Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page

LEGAL INTELLIGENCE, t .I

News
Cite
Share

LEGAL INTELLIGENCE, t I ROLLS' COURT.—TUESDAY. I WINDING-CP ACT.—JAMES V. THE MONMOUTHSHtRH AND I GtAMORGAKSHIRE BA!<6.. In this ease the ptaintiff and Mr. Rankin, another share- holder in the scheme of this bank, petitioned the Court to interfere, under the provisions of the winding-up Act. The appiication upon the part of Mr. James. the plainUn, was funded upon amdavils that the plaintiff was proprietor of 213 ..hares, at JE20 eMh, that the company itself was a losing concern, which, theref're, came propetly within the jurisdiction of the Caurt and that the Court onght to in- terfere. and make its order for winding up the affairs of the company, and dissolving the bank partnership. It appeared that the company had made large advances for mining and other purposes to many subscribers and directors, which had been expended in some instances in profitless and ruinous specuhnions. One of these debtors of the bank owed a sum :C200,000 to the bank, on which no payment of interest had taken pbce since the year 1842. The winding up of the concern was, therefore, expedient to protect the shareholders from indennite UabUities and possible ruin. It was suggested that the requisite inquiry t« elucidate the necessity of the Cfurt's interference at once could be carried on by the judge of the County Court of Monmouth, with the teast expense and mnst expedition—a course which was authorised by a particular clause of the Winding-up Act. The directors of the bank resisted the application, alleging that the great body of the shareholders were anxious to avoid this extremity, and had taken prudent steps to raise such a s'un out of the assets of the bank an d the mortgages and securi'ies It possessed ts woutd meet aH its liabilities, and payoCthesedebf. Thebtnkhadatopped payment onthf 7th uf October !ast, of which notice was given tu ait :hc share'.otder!).convening the eharehotders, and 105 o'!t"' 280 shafehftderx attended a rneeling, wh't viiauitnously agreed to caU together, the creditors of the bank A corti- iiiittee cf the alia,pholders had b<*en their own interest )n re,,Iisine the as-tm, ind this tori)mit'pc a!()t"'r"prp-!pnt<'d 9t7 shares in the l'f.np-t:1Y, f'tfy drew a .in\,{ that i was hil{hly t,) proceed 'o 'H'<? 'he Ctin:<n b't:))<r');.t. as it,woulJ h.tve the t-tffet of o;,(.illn¡/I a alJwnt Ihp and other i).'f:<'<s)))tt)f'e'tt''ft.t"d.'t)<'fpf"r<thata[p.tson.ib!f Timf ullht to b.- g:' "o 'hf directlH8 aud the eotn'utHpf t" co!f;t the aMets and di%!Yibule the proceeds amongst the crp'iitors. wh'.ch, addfd to the prcp-'spd contributiuhs of the 8ha!ph()td<-r(.. K«utd tnore <'tfpctG!)Hy enable the directors to meet the liabilitie-i of the company than by bringing them into t!)is court under the provisiona of the Winding-up Act, which wou)d be high)y injurious to 'he.genera interests of the shareholders It .vas alao an important feature of this casf. 'ht* thp crcd!'ors '*<'rpa!! inclinpd t,, Üe director" u'J fl." ''IUHli", p "t' tu cu" el tiK- asatts to meet debt! pxceedmg JL400,600 The pemion was supported by Mr. Roundel! P-ttmer, Mr. Freelin!o(, and Mr. Roxburgh; the Solicitor General and :Ir. J,¡ flit'S were hearff for the company. The Master of the Roils, at the eoncltisbn of argument for the defendants, intimated that he would hear the repty on Wednesday morning. COURT OF CHAMCERY, LtKCOLU'S IKN, .Nov. 4. PRICJE T. BEUnISGTON.-J L'DO)IE:-iT. This Appeal from the late Vice-Chancellor Wigram was arsucd before his Lordship about a year ago. The Lord Ch.tnceH'r this morning gavt- judgment and s;t!d, that the object of the suit was to avoid a conveyance made in the year 1809 by WiHIam Price of an estate in Wales. 1'. appeared that the conveyance In question was made to a pfrsuuofthename Moggridge,at the sum of £2,001), and that a portion of the purchase money was applied at the time inctearingorf.t mortgage on the property of EGOO. The (.eation-s in the original bill to sustain the relief asked, were that Price, at the time of the alleged sale, was in a state of imbecility and incapable of managing his affairs, and that a fraud was practised upon him by Mogg-ridge-first, by fixing the consideration tlloney below the real valuè of tiie estate secondiy. byconcea)ing from Price the fact that the property contained some very vatuabte minernis thirdly, that the 1:2,000 was not, In fact, paid, except in fo far as Moggridge redeemed a mortgage for fSOO.; and, fourthly, that the deed had been obtained from Price by suppression, and coercion. No doulgt, if such chargps bad hecn made out, the ptaintiif would be entitted to the relief prayed by his bill but was such the fact ? The bill was hied in 1836 by William Price, the vendor, and his eldest son, Charles, and shortly afterwards a commission in lunacy was issued against William Pricf, and he wa<.t declared a lunatic, and to have been so since the year t79G. In July, l;); a s')pp!ptnenta) bill was Sited by Charles Price, who had hpen appointed the committee of his father, which prayed th:jt the conveyance of 1809 might b<* deetarfd null and void, by l'e<1.son of ltlnaey of Price, at the fittit- of ex- ceuthtg it, and in June, 184:, 'the Master of the Rollri directed a ) issue at law to try th-t question In January, t841, Wittiam Price dit'.), and, by an order of the Master of the Ko)ts,mad!'onahniofrcviv')rand supplement by Charles the isup ti-ied, and a verdict returned that Price not or "ollud milld the time that the of 1S09 was expt'uteJ. The case thf'n came bd"re Vice-Chan- c,.Ilor Wigram.who in May, 1819,'Ifc'ared the deed to be T nd on trf& ground that the Master or the RoHs, by sending tho question of William Price's sanity to be tried at law, had indicated his opinion to be that the deed could not s-tand in the event (which had happened) of a j:)ry declaring him to have been of onM'ntd mind at the time of spotting it. Fro'n !')is decision there 'vef twc ? s -one by the cf,mphil;ir¡jl of s(,ldin:: fife issup ''o aj,,i askit:g !t.'t [! bl!l mi:t bf di.i"iled ir.:t'l!Jllrh as t tf C:Iè lit fr;d -ttie.'ei bv it had fntirety f-titpd Mnf! the oÜIPr by rhe pfiintitf.4, «'<yin!? that the decree ,ii,i iif)t go far cnouzh. in not dinning their right' Tae !J,)h. cà"e Wa fh"rfllrC' re-npenfd. and hf (the Lord Chan- hid toc,,ii,iler wit it the ori(inal bill afkf'd. and (tpon it thp was tM ,.nntnrmitY"h "lIcr ptuof. Thf bill in the first instance asked si:t'pty thitt the deed might be avoided, on the ground (.f imbecility <tnd fraud, and did not charge that it was null and void through the insanity of the vendor, which a!)ega- tinn 'vn'< nttt'ojooed by way of s;!pp!<*mpnt. The Master of thf Ro)is came to the conctu''inn th;tt the chtrge of fraud Wit bell made nitt, and, if that wprp-i'stifi(>d hv the t"¡'!encí', Jw (the Lnrd rh:Jiq/¡, th.;t !l" Jlj. oll:!iit tohftve tx-vii-di;snii, serl, itnd that trl L-tedirpfteJ M.<s an i'mnatetiat one. It became, thert-fori-, inip.L)rtant to ana Iyze the allegationti of fraud, and ascertain whether they were supported by tiie etidence. The first charge was.that Mo.!gridgehad taken advantage of the imbceituyof Price, of "hich he was perfect)y well aware at the time, and had obtained a conveyance of the estate from him at a sum far bctow its real vaiue. After looking, 'Tfowever, 1!Pfully through the evidence, he was whoDy at a !oss to find any substantiation of these charges; for it did not even appear that Moggridge or Prothero, who acted M solicitor to both parties, had anv reason to auapect Price's injSrmityof mind, "r that the £:OO'J was not the real value of the estate at the time of sale. Next, with respect to the statement of the great vaiue of the minerals on the estate, the truth was that t;iey were of inconsiderable amount, and the' charge of coercion of Price, like all the other charges, was without proof. There was an allegation that Mrs. Price had been induced by Moggridge to coerce her husband in order to get him to sign the deed of conveyance; but the charge was un- supported by any evidence. All the charges, therefore, in the first bill tiled to set aside the purchase having faited, it became a grave question whether, after 27 years' peaceful possession under the deed, and family arrangements of great importance, this Court should now declare the sale in 1809 nu)t and void. Whether a conveyance by a lunatic without notice of his infirmity to the purchaser, and without fraud, was a& t/tt<M void in taw, was a point not necessary to be decided in the .present case, although the case of Neale v Hamley"(9 Ves.) seemed to hold that something more tl¡:¡n the mere fact of lunacy at the time of execution was required to invalidate a deed. The point upon which the present appeal must be decided was, that the case made out on theoriginaibillbeingaftogether unsupported by evidence, it wa.<i not competent for the plaintiff to make ott by supple- ment a new case for relief. This principle had been decided in the House of Lords in the case of "Gibson v. D'Este" and in other cases, and therefore, the charge of fraud upon which the first bil! depended having been negatived by the evidence, the bill must be dismiMed with coats. Appeal allowed. CRt¡,fINAL IMPORTATION.—QUEEN v. BURNES AND ANOTHER -DR. ACHILLI & DR. NEWMAN la the Queen's Bench on Tuesday. Sir Frederick The- siger said he was instructed to apply to the Court for a rule nisi, calling npon Messrs. Burnes and Lambert, the publishers, of Portman-street, to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against them as the pub lishers of a pamphlet renecting upon the character of Dr. A chilli, and emitted "The Fifth of a Series of Lectures on the present Pusidon of the Catholics in England, by John I-Ipnry Newman. D.D., Priest of the Congregation of Saint Philip Neri." The lecture bore a second title, namely. The Logical Inconaistfnciea of the Protestant View." and eontai"ed "fry severe rensctions upon the moral character of Dr. G'acinto AchiHi, wh" waa (ormefly a member of the HotM-m Cathofic Church. Dr. Ach!i stated in his amdavit that he had been resident in this country since March. 18.50, <Mtd f"lm the month of May, 13.50, down to the present time, he had been a minister and preacher of the Gospel a.t the t'aHaa Protestant Church near to Golden-square. He waa an Italian by birth, having been born at Titerbo, in &ne of the Roman states and he was educated in the RnmanCatho- t'c faith. At the age of 16 he entered as a noviciate in a Dominion convent, and after his years of noviciate he became a pro(t;'ued monk. In- the year 182.5 he received his Jtfieqt's nfdcra frùrtl Pope Leo XII. at the reque-t of the Duxe )' L"<c.<. an<< at, the age of thirty.tbrM he nbtajneJ thf ltoiiian dexree of Doctof of Dignity. From the year 1821, he twigan to entertain doubte Mto tome of the doc- trines of the Church of Rome, but he was rery unwilling to le¡¡"e that Church, though in his riews as a confessor and preacher he varied considerably from the doctrine* and practices of the Church. In the year 1S35, he was desiroua of leaving the city of Rome for another Italian state, and requested permission of the Pope to quit the 'monastic life, but he did not obtain the required pernMtatOO until 1839, vhen he quitted Rome for Capua. While at Capua hit preaching and confcsslona attracted coMidcrabte attention, and excited great displeasure amongst several members of the Church of Rome, but more particularly amongst the Btpnks of Capua, whose mode of life he disapproved of, and openly denounced. In the year 1841 his private affair* called him to Rome, where he waa taken up by order of the Inquisition, and confined in prison for three months. On his release from priaon, in September, 1841, he !eft Rome for Ancona, wtere he openly renounced the faith and prac- tices of the Church of Rome. The Doctor's atndarit then went on to direct attention to the pamphlet in question, and to set forth the particular passage which he complained of, and which occurred in page 197 of the lecture. The passage, after declaring that the Protestant wortd nocked to hear the confession of the Doctor, with the eagerness of devotees, proceeded to ask la he the Catholic and Inndet ? Is he the pronigate Father AchiHi who waa deprived of his faculty of lecturer for an offence which shall be namelets ? la he the Father ActuMi who years ago earned the rcputa. tion of being a scandalous man ? Who, in February, 1831, robbed of her honour a young woman aged eighteen, and who, in September, 1833, was found guilty of a second such crime, committed upon another young woman aged twenty-four ? Is he the Father Achilli who repeated the onence at Capua, upon another young woman, and at Naples, in 1840, upon an infant child, Meeting a sacristy as the place for committing the crime in one instance, and Good Friday at the day for perpetraUnt! the other ? Is he the man who made the wife of a tailor faithless to her husband, and afterwardf made the wife of a chorister his travelling companion. Is he the man who was dismissed from the Protestant College of Malta for a still worse offence ?" The lecturer (continued the Learned Counsel) answered these questions for himself ia the amrmative, and he need not trespass further upon their Lordahips' time in pointing out the foul character of thia particular publication. Lord Campbell remarked that it contained or imputed a species of immorality against the Doctor which entitled him to make this application; but could the publication be proved agaiaat the parties whose names had already been .mentioned ? .Sir F. Theaiger replied that the amdavits proved the pur- en-e of the pamphlet from them. True it bore the name of Dr. Xcwtuan liitn*elf, but application had been made to that -A- k- .thkr.hL* ad.ihAlhaJllÚ8b.t be made individually responsible for the language com- plained of, but he had declined to make any such admission, and Dr. Achitii had therefore no alternative but to Beck redress at the hands of the publishers. Lord Campbe!!—Doea the Doctor refute the imputations made against him ? Sir F. Thesiger said in every instance he denied the truth of the assertions in express terms, but it was right that he should mention to their Lordships that in reference to the imputation that the Doctor made a training companion of a chorister's wife, the Doctor explained in his amdavit that at one period of his life a chorister named Carlo Beui, ,nd his wife lived with him as his servants, but he denied most emphatically that he evef had improper intercourse with the woman, or ever made her his travelling companion. In refprence to the allegation about seducing the wife of a tailor, the Doctor said he believed it was true that an Italian tailor in one of the Roman courts refused to make his wife an almonry alluwance becase she had committeù with a certain AchiHI, but no s'ich charge was ever proved or ever could be as aain8t him. The Doctor also admitted that he retired from the college at Malta, but it was no cause of a disreputable nature, as was insinuated by the lectiirer, or tbat lie be uhamed or, and having made these admissi<ms the Doctor positively swore that there was no truth or foundation for the charges which the lecturer made against him. Lord Campbell—You may take a rule to show cause. Rute niai accordingly.

,-01 THE FRENCH MESSAGE.

i I. ! ... IAMERICA.

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

ICARMARTHENSHIRE.

CARMARTHEN MUNICIPAL ELECTION.…

CARMARTHENSHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS.

[No title]

THE CARMARTHENSHIRE HUNT BALL.…

I LLANELLY LOCAL BOARD OF…

PEMBROKESHIRE.

I PEMBROKE FARMERS CLUB.

[No title]

CARDIGANSHIRE.