Steward, Public Officer, Company v Dunn, Public Officer, &

[655] steward, Public Officer, &c. v. dunn, Public Officer, &u. Exch. of Pleas. Feb. 8, 1844.-The office of public registered officer of a banking co-partnership not being an annual office, a person once appointed to such an oHice is presumed to continue in it until the contrary be shewn ; and therefore a return made to the (Stamp Office in March, 1841, verified by affidavit, stating a person to be a public [officer of ^he company, was held to be evidence of his being so in November, U84'2.-A popy of such return, certified by a commissioner of stamps, under the 'flth section of 7 Geo. 4, c. 40, is evidence of the facts stated in it, ;u\d it is riot necessary to prove that the affidavit annexed to the return was made by the public officer.-A deed constituting a banking co-partnership contained a stipulation, that, if any of the public: officers should become bankrupt, he should be disqualified, and his office become vacant: -Held, that the true construction of the clause was, not that the party should cease to be a public officer absolutely, hut at the election of the company. [S. C. 1 D. & L. 642; 13 L. J. Ex. :V24; 8 Jar. 218. See 11 M. & VV. f 3.] This was an action by the East of England Bank, for money lent, &c. against the defendant as registered public officer of the Southern District Banking Company. The Defendant pleaded (amongst other pleas) that he was not public officer, as alleged,; J^t the trial, before Gurney, U., at the London Sittings after last Michaelmas^ Tern), the plaintiff, for the purpose of proving that the defendant was the registered public officer olj the company, gave in evidence a certified copy of the return filed at the Stamp Office in March, 1841, in pursuance of the provisions of the 4th section of 7 Gao. 4, c. 46. The return set forth the names of William Dunn and Harvey Graham, who were described as public officers of the company ; and the name of William Dunn appeared also as a member1 and director of the company. The affidavit verifying the return purported to be made by William Dunn, who therein described himself as a member and director of the company. It was objected, oil (a) The Modern Practice of the Exchequer, published in 1737. 1362 STEWARD 1.'. DUNN 12 M. ft W. 656. behalf of the defendant, first, that the evidence of the return filed at the Stamp Office wag insufficient, inasmuch as the affidavit of its verification was required by the statute to be made by the secretary or public registered officer of the company; secondly, that it ought to have been shewn that the return was filed between the 28th of February and the 25th of March. In support of the above plea, the defendant ga?e in evidence the deed constituting the co-partnership, which contained a proviso, that if any public registered officer of the company should become bankrupt or insolvent, or offer to compound for his debts, he should thereby be disqualified, and his office become vacant. It was then proved, that the [656] defendant Dunn had become bankrupt before the present action was brought; but it appeared that he had nevertheless continued to act as public officer, and had been so treated by the directors and members of the co-partnership. It also appeared that two of the partners in the defendant's company were likewise members of the plaintiff's company. A verdict was found for the plaintiff', leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter a verdict for him. Thesiger having, in Hilary Term, obtained a rule either to enter a verdict for the defendant, or for a new trial, on the ground that the return filed at the Stamp Office was inadmissible to shew that he was the public officer of the company at the time it was sought to prove him to have been so; Erie and Butt now shewed cause. The first objection is, that there was no sufficient evidence of the defendant Dunn being the public officer of the company at the time of the action brought; but the return which was put in, and which was made at the Stamp Office in March, LH4f, pursuant to the provisions of 7 (reo. 4, c. 46, was sufficient evidence of tfcat fact. By the 4th section of that statute, it is enacted, (inter alia), " that before the corporation or co-partnership shall begin to issue notes, an account or return shall l e made in the form in Schedule (A.), setting forth the names and pl;ice of abode of two or more persons, being members of such corporation or co-partnership, and being resident in England, who shall have been appointed public officer of such corporation or co-partnership, together with the title of office, or other description of every such public officer respectively, in the name of any one of whom such corporation shall sue or be sued, as hereinafter provided." And the 5th section provides, that such account or return " shall be made out by the secretary or other person, being one of the public officers appointed as aforesaid, and shall be [657] verified by the oath of such secretary or other public officer, taken before any justice of the peace ; and that such return shall, between the 28th day of February and the 25th day of March in every year after such corporation or co-partnership shall be formed, be, in like manner, delivered by such secretary or other public officer as aforesaid to the commissioners of stamps, to be filed and kept in the manner and for the purposes hereinafter mentioned." Then, by the 6th section, it is enacted, " that a copy of any such account or return, so filed or kept and registered as by this act is directed, and which copy shall be certified to be a true copy under the hand or hands of one or more of the commissioners of stamps for the time being, upon proof made that such account has beeji signed with the handwriting of the person or persons making the same, and whom it shall not be necessary to prove to be a commissioner or commissioners, shall, in all proceedings, civil...