(Prisoner-Aiding to escape - Allegations - Indictment before Trial of

Principal-Judgment upon good and bad Counts—Jury.)

Regina v. The Justices of Glamorganshire,

(Costs of Appeal-Rule of Sessions as to Allowance of 40s. -
of Appeal-Mandamus to Justices.)

-

357

Costs in Cases

Regina v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Lichfield,

(Mandamus-Compensation for loss of Office- Order of the Lords of the

Treasury Correction of Mistake.)

-

320

(Appeal from Order of Justices - Production of original Order Notice.)

(Certiorari - Costs —5 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 2 — Case reserving Points on both

Sides.)

-

Richards v. Lewis, .

400

(Deed-Voluntary Conveyance-27 Eliz. c. 4-Search-Declarations of

Contents-Fraud.)

Richardson v. The South-eastern Railway Company,

(Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 38, 68- Cost of

Inquiry to settle Compensation.)

Robins v. Hobbs,

86

(Stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 70, for facilitating Arrangements between Debtors and

Creditors Construction of the 8th Section.)

Salmon v. Cutts,

93

(Attorney and Client-Infant - Costs-Setting aside Sale-Specific Per-
formance.)

(Rating-Poor Rate - Adjournment of Vestry-Replevin.)

Scott v. Hastings & others,

(Substituted Service - Replication - Supplemental Bill-Defendant out of

the Jurisdiction.)

(Action on the Case - Master and Servant-Duty of Master-Injury to

Servant Declaration - Facts to raise Duty-Allegation of Duty imma-

terial - Arrest of Judgment.)

Sharp v. Eveleigh,

467

(Arbitration Certificate for Costs-13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 12, 13- -County
Courts Extension Act-Judge at Nisi Prius-Judge at Chambers.)

Solicitor Bill of Costs-Taxation - Judgment at Law-6 & 7 Vict.
c. 73.)

Simlah, The,.

41

558

(7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 16-Master's WagesSimpson's Trust Estate, in re, .

Settlement of Account current.)

344

Smith v. Hartley,

(Maintenance of insane Pauper-Seizure and Sale of his Goods and Chat-
tels-Deed of Lunatic.)

(Pleading-Award - Certainty- Authority - Request - Balance - Count
for Interest.)

(Composition Deed

Priority Release and Merger of Judgment Debt-Charge under 1 & 2
Vict. c. 110-Parties - Joinder of Co-plaintiffs.)

Staveley & another v. Alcock & others,.

(Landlord and Tenant-Distress for Rent-Lease by joint Tenants-
Severance of joint Tenancy after Rent due.)

(Executor indebted to Testator's Estate-Power to select particular Legacies
for Payment-Will- Republication.)

Stillwell v. Mellersh,

(Partnership-Hiring and Service-Specific Performance — Mandatory In-
junction-Affidavits.)

Stocks v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Halifax,

(Practice Short-hand Writer's Notes of Trial.)

Words spoken in Presence of third

Party- Express Malice.)

Thompson's Case,

(Contributory - Preliminary Expenses - Stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110.)

1

Thompson's Case, .

(Contributory - Winding-up Acts-Preliminary Expenses.)

Trye v. Trye,.

193

(Receiver- Sheriff-Fieri Facias― Rent - Action, Application to stay.)

(Trustee Act of 1850- Appointment of new Trustees - Vesting Order –
Additional Number of Trustees.)

(Solicitor - Bill of Costs-Taxation — Judgment at Law

6 & 7 Vict.

c. 73.)

(Insolvent-1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 76 and 78-Order - Habeas Corpus.)

217

(Husband and Wife-Joint Solicitor - Privilege.)

Webb v. The Direct London and Portsmouth Railway Company, 151 (Contract to take Lands - Railway Company-Specific Performance.)

Whicker v. Hume, .

52

(Domicil.)

White & another v. Mullett,

509

(Bankruptcy-Order and Disposition - True Owner-Intestacy - Ordi

nary-Jus tertii.)

(Ejectment-Irregular Judgment - Restoration of Possession - Writ of
Restitution.)

Williams v. The Chester and Holyhead Railway Company,

(Contracts with public Companies.)

Williams v. Williams,

(Will-Bequest - Precatory Words.)

Wilson v. Bennett,.

(Will-Power of Sale.)

Railway Company, .

Wilson v. The Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction

(Railway-Action for Calls-Allegation that Defendant is the Holder of
Shares.)

5214

(Distress Surplus Rent- Money had and received 2 Will. & M. Sess.
1, c. 5, s. 2.)

Yates v. Gardiner,

541

(Vendor and Purchaser-Condition precedent-Statute of Limitations
Account stated.)

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

HOUSE OF LORDS;

DURING THE YEAR 1851.

[Present: The LORD CHANCELLOR, LORD BROUGHAM, V. C., LORD CRANWORTH, and other LORDS.]

In re THE WINDING-UP ACTS, 1848 AND 1819, AND in re THE WOLVERHAMPTON, CHESTER, AND BIRKENHEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY; COOPER'S CASE.

In re THE DIRECT BIRMINGHAM, OXFORD, READING, AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY; THOMPSON'S CASE.1

July 8 and 9, 1851.

Contributory Preliminary Expenses

- Stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110.

In a case where shares have been applied for in a projected company, but no payment of the deposit made in accordance with the requisition for that purpose contained in the letter informing the applicant of the allotment of shares to him:

Held, that such applicant is not a contributory towards preliminary expenses.

So, in a case where the deposit has been paid by a party applying for shares, but no signature by the applicant to the subscribers' agreement or parliamentary contract:

Held, that such payment did not make the party a contributory; that this was the law prior to the stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, and the provisions of that statute have made no alteration in the law in those respects.

THE first of these cases was an appeal from an order of Vice Chancellor Lord Cranworth, dated the 24th of June, 1851, whereby he had ordered that the name of William Cooper, Jun., should be ex'punged from the list of contributories of the above company, and upon which list his name had been placed by Master Brougham.

The facts of the case were as follow: In the year 1845, a company was projected for making a railway communication between Birmingham and Birkenhead, and to effect that object it was proposed to raise a capital of 1,000,000l. by the creation of 50,000 shares of 201. each. The projected company was provisionally registered,

24

Cooper's Case.

pursuant to the terms of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, by the name and description of the Wolverhampton, Chester, and Birkenhead Junction Railway Company." Plans and sections, with books of reference, were prepared, and in conformity with the standing orders of Parliament, were deposited at the offices of the board of trade, and with the clerks of the peace of the several counties through which the said proposed railway was intended to pass. A parliamentary contract and subscribers' agreement were prepared and engrossed, but neither of them was executed by any party, and the same were afterwards cancelled, in order to obtain a return of the stamp duty. The expenses of obtaining the said plans, sections, and books of reference, together with the charges of the several agents and others employed upon the business of the company, amounted to a very large sum, exceeding the sum of 12,000l. Samuel Haines, of Edg baston, in the county of Warwick, gentleman, was called upon to pay, and paid upwards of 500l. towards the expenses of attempting to carry into effect the objects of the said company; Thomas Upfill, of Edgbaston aforesaid, gentleman, paid the same sum; Robert Wrightson, of Wymeswould, in the county of Leicester, gentleman, also paid 480l. towards the expenses; Thomas Harris, of Highfield House, Edgbaston aforesaid, gentleman, paid 480l. towards the expenses; and Edward Cooper, of Henley in Arden, in the county of Warwick, gentleman, likewise paid upwards of 4201. towards the same object. The said Samuel Haines, Thomas Upfill, Robert Wrightson, Thomas Harris, and Edward Cooper were also each respectively sued for debts due and owing on behalf of the company, and an action is yet pending against Edward Cooper, at the suit of William Stroughton Vardy, one of the solicitors of the company. The company ceased to carry on business on the 5th of January, 1846, and on the 26th of October, 1849, the said Samuel Haines, Thomas Upfill, Robert Wrightson, and Edward Cooper preferred their petition unto the lord chancellor, praying that the company might be absolutely dissolved and wound up under the provisions of the Jointstock Companies Winding-up Acts, 1848 and 1849, and that it might be referred to one of the masters of the court to wind up the affairs of the company under the said acts. The advertisements required. were duly inserted and published in the London Gazette, and in two London daily newspapers, and two local newspapers, according to the provisions in the acts, and the petition was duly served and supported by evidence according to the requisitions of the same acts. The petition was heard on the 3d day of November, 1849, before the vice chancellor of England, when it was ordered that the said com→ pany should be absolutely dissolved and wound up under the provisions of the Joint-stock Companies Winding-up Acts, 1848 and 1849, and that it should be referred to the master of the court to whom it was referred to wind up the Trent Valley, Chester, and Holyhead Continuation Railway Company, to wind up the affairs of this company. Mr. William Brougham was the master to whom the said matter was referred, and the appellant was appointed the official manager of the company under the provisions of the said acts. The