APPLA USE.
The Lord Chief Justice Enters n Verdict
AGAINST Him-An Exoneration from Inten-
tional WropR-The Facts In the Case.


-
The Lord Chief Justice Enters n Verdict
AGAINST Him-An Exoneration from Inten-
tienai wrone-Thc Facts in the Case.
From ne London Times, July Il.
The trial in which Mr.. Grant was de-
PENDANT was brought against him and bis code.
PENDANTS on the ground that the plaintiff had
been induced to take shares In a company under
false impression, which they had occasioned
by the suppression OF certain documents they
were bound to make public. 1t was not denied
that The documents were Kept back II could
lated to produce false impression. The plain
tin swore that II was under this false I'm preston
that be sPpsd for and rsssSsd hs and
ment, so probable In Itself, should not be re-
ceived as absolutely true. Mr.. Grants defence
What he urged for himself was that the plainiih
took his chance as speculator among specua-
tors, and that he himself had done nothing
against the laws of the game. II documents
were withheld from the knowledge Of the sub
eves tb nTr the law showed tns% to be- WITH
held. 1t was all fair. or, at least, believed to be
fair. Mr.. Grant defended himself with great
acuteness, with great courage, and with great
cyDicism, and the consequence was that he sat
down amid an outburst of applause, which in
duced the judge to order the court to be imme-
di ltely cleared.
The point at issue in Twycross act. Grant, was
very simple, and the jury had little difiiculty in
answering the questions put to them, with the
result that the Lord Chief Justice entered a
verdict for the plaintiff. Mr.. Grant may. and
only did what he thought he might by law do
aud, as the jury found that this was the state
OF his belief, no may, perhaps, try to persuade
the Court In Banc that he Ia thereby exonerated
from damages; but, falling success In this en-
terprise, he and his co.defendants stand con-
demned to make good to the plaintiff the dam
ages he has suffered. In the spring Of 1871 the
Duke OF Saldanha came over here with conces-
sions for tramw iys about Lisbon In his pocket.
He found out Mr.. Grant, and Mr.. Grant brought
him To certain contractors named Clark and
Punchard, and the Duke, Mr.. Grant, and the
contractors SGT about forming company TO
work these tramway concessions. In july tho
| company was formed, with an imposing Board
Of Directors, and the public were invited to
subscribe for shares by n prospectus which
stated that Messrs. Clark and punchard had
| contracted to make sixty seven miles OF tramway
| for a sum OF R3Og.OuO. What was not revealed
was that these contractors bad rendered to
| the explain alton OF the fact That the company
| had agreed to pay them "a larger sum for loss
work. was that these contractors had arranged
| to hand back a great part Of the difference to
Mr.. Grant, to pay the Duke OF Ssldanha con-
| sideration for the concessions no bad bought,
to ind aualinc itions for the Directors. and to
| repay preliminary expenses, which comprised,
| among other things. singular distribution Of
| tons Of the city editors, Of several newspapers.
| Mr. Iwycross. the plaintiff Ia the case, Applied
for shares on the faith Of the prospectus, under
| the im preston that the stated sum OF R3O9,0O0
was the actual cost OF the lines to be IN AIDE, and
| when the real facts became known his ri1ht to
be recouped the loss he had In fact, suffered ac-
crued Ii Is extremely probable that he would
have been aoie to compel the defendants to
| trlnes Of liability for deceit recognized by the
| common law but an act passed In 1867 expressly
made the issue OF prospectus fraud upon
| persons taking shares II 1t did not reveal every
contract entered into by the company OF Its pro-
| moters previous to the issue OF the prospectus.
| As Mr.. Grant rested his whole defence on the
| ground that he believed the law did not require
| the contracts whish were withheld TO be stated,
| and as the Jury answered the question the judge
put them at his request by finding that he did
entertain this belief, he will probably contend
that a verdict must be entered In his favor. IL
| is not worth while to enter upon this conten-
ton, since the point Will be 50 soon settled. We
| may. indeed, express a hope that IL Will not be
| long before Mr. Grant and bis transactions will
cease to occupy 50 large "a portion Of the time Of
| the courts. II Ia necessary that tho CONNER
| ell lie Of London should be purged OF this
| morbid growth which has injured Its character
ereeabIe, and the sooner we are quit OF IL the
better II will be for the public taste and public
| honor.
A LETTER FROM THE BARON.
| From the London 7pss. July is.
To THE EDIroR OF THK TIxrs-Sr: While acknowl
| edging the complimentary terms In which you wer,
must take exception some OF the CRITICISMS and e
some Of the CONCLUSIONS q whi:h you have arrived!
state tie, hr sns Psrsap NH rely 10 for M
reciy assume. shall apply 10 nave the verdict entered
My defence based upon entirely legal ques
tlon am prepared 20 take my stand also upon CUES
before re- I'd cosid s "A' NV ""'' "-' ~
A, you correctly say. 4 the plaintiff has been do
persons with whom he may have contracted for de
proper remedy Under that section he is not enttie,
TO recover anything from me-
tms Of the eoart. That Ia. done 20 Ss. been IN
. 5ot @y control but W BE- en s1See
TO the plan I'm NY u1doup.sd gh, 20 AL
depteeste any further assu'on while The esse !, SUI
| LOMnARD LONDON, July IA