11th January 1892
Reference Numbert18920111-215
VerdictSpecial Verdict > unknown

Related Material

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Navigation< Previous text (trial account) | Next text (trial account) >

215. CHARLES WILBRAHAM PERRYMAN was indicted for maliciously and unlawfully writing and publishing a scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel of and concerning Anthony Pulbrook. To this a justification was pleaded.

MESSRS. GRAIN and ARTHUR GILL Prosecuted; MR. COCK, Q. C., with MR. MALONY, Defended.

Before plea, MR. COCK applied to quash the indictment on the ground that it woe bad, at the word "falsely"woe omitted, for which omission there was no precedent. In support of this he referred to several authorities, among others to Archbold, p. 973, Styles' Reports, p. 663; Craft v. Bryett, Saunders' Reports, p. 310, and Crown Circuit Companion, p. 293.

MR. GRAIN contended that these old authorities were superseded, that the "falsely"was mere surplusage, and woe implied in the word "maliciously,"but if the Court thought fit, it could amend the indictment by inserting the word. MR. GILL referred to 14 & 15 Vic. c. 100, Sec. 26, which stated that no indictment could be insufficient for want of the averment of any matter that was unnecessary to prove. MR. COCK, in reply, contended that this indictment was not framed upon the Statute, but on the Common Law; and although it was not necessary on the part of the prosecution to prove "falsity,"it was necessary to allege it in the indictment. The COMMON SERJEANT doubted the power of the Court to amend, but as the question of truth or falsehood was here raised by the plea of justification, there was a distinct issue before the Jury, lie did not think it absolutely necessary that "falsely"should appear in the indictment, and therefore was not bound to quash it.

MR. GILL put in an order of a Judge in Chambers authorising the prosecution, also an extract from the Register of Newspaper Proprietors, describing the defendant as the proprietor of the "Financial Observer and Mining Herald. "

EDWARD SUMNER ROBERTS . I am a commercial clerk—I got these two papers (produced) at the office where they are published, 96, Queen Street, Cheapside, on 11th September, 1891; they are dated August 22nd and September 11th—I read certain passages in those papers—at page 427 in the paper published on 22nd August there is an allusion to "The attorney, Anthony Pulbrook," and lower down there is a Terse referring to "an attorney named Pulbrook"—reading that, I say it refers to Mr. Pulbrook as a solicitor.

Cross-examined. I am a commercial clerk—I would rather not say in whoso employment; I object to do so—I have come here this morning on the express understanding that I am not to produce their names; not to say anything that does no? refer to this case—my present employers do not wish their names made a subject of ribaldry—I will not tell you their name—I was in the employment of Mr. Pulbrook from about May, 1891, to something like the end of September—I gave evidence before the Alderman—I was with Mr. Pulbrook as his book-keeper, shorthand correspondent, and clerk; also secretary of one of his Companies, the North Mexican Milling and Mining Company—if he conducts his business economically it proves that he is an honest man, and not like your client—it was a Company which he financed—I think he financed very considerably; he is here—I was in Court during the time he gave evidence before the Magistrate—I heard it. (Upon the witness being asked t» state what he heard the prosecutor say before the Magistrate, MR. GRAIN objected, as the best evidence would be that of the deposition, but on MR. COOK pressing the point, as to credit, the COMMON SERJEANT would not exclude it. A number of questions founded upon the depositions were put to the witness seriatim,

to most of which he replied that he had no recollection, that he did not hear, and that a good deal was in the form of observations by counsel.)—I have no idea whether Mr. Pulbrook had anything to do with the Meat Consumers' Company; I never heard of it before—I believe I have heard something of the Provident Supply, but I am not sure—I believe he was a promoter of the United Service Stores, a very successful thing, I believe—I never heard that it was wound up—I never heard of the Anglo-French Provision Company or the Investment Registration Stock Exchange—I know the North Mexican Milling and Mining Company; I am not sure about the North Mexican Silver Mining Company: I think these two Companies were developed—Mr. Pulbrook was a director; he put the principal amount of money into it—I can't say whether any of the Companies ever paid a dividend—I know nothing about other Companies except the one I was concerned with as secretary; the directors of that Company were Lord Teynham, Mr. Tallack, an East India merchant of Great St. Helens, and Mr. Phillips—that Company is still going on and is likely to do so—I never looked at the agreement under which the Company was constituted; I suppose it is at the office—I think I have heard of the Mont de Piété of England—I never heard of it in connection with Mr. Pulbrook—I think I have heard of the North Mexican Foundry—I can't say whether that was one of Mr. Pulbrook's Companies—I don't know whether he is a director of the New Munro Gold Mines—I have not heard of the British Columbia Trust and Agency; I never was in the office of that Company—I know the Honduras Gold Company—I don't know whether that was one of Mr. Pulbrook's Companies—I have heard the Cotton Powder Company mentioned in the office, that was not one of his Companies that I know of—there was an Omnibus Company; I was in the office when that was registered; I don't know much about it—very likely Mr. Pulbrook was concerned in bringing out that Company, but that was before I was in the office.

HENRY SMITH . I am summoning officer at the Mansion House—I was present when the summons in the name of Perryman was called—that is Mr. Pulbrook.

The following Witnesses were called for the Defence.

CHARLES PHILLIPS . I am a clerk of the Incorporated Law Society—I produce a letter from Mr. Perryman of September 21st, 1891, the first letter—that was placed before the Council, and as the prosecution was then pending against Perryman at the instance of Mr. Pulbrook, it was decided to let the consideration of the matter stand over till that prosecution was disposed of—subsequently, on 31st December, a letter was received signed,

C. W. PERRYMAN; I have not that letter—the letters are formal, and relate to a complaint lodged under the Solicitors' Act, 1888—one point the Law Society took was that the complaint was not in proper form not being verified by affidavit—I produce a copy of the affidavit; used on the application before the Court; the original is filed in Court—it is made by Watson Smith and John Worsley Forbes—that matter was disposed of by the Court on 9th June-that has nothing to do with this matter—I can prove the writing of the letter,.

DAVID HILBERT . I am one of the firm of Odell and Co., sheriff's officers, of 36, Coleman Street—a fi, fa. in the action of the Big Golden Quarry Mining and Water Power Company, Limited, against Perryman,

was lodged with us on 6th August, 1891—I have the warrant—it is a direction to levy execution for £73 6s. 2d., and £1 1s. 8d. costs—the date of the judgment is 8th August, 1888—the verbal instructions from Mr. Pulbrook were not to execute the warrant, as he was getting some further information—the warrant was only required for 96, Queen Street, on that day—on Friday, 7th, the warrant was to be held over till 10.30 a.m.—my partner, Mr. Odell, was not in town on Thursday, but on Friday, in consequence of a conversation with him, I wrote to Mr. Pulbrook. (This was to the effect that Mr. Pulbrook, not having kept the appointment, between half-past ten and eleven, if he did not wish the warrant executed he must send in due course)—we received an answer from Mr. Pulbrook countermanding the warrant the same day—on Saturday, 8th August, Mr. Pulbrook called about twelve o'clock—we then received orders to wait till he came a second time, when he would accompany me to the defendant's office—he said he wished another warrant to be issued for the printing-office at 12, St. Thomas-the-Apostle; that was the office of the Financial Observer and Mining Herald—I had that warrant—the judgment is of the same date—I received the usual fee of half-a crown on it—he said he did not want it executed till a quarter past two at 96, Queen Street, as Mr. Perryman was expected to go out of town by two o'clock—he gave no instructions as to the time the warrant was to be executed at the printing-office, simply stating that he wished the paper stopped, if possible, because, if I remember, he said it contained a libel he did not want to appear—soon afterwards Mr. Joy came—Mr. Pulbrook wanted him to be my man in possession at 96, Queen Street—about two p.m. Mr. Pulbrook came to the office and said he was ready, and wished Joy to come with us—I told him I would not adopt Joy as my man in possession; I preferred to have my own man there—he said he would indemnify me—I said I should not take that, I should put my own man there—he said there were certain papers he wanted to find, and that Joy knew where they were, as Joy had received some information from a clerk of Mr. Perryman—my instructions were to seize the papers in the safe—I told Pulbrook I had only power to seize bonds or money, or securities for money, and only those goods that we could soil—he said he wanted two transfers—I told him he had no power to seize them—he said I was to do anything to get at the contents of the safe—I have given no proof of my evidence for Perryman—I went to Perryman's office—I saw a clerk of Mr. Perryman, who informed me Mr. Perryman had gone out, but would be back in about five minutes—I reached the office about 2.20—Pulbrook and Joy accompanied me—I told Joy I could give him no direction under my warrant, that if he came he came at his own risk—Perryman came in and spoke to me—Pulbrook was not present—I then went to 12, St. Thomas-the-Apostle, to execute the"second warrant—I found the premises closed—I had left a man in at Queen Street—I reached the printing-office about three o'clock—I went back to my office—I found this pencil note from Mr. Pulbrook (read) "Perryman: The things wanted are two transfers of the Caledonian Deferred Converted Stock to Owen, and an indiarubber stamp 'Certificate lodged for the Caledonian Railway Securities. '(Signed) A. Pulbrook. "And at the bottom: "For the Caledonian Railway Secretary"—on the Monday Mr. Pulbrook called at my office; he saw Mr. Odell—I heard Mr. Odell tell Mr. Pulbrook that was not the proper course to

secure the documents; the object of a fi. fa. or execution was to recover the debt; the proper way was to lodge an information at the Mansion House, and obtain a search warrant—names wore mentioned; Mr. Austin was mentioned—he was not a party to the fi. fa. or judgment—he had nothing to do with the Big Golden Quarry action—a second name was mentioned—one name was a witness, or had something to do with criminal proceedings against Ferryman—some correspondence passed between our firm and Ferryman—on 10th August we received this letter from Mr. Ferryman. (Acknowledging letter of 8th, and enclosing copy of letter from Mr. Ferryman, and urging the witnesses firm to proceed with the fi. fa. Another letter read, 15th August, Pulbrook to Odell and Co., complaining that the debt had not been received; no man was in possession, and that Odells would be held liable for any loss—we had withdrawn from possession on an understanding from Messrs. Vernon and Son, which satisfied us. (Read, letter 17th August, Odell and Co. to Pulbrooh, stating arrangements were made whereby the plaintiff company would not be prejudiced, and that there was no ground of complaint. Also, reply of same day, stating that jndgment against Perry man teas still in full force, and there was no ground for withdrawing. Also, 19th August, Odell and Co. to Pulbrooh, in reply to letter of 17th, stating they were satisfied with the undertaking, and declining to search for a paper they had no power to seize).

Cross-examined by MR. GBAIN. Our duty when in possession would be to prevent anyone taking away a security; but private books or papers we have no power to seize—if a safe was condemned we should take it away, provided we could not get the key—it would be legal then to force it open, and our duty to see what was in it—if we had gone in for £50, and found £100 in bank-notes, we should be paid of!, with our fees—we did seize the safe—the debtor would not have any right to take anything away without the consent of the man in possession; but the man cannot be in more than one room at a time—if, as in this case, we are satisfied with the guarantee, the man in possession goes out—then the debtor could take what he pleased—we should seize a cheque made payable to and endorsed by the debtor; or if not endorsed, I might add, with a good signature—I would not seize a transfer; it has no value—probably should take it, or a certificate for what it was worth—I should leave a stamp or manifold writer—they would be condemned—I should ask the debtor to open a safe, or a drawer that was locked, or any receptacle that might contain property that ought to be condemned and seized—Mr. Odell took the guarantee of Vernon and Sons—I have never been in possession where no one was there to represent the debtor—I take it the debtor's solicitor would look after the premises being secured.

Re-examined. A transfer of North-Western stock to Brown I should seize, subject to the claim of Mr. Brown—I should seize a third person's property—if in a bank I did not find sufficient money I should seize the securities belonging to other people, subject to their claim.

EDGAR THOMAS ODELL . I am a member of the firm of Odell and Co., Sheriffs Officers of the City of London—I have given no proof; I have been subpœnaed by the defendant—on 0th August a writ of fieri facias was lodged in the suit of the Big Golden Quarry Mining and Water Power Company against Perryman—I knew where Perryman carried on business as a newspaper proprietor—I had known him for some time—in ordinary course we should execute the writ the same day, or perhaps the

same hour—it was delivered to me during business hours on the 6th—I found it on 7th August, and the instructions, which seemed odd—I wrote a memorandum to Mr. Pulbrook, as he did not come at 10.30 on 7th, and kept the appointment mentioned in the instructions, and a countermand was endorsed—I went out of town again at 6.56 p.m.—on Monday, 10th, Mr. Pulbrook came to see me—I had had my ordinary letter on Sunday morning, telling me what had occurred—these instructions are rather unusual; our duty is to break open anything to find any cash or securities, or anything of value that we can seize; that is, after a reasonable time—in thirty-seven years I have only had to break open an iron safe once—that was not on the Saturday afternoon, when the gentleman had left—the date of the judgment struck me as peculiar, and) then the instructions, coupled with the fact that the warrant emanated from Mr. Pulbrook, put me on my guard, and the Company being the plaintiffs Company in liquidation—Pulbrook said the object was not to got the money; he did not care anything about that—I asked him. what be wanted—he said he wanted an India rubber stamp, which, as a fact, we considered as valueless, and a transfer of Caledonian stock, which he alleged had been taken away and produced at the Mansion House, and which was the reason the Alderman dismissed the summons against Perryman—I daresay Pulbrook was with me twenty minutes—he said, 11 Will you open the safe?"—I told him "No"—Mr. Perryman would not give us the key—there was a summons to set aside the judgment—I said, "It occurs to me this is not the proper process for you to get possession of the information you require; you ought to swear an information, and five Mr. Perryman into custody, and let the detective search the office"—he said, "I have told them so"—I said, "You mean down. the street?"—I was then in Coleman Street, in my office; he said, "Yes," and a name was mentioned—other persons were interested in attacking Perryman; they had no connection with this Company—one of them had already attempted to attack Perryman—I took an undertaking to pay me debts and costs, with which I was perfectly satisfied—a correspondence followed.

Croat-examined. I did not see Perryman, I was not on the premises; my partner was—I did not see Perryman till long after—I never asked anyone to open the safe—I differ a little from what my partner said in his evidence; if I had levied that execution, and had found the safe open, I should have looked for money, bills, and bonds and securities for money; if I had seen a transfer I should have taken no notice of that; I do not want inter pleaders—I told Pulbrook Perryman had refused to open the safe, from information I had first from the letter from my partner—the interview with Pulbrook on the Monday made me anxious to take the undertaking and get out of it.

Re-examined. The refusal to open the safe was on the Saturday—I believe on the Saturday, when Ferryman returned from lunch, he was asked whether he would open the safe, and refused—I had also been told of it—Joy was running in and out of the office the whole day; we wore never free from him bringing messages.

SAMUEL HAYMAN . I am from the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies—I produce the file of the following Companies: The London Meat Consumers Company, Limited, registered by Mr. Pulbrook, of 31, Threadneedle Street. 16th December, 1865, dissolved in 1888—a list of

directors is optional, unless there are shares—annual returns are not necessary when the Company is without share capital—there is no list of shareholders; the Provident Supply, filed 17th November, 1874, name changed to Regent United Service Stores, Limited, wound-up 18th January, 1878; the Anglo-French Co-operative Stores, 21st May, 1878, dissolved 5th November, 1886, and an Order to wind-up 15th October, 1879; 24th, the Investment Registry Company, 24th January, 1880; the Vendors' Limited, 15th April, 1883; the Isle of Wight Sanatorium Limited, 16th January, 1884; Mont de Piété of England, 114, Victoria Street; North Mexican Foundry, 8th April, 1886; the New Munro Gold Mines, 7th May, 1887; the Mont de Piété of London and Great Britain, 6th June, 1887; the British Columbia Mortgage and Trust Company, 27th April, 1888; the Mexican Mortgage Trust and Agency, 7th May, 1888; the Mexican Mines Development Company, 9th August, 1888; the North Mexican Milling and Mining Company, 1889; the Mexican Mines Development Company, 11th September, 1888; the Honduras Gold Placers Mining Company, 5th September, 1888; the Cotton Powder Company, 4th November, 1888; the Omnibus Proprietors Company, 2nd June, 1891; the Honduras Gold Placers Company, 5th October, 1889; the North Mexican Silver Mines Company, 1884; the Big Golden Quarry, &c, Company, 11th May, 1887, wound up on 6th March, 1889. (These documents, filed on the dates referred to, were described to consist of prospectuses and memoranda of association of the various Companies, whose registered offices were at 20, Great St. Helens, 28, Great St. Helens, and 31, Threadneedle Street, "in England,"&c.; also agreements with directors, vendors and others, for the payment of large sums for land, services, &c, the share capital of these Companies ranging from £50,000 to one million; also some returns to the Board of Trade, the signatures to the memoranda of association being Mr. Pulbrook, his clerks, Mr. Cox head, a joiner, and others in humble life, which Companies, after shares had been subscribed for by the public, had ceased to exist.)

Cross-examined. I have not examined all these files that I have produced, it not being part of my duty, which was simply to produce the papers—I have had experience of these articles of association for twenty-five years—I have heard a great many portions of them read by Mr. Cock to-day, and I have previously heard portions of similar things read in other prosecutions—I have known of clauses being inserted in the articles of association providing for the voidance of office when a director becomes a lunatic or bankrupt—it is a usual clause—it is the common form to insert the words "United Kingdom"in the Memorandum of Association, and the part of the United Kingdom in which the office of the Company is proposed to be situated—it determines the office at which the Company should be registered—there is nothing unusual about that—it is necessary for a Company which has been registered under a name, and wishes to change that name, that the new name should be registered, and the consent of the Board of Trade obtained—as regards the file of proceedings produced, where there has been a change of name that was with the sanction of the Board of Trade; it could not be done without—there is nothing unusual in that—beyond the papers which appear upon the respective files, I know nothing about the matter—I merely produce them—with regard to the United New Gold Mining Company (document produced), that was registered by Messrs. Abrahams,

Sons & Co., of 8, Old Jewry, a very large firm of solicitors, and very well known—I have not looked at the documents, and know nothing about the present position of the company—there are a great number of shareholders there (looking at the document)—I do not see any mention of Mr. Pulbrook there.

Re-examined. I never, in my experience of twenty-five years, heard such a list of Companies, either in quality or quantity, connected with one man—I have known, of course, of firms of solicitors who have registered large numbers of Companies—Companies' solicitors—we should decline to register if the clause containing the part of England where the office was to be was not in the Memorandum—the Company might change its name by special resolution, and whatever the object was of that change of name, if it was communicated to the Registrar with the proper certificate of the Board of Trade which is obtained by the Company, it is registered as a matter of course.

In reply MR. GRAIN called

ANTHONY PULBROOK . I am a solicitor, carrying on practice at 20, St. Helen's Place, in the City, and am the prosecutor in this case—I was consulted last year by a person of the name of Owen, and the result of his consulting me was that certain proceedings were taken against the defendant, Mr. Perryman—prior to those proceedings I had never seen my name mentioned in the Financial Observer, either alone or in conjunction with any other person frequently named in that paper—the proceedings taken against Mr. Perryman came to an end in his favour, on either the 28th or 29th of April—in those proceedings I was acting as the solicitor to the complaining party, Mr. Owen—although so acting, I was called as a witness for the complainant, and cross-examined—about a week or a fortnight after the proceedings terminated I saw my name in the Financial Observer—I saw an issue of the paper of 22nd August, which is part of the alleged libel—I read the portion in the article headed "Bellaires"of 5th November—between the end of the proceedings at the Mansion House and the issue of the paper of 22nd August I had never spoken to the defendant—I had seen him the day or the second day after the proceedings, and spoke to him in reference to what had taken place before the Lord Mayor—I told him I had called for the transfer, which he represented before the Lord Mayor would be handed over to my client, Mr. Owen, and I traduced to him the authority from Mr. Owen to receive the same—he said it was at his solicitor's, and appointed the next day to deliver it over; and I attended the appointment, which was at Mr. Perryman's office, but he was not in attendance to keep his promise, nor anybody representing him—the transfer that he had promised to hand over was a transfer of £500 converted Caledonian Consolidated Stock into the name of Mr. Owen, who had been my client in those proceedings, and complainant—I have never seen the defendant upon that subject since, but I communicated with him—these are the documents (produced) that he promised to hand over—up to the present moment I have never received those documents which he promised to hand over—these are the documents alluded to in the conversations and correspondence between myself and Messrs. Odell at a later date—I was admitted a solicitor thirty years ago, and commenced at once upon my admission to practise on my own account—I had offices originally in Clifford's Inn, and after that I

moved to Newton Abbot for a short time, and then came to the City again, and have been continuously in practice, taking out my certificate year by year—I first became professionally connected as a solicitor with Companies when I removed from Newton Abbot to the City the second time, which was about 1862, I think—I then acquired some business for a limited Company—it was about 1877 or 1878 that I first assisted in the promotion of any Company irrespective of being the solicitor—up to that time I had never had any connection with the promotion or subsequent carrying on of any Company other than acting as their legal adviser and solicitor—between 1862 and 1863 I had invested moneys in Companies, particularly mining Companies, and at that time I was a very large loser—the result was that I got into considerable pecuniary difficulties—I have heard extracts from the documents contained in this file (produced) read—with reference to the London Meat Consumers Company, no complaint has ever been made to me personally by any shareholder or subscriber, or anybody, in respect to it—no legal proceedings of any kind of an adverse character have been taken against me or any persons who were at any time directors of the Company—I was not a promoter of the Company, which was as long ago as 1865—I had nothing whatever to do with it beyond being solicitor, and preparing those documents—I did not get my bill of costs—I had to pay £29 15s. in stamps, and I got £30—as to the Provident Supply Association, I simply acted as joint solicitor, and prepared and registered the documents, and I invested money in the snares of the Company—there was another solicitor jointly with me—I took about 25 shares in it and paid for them—there was a very large number of shareholders in the Company, of all classes of persons—the name of the Company was changed to The Regent United Service Stores—they have premises in Regent Street—they are not in the same building as the Junior Army and Navy Stores—I had nothing to do with the Company under the changed name, beyond being its solicitor, and I think the other solicitor did most of the work, as I had to go abroad—on the change of name the directors had acquired the business of another Company, the Public Supply Association, and they took over the liabilities with that—I had nothing whatever to do with that—the Regent United Service Stores was wound up—my costs were taxed by law at £300 odd, and all I was able to recover was £127—I assisted and advised in the promotion of the Anglo-French Co-operative Society; I lost £800 by that—I was a shareholder and a debenture holder in that Company; I paid the full value for the debentures—I invested about £800 in that Company, but how much of that was secured on the debentures and how much purely lent I cannot say—I got a small dividend, but a considerable portion of what I paid was lost—the Investment Registry and Stock Exchange Company was registered on the 24th January, 1880, and has been in existence from that time to the present day—it has been paying a large dividend for years—Messrs. Freshfield acted as solicitors for the Company; Mr. Tyrrel Lewis, solicitor to the Army and Navy Stores, now acts—I originated the idea of the Company, and found the preliminary money for advertising, printing, &c.; I have seen the printed balance-sheets and accounts, and am still a shareholder—for the last three years I have received a dividend of 12 per cent., 13 per cent., and 13 l-3rd per cent.; the shares were divided into preference and ordinary—I am both a preference and ordinary shareholder;

the dividend before alluded to was on the preference—I have received dividends of about 8s. upon 10s. shares upon the ordinary for years—I have received in dividends in one year 10s. on every share in respect of which I paid 10s.—as regards the Vendors' (Limited), no capital has been subscribed; it was never put out to the public to induce them to subscribe at any time; I have never had any complaint as to that from any person—the objects of the Company—appear upon the memorandum of association—I was instrumental in promoting the Isle of Wight Sanatorium—Mr. Ramskill, of Union Court, Old Broad Street, was the solicitor of the Company he is a relative of Dr. Jabez Spence Ramskill—a number of persons were communicated with, and joined with me in the promotion—this (produced) is one of the prospectuses of the Company—there were directors in the Company, and the Company commenced operations—about that time I had occasion to leave England to go to Mexico in reference to the Mexican mines—I was absent several months—when I returned I looked into the affairs of the Company, and one director was removed and another one appointed in his place—I was interested in the Company in the form of snares—notwithstanding the removal of the director, the Company could not be revived, and it ended in litigation, which came before the late Vice-Chancellor Bacon—it was a longish inquiry before the Examiner, and then it went upon the deposition before the Vice-Chancellor—I was in Court and heard the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor—I subsequently read his judgment in the Times newspaper, and I am prepared to show it if necessary—I never made any money out of the Isle of Wight Sanatorium—I was not a director of the Mont de Piété of England, and had no connection with that other than as solicitor—a great number of persons were communicated with at the time the Company started with reference to its objects—this document (produced) is an intended prospectus, I suppose—I have seen it—it was handed to me by the projector, Mr. Lewis Morden—it satisfied me that the Company was bona fide, and I consented to act as solicitor and register the Company—I am paid nothing with reference to that beyond my professional charges—with reference to the New Munro Gold Mining Company I was simply instructed, as solicitor, to prepare articles of association and contracts, for a fee of fifty guineas—that was all I had to do with it from beginning to end—the Mont de Piété of London and Great Britain was only registered to prevent another Company having the same name as the original Mont de Piété; nothing was ever done—I had nothing whatever to do with it beyond acting as solicitor—with regard to the British Columbia and Mortgage Agency, it has never gone beyond registration; no prospectus has been issued, and no application at all has been made to the public to subscribe; and it follows no money has been subscribed—that is the whole record of that Company—I registered it, and that was all I had to do with it—I have never been paid for it—with regard to the Al Biscuits Company, I had nothing to do with that beyond preparing articles of association, carrying out the purchase of the works, and preparing deeds in relation thereto—their manager, or managing director, was late manager of Messrs Peek, Frean and Co.—that Company is still a going Company and at work—the works are at Battersea—I do not know whether it is paying a dividend—I am not a shareholder in it—I registered the

Mexican Mortgage Trust Agency; but beyond that I had nothing to do with it—I received my instructions from Colonel McMurdock, who was the promoter of that—I registered the Honduras Gold Placers Mining Company; beyond that, I had nothing to do with the Company—with regard to the Cotton Powder Company, I only acted as. solicitor in that—their office is in Queen Victoria Street, and their works are at Faversham and Mailing, in Kent—cotton-powder is a very well-known explosive—the works are still going on and paying dividends—they have been working from the day of its formation to the present time—with reference to the North Mexican Silver Mining Company, I went out to Mexico just after the Isle of "Wight Sanatorium had started—I went for the purpose of inspecting certain mines which had been brought to my knowledge—I landed at New York, and travelled thence to the various mining centres in the States, and thence to Mexico, acquiring general information in order to apply it to the particular location that wanted to inspect—I engaged mining engineers at San Francisco—I arrived at Popocatapetl—I had with me Ottoker Hoffman, an expert; he was well known in the States—I inspected the mines with him—I was about a fortnight at the mines, and then returned to England—the engineer would not give his report without making certain experiments at San Francisco—when in England I communicated with several persons with reference to the Company—some report then arrived from Mr. Hoffman; that would be after he made his inspection—I have those reports—the Company had been registered previously—previously to the arrival of the reports we had applied to the public, but the money was not to be spent until after the written reports came—when they came the money was raised by way of debenture, the prospectus being issued to the public in respect of those debentures—this (produced) is one of the prospectuses then issued; I read it carefully—Mr. Hanbury Tracy, Mr. F. W. Lowther, of the Carlton Club, and Mr. Palmer were trustees—Mr. Palmer subsequently became a director as well—he is a member of the firm of Palmer and Co., hide merchants, Bermondsey; he is still alive—I invested a few hundred pounds in the Company—I am still possessed of shares in the successor of this Company, practically in this one-his is wound up now, and shares are exchanged for shares in the other—I transmitted between £70,000 and £100,000 to Mexico for the purposes of working—the Company was practically re-constructed—that is a going Company now—I have photographs of the underground workings—I went there before we commenced operations, and again three or four years afterwards—between the first and the second time the machinery was sent in and the men got to work; and ore was being raised, and the mill was being erected—I went down a third time about a year and a half ago—between all those dates remittances of money had been made for erecting the shafts and raising the ore—when I was there a year and half ago they were at work—these photographs (produced) were taken at the mine, some by me and some in my presence at my first, second, and third visit—this is No. 2, which I took on my second visit; they are of different portions of the mine; and this is an enlarged photograph of the ore works; it does not show any particle of the internal working of the mine—this one is the mill; I took that on my second visit—this (another) represents the internal works two or three months ago, since I was there—I can say that they are true as I saw them a year and a

half ago, with some slight additions since—the mine was working at a good profit last year—the Company receive weekly reports from the different departments, all signed by the manager, which I have here—the North Mexican Milling and Mining Company are working the mine—the North Mexican Silver Mining Company have also worked it—the change of name was made legally—the two Companies' names both refer to the same territory, that which is represented by the photographs—I hold 10,000 £1 shares in the present Company; I have put £1,250 in within the last fifteen months—that was when the alteration took place in reference to the half-crown that was to be paid—I held the shares in the North Mexican Silver Mining Company; the name was altered; there was a reconstruction of the company, and it became the North Mexican Milling and Mining Company; every share to be taken as 17s. 6d. paid up, and 2s. 6d. to be paid in cash; and I took these and paid the half crown amounting to £1,250—on 28th and 29th April, 1891, Ferryman's proceedings came to an end—I was acting as solicitor to the complaining party, Owen—I was a witness for him—I saw Perryman between 29th April and 22nd August: namely, the second or third day after the result of the proceedings at the Mansion House—I said to him, "I have called for the transfer,"which he had represented to the Lord Mayor would be handed over—he said it was at his solicitors, and would be handed over—I attended the appointment at his office; he was not there—I have communicated with him since, but have never received the transfer which he promised—I had offices originally at Newton Abbot, and since then in the City—about 1862 I became connected with companies, and I acquired some business as solicitor for limited companies—about 1877 and 1878 I first took part in the promotion of a company—I had before then invested moneys in companies; mostly mining companies—I was a large loser—I had acted as legal adviser to companies before 1877—I got into considerable pecuniary difficulties—there was an action of the Big Gold Quarry v. Perryman on 23rd January, 1888—a writ was issued against Perryman—application was made for leave to issue substituted service; no appearance was entered, and on 8th August, 1888, I signed judgment—I did nothing until 6th August, 1891, for reasons which I am prepared to give—in substance I accept what Odell and other witnesses have stated—on 29th April I made an appointment to see Perryman next day, and he promised then to hand over one of the documents mentioned—this is the document to which I refer in my correspondence with Mr. Odell, the sheriff's officer—before I put in force the judgment which had been obtained on behalf of my clients, I had communicated with the company—I had before that received special instructions from the liquidator to the company—on 6th August, 1891,1 communicated with the sheriff—I don't know if I communicated with the liquidator after that date, but I communicated with the gentleman the liquidator referred to, and who was chairman of the company, that is working the company now; he would be the representative of the plaintiffs in the action—I communicated with him within a day or so of the 6th August; he lives close by me—after that he knew what was going on—at that time, in my legal capacity, I was acting as representative of the plaintiffs in the action—I was Mr. Owen's legal representative in the Mansion House proceedings; he is here to-day; I am still acting on his behalf.

Cross-examined. I gave evidence before Alderman Knight on 26th

November, last year; it was read over to and signed by me—you asked me if I bad been concerned in the formation of very few Companies, not twenty, and I said yes—the expression concerned I took to mean had I promoted twenty; I never dreamt you referred to Companies where I had acted as solicitor—I have been a good deal experienced in Company matters—I understand wrecker to mean a man who, without due cause, destroys a company; who for his own purposes presents a winding-up petition, or appears on proceedings for his own interests, and not in the Company's interests—I do not recollect that I have been so described by Vice-Chancellor Malins or by the Court of Appeal—I believe Vice-Chancellor Malins did say so in re The Regent United Service Stores. (MR. COCK read part of the judgment in this case, as reported in the Law Reports, Chancery Division, 8 vol.) I forget if I appealed; it is fourteen or fifteen years ago, in 1878—the appeal was dismissed, and I was personally ordered to pay the costs, on the ground that I had not proved my technical authority—there were dissensions in the board. (MR. COCK read part of Lord Justice Baggallay's judgment in the case.)—I believe I have paid the costs; I have no doubt about it—I advised the promoters of the London Meat Consumers, the Provident Supply, the Regent United Stores, and the Anglo-French Co-operative Stores Companies—my business had paid remarkably well—on July 25th, 1879, an execution for £203 was put in against me at the suit of Mary Kemp, and there was a return of nulla bona—on May 13th, 1878, an execution was put in at the suit of Hooper and Batty, and there was a return of nulla bona—on August 9, 1878, there was an execution against me for £31 Os. 9d. at the suit of Water low, return, nulla bona—in November, 1878, an execution for £30 11s., at the suit of Warburg, was put in against me, return, nulla bona—other executions were issued against me on November 1st, 1879, at the suit of Pearce and Company, for £169 10s. lid., nulla bona; on 2nd September, 1880, at the suit of Sawnay, for £26 16s. 8d., nulla bona; on 3rd September, 1880, £114, at the suit of Fox and Bousfield, nulla bona; June 27th, 1882, £43 13s. 4d. at the suit of Brook, nulla bona—on October 11th, 1881,1 was committed at the suit of Hunt, for £105, and taken to Holloway—on April 15,1882, I was committed to Holloway—after four more committals it did not become desirable for me to find a company in which my name need not appeal?—on 15th April, 1883, I promoted the Vendors, Limited, of which I was managing director; I was the sole director—the sole capital consisted of the guarantee of the signatories to the articles of association, of £1 each—I have only been at Holloway once, I cannot tell how many times I have been committed there—the signatories to the articles of association of the Vendors, Limited, were the only persons who had any part in it; they were Aspland, my clerk, myself; Ellwood, a clerk to the Ladies' Dress Association, never one of my companies; he was in my employment; Osborne (I forget who he was)—the company came to nothing; it did no business; the company was kept alive, so that it could be started at any moment—we never incurred any debts—Short lands, in the Isle of Wight, was simply in trust to the company—it was not a bogus company; it was started for this reason: in 1885 I had written a work and suggested the best mode of limited liability was a company limited by guarantee, best for creditors and anybody—I cannot say who Osborne was—George William Tulloch was a clerk in the Ladies' Dress Association; he was

described as an accountant because he was one; the Vendors, Limited, was not started till 1883, and the Ladies' Dress Association was registered in 1877—John Williams, described as a warehouseman, was a clerk in the Ladies' Dress Association—in forming a company you have to get seven people to subscribe the memorandum, and you get anybody, because proper people won't sign because their names are exhibited in the newspapers—A. S. Ough was a clerk somewhere—he is described as an accountant—there were no directors beside myself—we became trustees for other people—the Vendors, Limited, were trustees rather than myself, because as a solicitor I did not wish my name to be continually appearing—the public were not asked to. believe anything about the Vendors, Limited—I was the company, I objected to be trustee—Mr. Bellairs has been my client for some time—he is a stockbroker—I don't know that he is a promoter—I know his paper, the Weekly Bulletin—I read, "The Eminent on Reconstruction"; I suppose Bellairs wrote that. (MR. COCK read the paragraph)—I was solicitor to the Nizam's Concession Gold Mining Company—Bellairs does not mention my name, I think; I have no doubt who P—1—b—k means; he ridicules me more than anything; he wrote some very funny tales about me—the names you have given were the only members of the Vendors Company. (MR. COCK read a notice to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, dated 20th March, 1884, to the effect that the number of member of the Vendors, Limited, had increased from 20 to 100)—that was merely done to enable the company to obtain members—there never were twenty members of that company—until I gave that notice I could not accept a member—£4,000,000 has never been obtained nor asked for; the nominal capital of companies I have registered would no doubt amount to that—other companies that you have not mentioned, besides the Ladies' Dress Association and the Investment Registry and Stock Exchange, hare paid dividend beyond a year—the Cotton Powder Company has paid dividend, but it was only started a year ago; it was a reconstruction of a company that has paid for years—I believe the Mont de Piété has paid dividends; I don't know if it has done so from money obtained in the business; they have raised their capital by debentures—nearly all the companies were simply registered, and no business was done—I have no books of the Vendors, Limited, here; I don't know if there are any—I am sole manager—there are no books, because it has done no business; it is in operation—I want 100 more members—my connection with the Investment Registry ceased, except as a shareholder, within two or three months after it was started—I obtained the subscriptions of capital for it—I found the capital with which to advertise, half of it out of my own. money—that was formed on 24th January, 1880—very possibly I had had an execution for £169 against me on November 1st, 1879, and there was a return of nulla bona—I paid my debts—I did not get one penny out of the formation of that Investment Registry; I took my 200 founder's shares, and paid for them; they were £1 each, reduced to 10s.—the money I paid for them was used in the advertisement—I will tell you where I got the money from: I put a client into the Wheal Phoenix Mine, and he bought those shares at £7; and when he got all his money back I was to have half a share in his interest in the company; he received £21 a year dividend, and I had my half share; then tin fell in price, because of the discovery of Tasmanian tin, and

profits ceased, and I had to pay calls; tin rose in value, the mine improved, and in 1879 I was enabled to sell my share for £1,000, and out of that I found the money—I did not introduce Fitzgerald; I met him in the street; he was starving, and he asked me to do anything for him, and I employed him to send out the envelopes with prospectuses—my connection with the Investment Registry did not cease just after its formation, but my work ceased when I had done my work—the manager and secretary recommended by me were appointed—the business was to prepare and keep a register of securities not dealt with on the Stock Exchange, and find buyers and sellers for them, and to establish a "Westend Stock Exchange; it was not a bucket-shop, which is a place where a stranger can go and put down £10 and open £1,000 worth of stock; that cannot be done at the West-end Stock Exchange; they only buy and sell stock on the Stock Exchange; they work through members of the Stock Exchange—I promoted the Ladies' Dress Association. (MR. GRAIN submitted that the Ladies' Dress Association, not being included in the plea of justification, could not be cross-examined to, but that only those companies specifically named in the plea could be gone into. MR. COCK having replied, the COMMON SERJEANT consulted MR. JUSTICE CAVE, and ruled that MR. COCK could cross-examine as to companies other than those named in the plea of justification, as it went to the witness's credit, but that the witness's answers must be taken, and evidence could not be called to contradict him.)—I received £3,000, not for promotion, and founder's shares—I was not appointed manager, nor director—I was a director subsequently; Mr. Lake was secretary—a meeting was not called by order of the board on 25th October, 1883, to consider my conduct—I cannot recollect the date when when Mr. Lake issued a circular to the shareholders of the Ladies' Dress Association. (MR. COCK read a circular expressing a hope that proxies would not be entrusted to Mr. Pulbrook, and stating that certain allegations made against him had not been refuted; that the directors had investigated charges against him, and had come to the conclusion that he (Pulbrook) had grossly abused his position; that he had drawn money from the Secretary on I O Us and cheques)—I have never seen or heard of such a circular before I heard of it in court—I ceased to be a director about six months after that, because I refused to attend the meetings—fresh directors were appointed, and I refused to sit with them—in July of the previous year the company had not gone on to my satisfaction—I was the means of calling a meeting of shareholders, and obtained a very large majority to remove the directors—we passed first a resolution expressive of want of confidence in the board; a poll was taken, and there were proxies representing two to one against the directors—I then passed a resolution requesting the directors to resign; they refused to do so—I told them at the general meeting, "Now, I will pass a resolution removing you. You know perfectly well that that resolution requires a three-fourths majority, and I have only two to one; but it will go forth to the world that you, as directors, are sitting on the board and that the shareholders have passed a resolution of want of confidence in you"—then they resigned—I and Major Cotton were appointed directors—the directors had appointed a committee to investigate as against me; the chairman of the committee was the late Boswall Preston, one of the largest shareholders in the company—I explained matters to him, and from that time he supported me throughout; he

said: "These people say you have power to appoint a director, and that you will exercise that power in an improper way; will you agree to appoint me a director, as I am the largest shareholder in the company?"I said "Certainly"—Mr. Surrente, who had got up the committee to appoint me, asked Major Cotton to be one of the committee—I said I did not care, so long as he was an independent shareholder: "Appoint whom you like"—at that time the returns of the company were going down at the rate of £2,000 a month—I set aside every other business and worked the company, with the result that in three months the returns were increasing at the rate of £1,500 a month; I then found gross irregularities had taken place in the management of the company, and that Surrente had been embezzling money, and I told the directors that we must make an example of the man; he was prosecuted and committed for trial—at the annual meeting at which the accounts were brought forward, Major Cotton said he had not seen the accounts—afterwards, when I was abroad, two additional directors were appointed, who were nominated by Major Cotton—the chairman and myself contended that those appointments were illegal, and we refused to attend any other meeting; and I have written to those directors from time to time that they are not legal directors, and would be responsible for all the fees they had taken—the end of it was I refused to be a director—the gentlemen against whom I have made these charges have been directors of the company ever since, for nine years—Mr. Aspland became my clerk at 5s. a week, and when he left I was paying him £3—Mr. Coxhead is a working carpenter; he acted for me in holding these shares—Miss Pulbrook, my daughter, is 28—she acted for me with regard to these shares; all the shares have been fully paid up—Miss Howe did not act for me, but for herself—the North Mexican Silver Mining Company was started to purchase certain mines from Mr. Bell, an American, and all the share capital was handed to him—then further money was raised by debentures, £100,000—no dividend was paid on the shares of that company, because by the constitution of the company, by the issue of the debentures, every amount of money subscribed by the company was to be paid back on the debentures before the vendor could receive a shilling on his shares—£4,000 interest was paid on the debentures; that was money deposited for that purpose, not from any earnings of the company—the debenture-holders took possession and managed the. company, and sold it to me on an engagement by me to raise £25,000, and give everyone the right to retain his interest in the company—I did not sell the company to the Vendors, Limited—this was ail by contract—then the Mexican Mines Development Company was started—I and my two clerks were the directors—I, as trustee for the debenture-holders, sold it to the Development Company—the Vendors, Limited, never sold it—then the Worth Mexican Milling and Mining Company was started; that has not paid any dividend—an execution against that company for £160 was put in at my office, and there was a return of nulla bona—the money was paid—these photographs were put up in my office to give the shareholders an idea of what the property consisted—I never wanted to make a market for shares; I was content to have it stand on its own merits—the Milling and Mining Company has a banking account at the London and South-Western Bank—I have not the book

here—there is a minute-book; that is not here—the directors are Lord Teynham, Francis Tulloch, Mr. Hoffman, and myself—Mr. Hoffman investigated independently, and agreed to accept management and share of profits, it was so good—Mr. Tulloch has never made one penny-piece out of my companies; he would not take anything unless the company succeeds—he depends on the results of the shares—I daresay I could get the banking account—the minute-book is in the City; it would not show what business was done—I have not brought the minute-book of one of these companies, or any books—I do not think I am improperly called a company solicitor, but I am not to be slated—I agree that "if there were no unscrupulous solicitors there would be no bogus companies"—I do not agree in this," that for facility of walking round the Companies Act commend us to Mr. Pulbrook"—two persons have been described as City thieves in a particular article—I know their names, but till September 5th I never knew that. I was included—I know that Mr. Perryman called me "the eminent ass"—it is perfectly clear, by his putting two hyphens that he includes me as a City thief—Mr. Owen lives somewhere in Hertfordshire—while Mr. Sanbridge was his solicitor, Mr. Bellairs introduced him to me—I never knew that Bellairs had had a dispute with Mr. Perryman; he never mentioned his name—Mr. Owen took criminal proceedings against Mr. Perryman at the Mansion House—I was put into the box, and cross-examined, I believe, as to whether Mr. Bellairs introduced Owen to me—a transfer was produced and handed to the Lord Mayor—it was suggested to the Lord Mayor that this was a prosecution got up by Bellairs and not substantially by Owen; and the Lord Mayor, on seeing the documents, said, "Here I have a transfer into Mr. Owen's name before the summons was issued on the 21st," and consequently he dismissed the summons—when the transfer has been lodged at the company's office and the corticated is issued by the company of the lodgment of that transfer, any person, other than the person in whose name it has been registered, can deal with it—the certificate is simply a certified transfer announcing that the transferor of the property has lodged the title-deed at the office, and when he does so it will be in his name, but it is perfectly competent on taking that transfer back to the company's office to have that certificate cancelled—it could be done without Owen's authority—I wrote to Perryman saying I had authority from Owen for Perryman to deliver to me the transfer of the Caledonian Deferred stock; I attended in consequence of that on April 28th and saw Perryman—(MR. COCK read a letter of April 30th from the witness to Perryman, saying that he had called yesterday with Owen's authority to receive the Caledonian Stock, and that he had to request him to deliver it to Owen or himself (Pulbrook) in the course of the day; a letter of the same date from Perryman to the witness, saying that the statements in the letter were untrue, that Pulbrook had never been informed that the transfer was at Perryman's solicitors, nor was any appointment made to deliver it that day; and a letter from Perryman to Owen, of May 23rd, declining to have any communication with Mr. Pulbrook)—at the time I went to the office, before I put in the execution, I did not know that the position Perryman had taken was that he would not hand over the transfer to Owen till he had paid the costs which Perryman had been put to by the prosecution, or that Owen could bring an action against him for the transfer, and he would counter-claim for malicious prosecution—I saw a letter from Perryman

declining to hand over the transfer unless he were paid £100—(MR. COCK read a letter of May 11th, from Owen to Perryman, expressing surprise that he had not delivered the stock to Pulbrook; a Utter from Ferryman declining to have any communication with Pulbrook; a letter from Owen acknowledging receipt of certificate of shares in the Kensington Stores, and saying that he had no occasion to have an interview with Perryman; that all he required was for him to hand over hit property to himself or Pulbrook; a letter from Perryman to Owen expressing his willingness to make a settlement to him on Owen's paying Ferryman's costs, which he put at £100, in defending himself against the charge made against him; a letter from Owen, saying that neither his stock nor money had been returned to him; a letter from Perryman to Owen, saying that he could defend himself against any further steps Owen wished to take to recover any further moneys he said Perryman held, but that he was willing to settle with Owen if Owen would pay the damages he had been put to; and a letter from Perryman on 30th, July to Owen, saying that he was ready to come to a settlement with him if he would pay the costs incurred in the prosecution)—as far as I was concerned this transfer was the property of Owen, ray client—I had seen a letter from Perryman, contending that it was not—I never gave instructions to take it in execution at the suit of the Big Gold Quarry Company—what I explained to the sheriff was, "I have an execution against Mr. Perryman; I have only just heard that he has goods which can be seized; I am told no printer will print his paper"—nominally Perryman has been carrying on business in the City for eighteen months or two years—I saw in the newspapers that he had a dispute with Mr. Foster, who had prosecuted him, and that his principal witness was Plumbley; I knew that the prosecution had come to an end; I believe the summons was withdrawn—Joy, who had been in Perryman's employment, and Plumbley were at Mr. Foster's office when we had a meeting on 5th or 6th of August—I knew Plumbley had been a witness against Perryman; it was suggested that Joy should give some information about Perryman; he volunteered to do so—I said with respect to the information something like "Oh! I have thought of a better plan than that, as by going in through the sheriff there will be no tainted evidence,"after I had consulted with Mr. Graham and Mr. Foster—Mr. Graham and Mr. Plumbley had no interest in the Big Gold Quarry judgment—Mr. Ley ton was the liquidator of the Big Gold Quarry Company—I had seen Ley ton before,1 made that observation—there were two meetings the same day; I had not seen him before the first meeting, but I had before the second—Bellairs was interested in the company—I registered it; Mr. Ogle was the person prominently interested, I think—at that time I cannot say if I had any authority from the liquidator of the company to take any proceedings, but I made the application for it immediately—afterwards I arranged "for Joy to go into the office with the sheriff's officer, to point out the particular safe where the securities were, and that that safe might be broken open by the sheriff"—those were your words, not mine—you asked me certain questions without reference to names and periods, and they are all mixed up together.

Me examined. Mr. Owen was my client; he is here to-day, prepared to be a witness—he gave me instructions to take criminal proceedings against the prisoner in reference to the alleged misappropriation of some Caledonian stocks, or money that had been sent for that purpose—

I applied for process at the Mansion House, and my client swore an information—process was granted, and a summons in due course was issued on 26th March, 1891, calling on Perryman to appear at the Mansion House—he appeared, and was represented by Mr. Cock—I was a witness—a document was handed by Mr. Cock, and passed up to the Lord Mayor; I did not see it then, and I had never seen it till it was put into my hands to-day, except that I just saw it passed; my memory is that it was on blue paper. (The document was read. It was a transfer to Owen of stock in the Caledonian Railway Company, stamped 19th March, 1891, and having a certificate at the side. MR. GRAIN proposed to put in two letters, the first being dated 28th March, in relation to the charge at the Mansion House. MR. COCK having objected that they were not relevant to the issue, and that the matter did not arise out of his cross-examination, the COMMON SERJEANT ruled that they were not admissible)—these two documents were handed to me in the course of the inquiry with reference to Mr. Owen—I am still authorised to act on his behalf—on the depositions taken from me when Mr. Cock examined me is a phrase that I thought a document was there which had been forged; I gave that answer upon information which Joy had given to me—it was after he gave me certain information that I gave the instructions to Messrs Odell and Co.—I had not at that time looked into the section dealing with search warrants—directly after the proceedings at the Mansion House a writ was issued by Perryman against Owen for malicious prosecution—no statement of claim has been delivered; nothing has been done in prosecution of the action beyond issuing the writ; it can be dismissed at any time for want of prosecution—up to the present time Owen has not received a shilling of consolidated stock or anything—in reference to all the companies no complaint had been made against me with the exception of one which was dealt with by Vice-Chancellor Bacon, the Isle of Wight Sanatorium. (Mr. GRAIN proceeded to ask the Witness what Vice-Chancellor Bacon had said. Mr. COCK objected. The COMMON SERJEANT ruled that the evidence was inadmissible.)—thirteen years ago I was solicitor to the Prudential Supply Association, which became the Regent United Service Stores; they took over the business of the Public Supply Association in Regent Street—I went abroad, and while I was abroad the solicitor for the Public Supply Association was appointed solicitor, and acted, and when I came back proceedings were taken, and I was appointed by the directors to act, and a technical objection was taken that I had come forward of my own motion and appeared for the company; but I had always been the recognised solicitor for the company, and Vice-Chancellor Malins told me in chambers privately that he had been wholly mistaken in the case—when he found my bill of costs taxed at £300, which was allowed, he admitted his mistake—the Omnibus Proprietors' Company is a good company, and is going to pay a dividend, the chairman told me; it only started last May—the West-end Stock Exchange is a good company, and has been paying dividends up to this time of 15 per cent.—the Mexican Milling Company is a good company, and likely to yield very large profits to the proprietors—the shares are not quoted on the Stock Exchange—we have refused to have anything to do with it.

PHILIP WILLIAM TUBBS . I am an omnibus proprietor, and am managing director of the Omnibus Proprietors' Company, Limited, which is registered under the Joint Stock Companies' Act—I was an owner of

omnibuses before the company was formed by omnibus proprietors—I consulted Mr. Pulbrook as to the formation of the company as a solicitor—the company never went to the public at all—the money was subscribed by ourselves; it was something like £17,000 which was paid for the purchase of the stock—various proprietors subscribed who are now members of the company, which started on July 1st, and we have just paid an interim dividend of 8 per cent., but we could pay a peat deal more; if we put our stock into the market we could get a good deal more than we paid for it—Mr. Pulbrook merely acted as solicitor, and was simply paid as such, nothing else.

Cross-examined. There are twenty shareholders at £1 each—the company was started in July, and the dividend was declared and paid before these proceedings commenced—it was declared ten days or a fortnight ago—we know nothing of any proceedings in October.

Re-examined. The declaration of the dividend had nothing to do with it; it was a flourishing, going company—the dividend was paid out of money honestly earned.

JOSEPH PINNOCK OWEN . I am a builder and decorator, of Wheathampstead—I had a few copies of the Financial Observer sent me last autumn—I then wrote to the prisoner, and ultimately sent him a cheque—I received no documents of title with reference to any stock, only the bought note—on Monday, March 16th, I communicated with Mr. Pulbrook, and gave him certain instructions. (MR. COCK objecting to this evidence being given, the COMMON SERJEANT ruled that it was not admissible—that the facts leading up to and included in the prosecution at the Mansion Mouse could not be gone into.)—I was present at the Mansion House when Mr. Perryman answered to a summons in my case—from the time I sent a cheque to the prisoner I have never received anything for it, bar the West Indian. Gold Mining Company.

LAMPTON BEVAN . I am secretary of the Cotton Powder Company, Limited, which manufactures Tonite—the predecessor of that company, carrying on the same business, had been in existence twenty years, with the same works at Faversham—during the twenty years dividends have been paid—in 1890 I applied to Mr. Pulbrook, and instructed him to carry out some alterations in the company's legal constitution; and in pursuance of that a company called the Cotton Powder Company was registered—Mr. Pulbrook prepared the memorandum and articles of association—he was paid nothing for doing that, beyond the ordinary professional charges—the shareholders in the first company exchanged their shares for shares in the new company—I have the transfers—it was a company limited in the ordinary way—I have the balance-sheet for. 1890; 14 per cent, was paid on the first preference, 10 per cent, on the second preference, and 5 per cent, on the ordinary shares—it is not a bogus company.

Cross-examined. This company was registered at the end of 1890—we have had a dividend for one year—Mr. Pulbrook registered the articles of association, and had no other connection with it.

HORACE ANDREWS . I am a member of the bar in America—I held the power of attorney of Mr. Bell, who was the owner of the North Mexican Milling and Mining Company's territory, and I came into connection with Mr. Pulbrook in reference to the sale of that territory to the North Mexican Silver Mining Company—it was arranged that

persons in England subscribing should have the whole of their subscriptions returned before any profits were returned to the vendor—this is a prospectus of the North Mexican Silver Mining Company. (MR. COCK objected to the prospectus being used in evidence; the COMMON SERJEANT ruled that it could not be produced.)—the territory alluded to in the North Mexican Silver Mining Company is the same territory now being worked by the North Mexican Milling and Mining Company—I have been in Mexico, but never. very near this property—I have 100 shares in the Milling and Mining Company—I made inquiries about the company last September or October when I was in Mexico—this original agreement of the North Mexican Silver Mining Company is signed by me.

Cross-examined. I first came to England in 1882, a year and a half before the Silver Mining Company was floated—I came over on other business—I have been going backwards and forwards for the last ten years—I have introduced other property on to the English market, that has not been turned into companies that I know of—this was turned into a company—Mr. Bell was over here at the time this company was promoted—the money that was raised from the public was raised on debentures—all the shares went to the vendor—there was nothing to prevent the vendor unloading his shares, except that a certain portion he had to set aside for the subscribers to the debentures, that is for the debenture money—independently of the debenture shares, he or his co-promoters had 120,000 £1 shares in his hands ready to be put on the market; but a certain portion of the shares he was under obligation to give to certain parties—Mr. Bell was formerly a judge of the Supreme Court of Texas; at this time he had retired from the bench on account of paralysis of his hand; he is now in Texas—on 30th January, 1884, when this company was registered, he was not doing any business—he did not come with me when I came first—he was here when the company was started—he and I came over for the purpose of turning this company in America into a Joint Stock Company—I assisted him in doing it—that company liquidated—I don't know that on the debentures about £120 was raised from the public besides the shares—I had nothing more to do with it after the liquidation—I held shares in the old company—I never received any dividend on them—I was a shareholder at the time the company was wound up; I had parted with some of my shares; I got nothing for those I held, nor did anybody to my knowledge—I had, I think, three debentures; I gave them to my sons; they received some interest out of the £4,000 originally deposited I think, nothing except that—so far as I know no person who invested money in that company has ever received a farthing except what came out of the £4,000 deposited under the articles of association, and so far as I know not a farthing has been got out of any one of the companies into which this has been developed and changed—I only know from what I have heard to whom the £ 100,000 raised on debentures was transferred on liquidation—I think the liquidator was Everingham Smith, in the City—when the company was started its office was in Mr. Pulbrook's office.

Re-examined. Mr. Han bury Tracy, M. P., Mr. Lowther, and Mr. Oastler, of Oastler and Palmer, were trustees for the debenture-holders of the North Mexican Mining Company.

The JURY found that the publications were libels; that the libel of August 22nd was true and that of September 5th untrue, and that neither was published

for the public benefit. The COMMON SERJEANT said that this amounted to a verdict for the Crown on the plea of Not Guilty, and a verdict for the Crown on the plea of justification.—Judgment respited.

View as XML