Page images

the sort. Mrs. Wiggins complained of young man's charge as a crime, and I will illness, and wished to see me in her cabin. venture to say that it will not be repeated, The captain did not say do not attend her, for he is going to join one of his Majesty's and be particular with reference to what regiments, where he will see and learne diet I ordered for her. I was desired not better. I think it would have been more to speak to Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. becoming in the captain to have remonWiggins, but I don't know if Mrs. Wig- strated with the plaintiff, and reserved the gins was included. I recollect Mrs. Wig- use of any harsh proceeding until milder gins saying she was ill, and that she must means had been tried; he ought to have see me in her cabin that night.

pointed out the impropriety of such conMr. Turton replied.

duct, and explained that the law put it in Mr. Justice Frunks.“ It appears to me his power to repress improper conduct on very material to remember, that the assault board the ship, by the confinement of the for which this action is brought, was com- offender. The first cause of the assault mitted on board a ship on which the plain- occurred on the 24th, when the defendant tiff was a passenger, and in the cuddy, was not present, but it is to be reasonably in the presence of the captain. I entirely inferred that the defendant must have agree with the observations made by the known of the inquiry which took place on learned counsel, that the defendant had no that day, and that it was the subject of legal righit to give in evidence anything in conversation, for there were nine persons justification which he does not plead, be- present, and a ship is not like a city, in cause the other party might be taken by which extraordinary circumstances may surprise, not having had notice of the mat- take place and be unknown to the greater ter of recrimination, as would have been, part of the inhabitants. On the 25th of had it been put on the record as a plea. October, it appears that the captain enIn this case there has been some departure tered the cuddy, and, without mentioning from the rale, and the transactions imme- any person by name, took a letter from his diately preceding the assault have been pocket and shewed it to two passengers, put in evidence for the purpose of expla- Mr. Pigou and Major Cubitt, at the same nation, and in mitigation of damages, time accusing some one of being a puiand thus far the plaintiff has been taken sance and creating an uproar. Such are by surprise; but, surely, if such evidence the means ile takes to keep order in his can be given in any case, it may be given vessel; there was nothing said by the in this, for the purpose of explanation, plaintiff or by Mr. Wiggins to occasion and when it is admitted by Mr. Advocate- any remark; the captain himself was the general that the circumstances are offered person who created the confusion. Major in mitigation, and not as a bar to the Cubitt swears that the captain accused some plaintiff's right of action. In the present one of being a nuisance, and this is cor. case, the assault has been proved, and no roborated by Mr. Wiggins, who, by the legal justification has been given. No manner of giving his evidence, appears to man has a right to take the law in his own be a gentlemanly man, and of whom I hands and to strike one of his Majesty's cannot but speak respectfully. suhjects ; therefore it is necessary that the purser was at one end of the table, damages should be given, and the only and on something offensive being said, question is, whether they ought to be mi. which in fact was suggested by the captain tigated. A material consideration in this himself, he came round and dared to lift case is, as I have before stated, that the his hand against a passenger. In my assault was committed on board a ship of humble opinion, it would be impossible to which the defendant was an officer and the pass over such an act, and the captain, plaintiff a passenger. I make the obser- who, if he bad any feeling or any mind, vation for this reason: the law. has given must have known that he occasioned the large powers to captains of ships-powers disturbance, affects to say-I say affects which are necessary for commanding subu to say, for I believe him not that he did ordination. It seems to me to be reason. not see the offence committed,--when he, able to suppose that every subordinate too, had been the cause of all the irritation officer is aware of the powers which the which led to the striking of a passenger law has given to the captain, and it ought who was under his protection. This is no to be the understood duty of every officer ordinary case, and such conduct ought to to take such means as may be conducive be severely visited. I have already said, to keep order in the ship, by complaining that the plaintiff's conduct was indiscreet, to the captain if any improper conduct and I believe him not to be likely to do should be exhibited by. any passenger, and the same thing again; but it was the capnot to dare to lift bis hands against him. tain's business to preserve order, to insti. In this case there may have been some in- tute a proper inquiry, and not to encoudiscretion, in the plaintiff attempting to rage whispering cabals amongst the officers. look into the officer's cabin; but be that as I think the observation of Mr. Turton is may,

he is young, and that which was well founded, that' it would have been be. but indiscretion, is not to be laid to the coming of the captain to have questioned

It appears the passengers on the 24th of October, The Commissioner did not see any reaand to have brought them forward as wit, son why the court should take upon itsele nesses in this case. A captain of a ship is, to name a day: he would leave this to the and ought to be, entrusted with necessary discretion of the assignees. If any crepowers to keep order; he ought to super- ditor objected to the date, he might petiintend, not merely the manners of his pas- tion the court. sengers, but the conduct of his officers- The order nisi was therefore discharged, has Capt. Eyles done so in the case before with an understanding that the assignees the court? In my opinion, there was an should fix some day for the peremptory acquiescence on the part of the captain sale of the various factories of the house, in this outrage and breach of the peace. Mr. Turton then applied for power to I think in this case the plaintiff is entitled the assignees to effect compromises, foundto damages; he is going to his regiment ing his application on the consent of a untouched by any thing on his character, majority of creditors in number, and he is going among gentlemen as a gen. amount - as appeared by the following tleman, and he will not leave this court statement : without some recompense for the injury

Summary. he has received."


Debts due by Alexander and Co. to Mr. Justice Grant fully concurred with

persons resident in the British terriMr. Justice Franks; and, in commenting torics in India...

1,72,01,670 on the evidence which had been offered Due to creditors who have by them

selves or their attornies, signed as to plaintiff looking through the vene

the Schedule A.

1,30,22,200 tians, observed, that it was not entirely free Due to creditors who have by themfrom suspicion, for no two persons had

selves or their attornies, signed

Schedule A., and are resident in the seen him doing so at the same time, and that British territories in India

3,18,200 the evidence of Mr. Wiggins went to con

Due to persons who have themselves,

and not by their attornies, signed tradict that given by one of the witnesses

Schedule A.

1,27,681 for the defence. He also observed that Due to persons who have by their at. the court had admitted the offensive ex.

tornies signed Schedule A. 1,28,98,518 pression to go in mitigation, otherwise The Court referred the statement to the the damages would have been very diffe- examiner, to report upon its accuracy. rent.

Mr. Turton moved for the continuation Verdict for plaintiff. Damages, Rs. of the allowance of Rs. 800 a-month, for 300.

another year, to Mr. Alexander, the only R. D. Chamberlain v. James Eyles.-In partner at present employed in the estate. this action, which was by the same plain. Order granted. tiff against the captain of the Malcolm for breach of contract, in excluding the

February 22d. plaintiff from the cuddy-table, a verdict

In the matter of Cruttenden and Co. by consent was entered for the plaintiff. Mr. Clarke presented a petition from Mr. Damages Rs. 300, with costs.

Blunt, Mr. Hodges, and Mr. Dickens, with reference to the matter of Messrs.

Cullen and Browne, praying that the insol. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Feb. 1st. vents might attend the court to be exaIn the matter of Alexander and Co.- mined. The petition set forth that, by an Sir John Grant 'sat to-day to dispose of an order of the Master of the Rolls, in the order obtained by Mr. Prinsep, on behalf matter of Sir Alexander Seton, it was orof the Bank of Bengal, requiring the as- dered that Sir Charles Blunt should give signees of Alexander and Co, to shew such deed as might be necessary to bis cause why the whole of the factories mort. agent in India, to receive the proceeds of gaged to the bank should not be sold the five per cent. loan belonging to the forthwith.

estate, when it should become payable, Mr. Turton appeared to shew cause on and that it should be invested in such real behalf of the assignees. An immediate securities in India, as the constituted atsale, he said, must be prejudicial to all tornies of Sir C. Blunt and Lady Seton the parties, as the competition would be might deem advisable. Sir C. Blunt, in limited to Calcutta buyers. The assignees August 1832, sent out a power of attorwould not object to having a day fixed for ney to Cruttenden, Mackillop and Co. to an absolute sale of all the factories, and it receive the proceeds, when payable, and should be clearly understood by the public, to deal with them in conformity with the that those who desired to buy must do it instructions of the Master of the Rolls. then; but the date should be such as In December 1832, Cruttenden and Co. would allow time for every body to come received Rs. 19,000, and in June follow. forward and bid, people in the Mofussil ing a further sum of Rs. 37,000, under and in England as well as in Calcutta. the power of attorney. Mr. Blunt, the He said something also about the inexpe. constituted attorney of Lady Seton, was diency of effecting sales in the middle of absent at the Cape when these amounts the indigo season,

were received, but, on his return to Cal. cutta, having reason to believe such by virtue of the same power of attorney. amounts had been paid, though he had I don't recollect applying in the previous not been so advised by Cruttenden and month to have it paid in advance. I don't Co., he wrote a letter, in conjunction with remember Mr. Biown having made any Mr. Dickens, the attorney by substitution, such application ; there was a treasury arand Mr. Hodges, the attorney for Lady rangement to accommodate the public by Seton, to that firin, desiring them, if any, making payments in advance, and our part of the sum of Rs, 56,000 had been house did make applications of that nature; received and remained uninvested, to pay but I cannot recollect whether we applied the amount over to Cockerell and Co., for that particular sum. I don't know who would give the firm a legal discharge that the treasury refused to pay a sum in: for the same. On the 10th of January, advance in June 1839, on accountof trust the day on which Cruttenden and Co. property. In June 1833, we were not in failed, Mr. Blunt wrote to that firm, stating the habit of refusing payment of all dethat he had an offer of a mortgage, in mands made upon us. We had not then which it would be desirable to invest the (June 1833) refused to permit our credifunds received by them, and desiring them tors to withdraw their balances not posito pay over the amount received to Cock. tively refused; but we had entered into erell and Co. without delay. The negociations with several parties who were amount, however, was not paid; and, desirous of withdrawing their funds. We after the failure was known, Messrs. Col. had not in June 1833, or previously, relier and Bird addressed a letter to Messrs. fused to make payınents;-I can't charge Cullen and Brown, under instructions my memory with any positive refusal of from Mr. Blunt, desiring to have some demands against us. We had a system of information as to what had been done fixed balances. The deposits were placed with the money received by them from the for a fixed period, generally a year, with a treasury, under instructions. from Sir C. stipulation for a previous notice, generally Blunt. To this letter no answer had been of three months, previous to withdrawing returned, and the parties, being anxious them; three months before the end of to obtain the required information, applied the commercial year, that is, the 30th of to the court, under the first section of the April. If notice was not given, they were Act, for an order that the insolvents might not payable on the 30th of April. There be examined.

were many cases in which we received now The order was granted for the 8th of tice to pay on the 30th of April, and in March).

which payments were not made, as they

were not insisted on, other arrangements In the matter of Alexander and Co.A notice was given by the assignees of having been made in the interim. I am Alexander and Co., of an application for

not aware that there were any cases in leave to redeem that portion of the assets

which payment was insisted on and we did of the estate mortgaged to the bank of

not pay; I mean where the parties were

not satisfied, either by partial payments, or Bengal, and to rescind part of the order relating thereto, issued on the 1st of Fe

other arrangements. In June 1833, I

was satisfied that, but for the forbearance bruary

of my creditors, I could not avoid going March 8.

into the Insolvent Court. When I re. In the matter of Crutlenden and Co. ceived the Rs. 37,000 in June 1833, it The partners appeared in court to undergo was certainly entered in the books of the an examination touching the appropriation house as usual with such transactions. I of the funds received by them belonging don't recollect having given directions for to the estate of the late Sir Alexander its entry in any particular manner. The Seton. The following depositions were entries will appear in the books, which are given.

in the possession of the assignees. We James Cullen. - I received a letter, kept a cash-book distinct from our regular dated 2d August 1832, from Sir Charles journal. It is impossible for me to say Blunt, enclosing a power of attorney re- when it was posted in the ledger,-perhaps lative to the estate of Sir A. Seton, The two or three months afterwards : - the létter also enclosed an extract from a de- ledger is, of necessity, considerably in ar. cretal order of the Master of the Rolls, I

rear of the current business of the day. I received that letter on the 21st of Decem

am not aware of any entries being made ber 1832." In virtue of that power of at- of these sums subsequent to our insol. torney, we received, about that time, a sum vency. We did write to Sir C. Blunt sub. of Rs. 19,000 from the treasury, which had sequent to June 1833. We wrote to him been long overdue. The power of attor- in January last. I can produce a copy of ney was directed to the house. We wrote that letter. That was subsequent to our to Sir C. Blunt in January 1833, acknow- insolvency.

I think that was the only ledging the letter. We also wrote in May letter we addressed to Sir C. Blunt after 1832. In June 1833, we received a fur: June 1833. I did not know that Mr; ther sum of Rs. 37,000 from the treasury, William Blunt was the attorney of Sir C.

Blunt previous to his application to us last order as applicable to that sum. We January; I mean prior to the letter of the considered the order to apply to any 2d of January from Mr. Blunt and Mr. sums that might become due subsequent Hodges. We had had frequent commu. to the receipt of the instructions. We nications with Mr. Blunt some time ago considered the Rs. 37,000 as coming on the subject of these accounts, but I al- within the limits of the instructions; and ways understood him to act as the friend that we were prohibited from investing of the parties, and not as attorney. I be- that sum in any but real securities, or in lieve he is the brother of Sir C. Blunt; any way different from the instructions. but I did not know whether he was the bro. The entering it as a cash balance was acther of Lady Seton : I did not know that cording to the ordinary course of business Lady Seton had agents in Calcutta, till the when money was received by the house. end of last December. I never made any I cannot remember in what name the two endeavour to find out who her agents were ; first sums were invested. Our assignee is -in fact I had not seen Mr. W. Blunt for prepared to deliver the Company's papers twelve months : he was absent at the Cape for the two first sums up to the agents of of Good Hope ; I don't know when Mr. Sir C. Blant and Lady Seton, on proper Blunt returned froin the Cape. The first authority. We have regularly rendered communication I had from him, after his accounts.current to Sir C. Blunt. We return, was, I think, a letter we received sent the last in January last, subsequent from him on the 1st of January or 31st of to our insolvency. December last, through Messrs. Cockerell Robert Browne.--I have heard all the and Co. We had never received any no. questions put to Mr. Cullen, as well as his tice previous to that (January 1834), either answers to them, As far as my know: from Sir C. Blunt or Lady Seton, who ledge extends, those answers are correct. were their agents. Except the letter from I received the Rs, 19,000, as a member of Sir C. Blunt of the 2d August 1832, we

the house. The Rs. 19,000 was invested received no communication from any one immediately after its receipt, as soon as in England desiring us to communicate Company's paper could be procured; I with any persons in India. I considered cannot speak to dates. that, on the part of Sir C. Blunt, I was authorized to exercise niy judgment as to The Englishman states :-" We underthe investment of the funds of the estate stand that a letter has been received by of Sir A. Seton, in conjunction with the Sir John Franks from the Governor-geagents of Lady Seton. I did not conceive neral, dated Madras, the 17th February, it necessary that I should receive any far- intimating the continued indisposition of ther power from Sir C. Blunt, to enable the Chief Justice, and the probability of me to invest the funds in real securities, his being obliged to proceed immediately We placed the Rs. 37,000 to the credit of to the Cape for the benefit of his health." the estate account of Sir A. Seton, as a cash-balance. There was no specific ap

LAUDABLE SOCIETIES. plication of the money-it was received, and used for the business of the house,

The meeting of shareholders, referred like other cash receipts. We cannot dis

to. p. 166, called, on requisition, by the

Directors, to consider of the adoption of tinguish it now from the other accounts of the house. When we placed this money

some temporary arrangement, satisfactory in our house, I was aware that our credit

to all parties, to provide against the diffi

culties in which shareholders were placed was impaired, like that of every other establishment in Calcutta ; but I did not

regarding the payment of their subscrip

tions due, before the 1st proximo, took consider our business as precarious. We could certainly have placed that money

place on the 18th February ; Mr. Reid in

the chair. apart without mixing up with the funds of the house. I could have placed it either

Mr. Dickens, after a few preliminary re in the Bank of Bengal or the Union marks, proposed the following resolution : Bank; but it would have borne no inte

“ That, during the current month, the share

holders of the 7th and 13th Laudable Societies be rest. I might have invested' it in Com

perinitted to pay in the amount of premiums due pany's paper. The Rs. 19,000, which we from them to the Union Bank, and that the bank received previously, we invested in Comi

be requested to open an account with the Lau

dable Societies, for the purpose of receiving such pany's paper.

We also received, pre- premiums. That, during the month of March, viously to that, a sum of Rs. 7,000,

the shareholders be permitted to pay, in like man

ner, premiums into the Union Bank, except that which we also placed in Company's paper. the penalty of 2 per cent. ordinarily levied in fee, When the first investment of Rs. 7,000 be required in addition thereto." was made we had no instructions ; --it Mr. Clarke opposed the resolution, on was prior to the receipt of this letter. the ground that the Union Bank had al. When the Rs. 19,000 was received, we ready, upwards of twelve months ago, had these instructions, but it was due prior been appointed the treasurers, remarking to the date of the order of the Master of that, in the event of its being carried, the Rolls, and we did not consider that they would be just where they were, and


would have assembled to no purpose. He scribers; but at none of those meetings proposed the following amendment:- had it ever been said that the directors had

not the power of appointing? What was “ That, under the circumstances in which the societies are placed, all subscribers and sharehol- said was, that there did not appear to be ders be called on to pay their subscriptions into any grounds for the removal of their then the Union Bank, upon the receipt of Mr. Cullen

secretaries; but the meeting did not apas secretary to the societies, and that no other pay. ments be recognized until after the 15th of April point, nor did any one appoint but the

directors. With reference to the recent Mr. Dickens opposed this amendment appointment of a secretary by the direcat very great length, and with much tors, he admitted thật the necessity of its energy. He was not one of those who confirmation or not by the shareholders would atiend any meeting, no matter how was a inatter for discussion; but that the convened, for he knew that the constitu- original appointment rested with the directions of the societies were fixed in law, tors, would not admit of any doubt. The and that its articles could not be contro. directors had regularly assembled in the verted by meetings irregularly convened. usual manner, and two candidates only No one could be more anxious than him- appeared for the appointment-Mr. Cul. self to promote the interests of the socie- len and Mr. Wright. He would not for ties, nor could any one be more fearless the sake of argument dispute the eligibi. or zealous in his determination to fulfillity of either party, but still the directors his duty towards them. Not being the bad the right of choice, and they accordcreature of any party, no majority should ingly appointed Mr. Wright.

In reply coerce him to act against what he consi- to the assertion that he had attacked Mr. dered the conscientious discharge of his Cullen, he said that, in reply to the adengagements, for no majority could re- vertisement, he had not attacked him, but lieve him from his responsibilities. If given his reasons for not appointing bim. they attempted to coerce him, he defied The directors had been assailed on account them. They might expel him, but if they of their resistance to the requisition of did, he would take the judgment of the 13th January : but they were borne out in law on their right to do so. He then re. it by two of the rules of the societies, verted to the origin of the discussions. which had never yet been abrogated. He The house of Cruttenden and Co. failed ridiculed the idea of the attempt at conci. on the 11th of January, and on the pre- liation displayed in the several advertisevious years Messrs. Alexander and Co., ments, which had, in fact, been so many the then secretaries, had failed. In con- attacks on the characters of the directors; sequence of the perilous situation to which and he maintained that all the hostile prothe societies had then been reduced by a ceedings evidently proceeded from a setsystem of accommodation, it was thought tled purpose to elect Mr. Cullen to the advisable, in their then state, to call a secretaryship at all hazards. The respon. meeting of shareholders to remove the sibility rested with the directors, and le secretaries that had been appointed; but would consequently maintain their right the meeting entertained a different opinion. to choose their own officers. In that case, the state to which the socie. Mr. Turton, in the full belief that the ties had been reduced called for extraor- last two meetings represented the great dinary measures. He denied that any of majority of the shareholders, supported the late meetings were competent to ap

the amendment, for the persons present at point Mr. Cullen, and he would next pro- those meetings were unanimously in faceed to look a little into that gentleman's your of Mr. Cullen's appointment. He pretensions. He (Mr. Cullen) had been stated broadly that he had impugned the a director at a time when six or seven lakhs, conduct of the directors, and he had done belonging to the societies, were in jeo- it on these grounds-namely, the manner pardy; but these funds were not so much in which they had appointed their secrethe funds of the societies as of the direc- tary, and a denial of any right in them to tors, for the responsibility rested with appoint permanently. Mr. Dickens disthem. Now it was advanced, as a mèrit puted their right to meet when and where on the part of Mr. Cullen, that he had they pleased, but if they were co-partners, been instrumental in getting these funds it was the first time he had ever heard that secured; but he could not see much merit it was necessary for a partner to obtain the in securing funds, for the loss of which he permission of the working partners to meet would have been personally responsible. to discuss their own affairs. He would However, even this was not done till the next endeavour to find out whether Mr. month of September, by which time the Dickens had had the power a year ago of house of Alexander and Co. was well appointing a secretary. The second artiknown to have been in imminent peril. cle of the regulation said, “ the party Messrs. Cruttenden and Co. had been ap- subscribing shall be considered a member pointed secretaries by the Directors in of the society, and have a voice in the ma1832, and that appointment had been ap- nagement of its concerns;" but how was proved of at a subsequent meeting of suba this rule observed when it was attempted

« PreviousContinue »