It

of a Govern ment sub

sidy to open with the

up trade

West Coast of Africa

to be de

but that it must have become known to the defendant Charles William Gregory, as a director and temporary secretary of the said company, or to both or one of us as members of our said firm. The object of the Government in paying a sum of The object upwards of twenty thousand pounds per annum to establish a line of steamers to the West Coast of Africa, which was the origin of the said African Steam Ship Company, was to remove the restrictions upon native traders and to afford and encourage the greatest facilities of communication with the said coast. is very common for ship and insurance brokers to ship goods on their own account, and we have never in the whole course of our experience heard of any objection to such a practice, and we believe that if such complaints have been made to the plaintiff William Law Ogilby as are stated in the second paragraph of his said affidavit, they have been invited by communications previously made by himself to the parties making such complaints. We (each of us speaking for himself,) say that we have never heard of any such complaints being made by any one until mentioned in the said affidavit.

3.-1, the defendant Charles William Gregory, say that, when it first occurred to me to make the experiment of endeavouring to open up a trade with the said West Coast of Africa, I did not believe or suspect that in doing so I should be, in any degree, acting in contravention of my articles of partnership; and no doubt ever arose in my mind on that subject, until my attention was drawn to it by my solicitor, in the month of November last. I believe, in fact, that, in the state of relations which existed between myself and partners, until the month of June last, our articles of partnership were scarcely ever adverted to by any of us. I had no copy or minute of such articles myself, and I never saw them from the time of their being signed until after the said month of June last.

4. We both say, that the said Charles William Gregory never intended, in making the said experiments, to devote his own time or attention to it beyond giving occasional direction and advice as to its management; nor was it his intention to continue it; but, on the contrary, his object and intention were, if it turned out successful, to place one or more of our brothers in it in connection with Frederick Desnaux, the person in whose name it was instituted; and the said Frederick Desnaux was perfectly aware of such intention. I, the said Charles William Gregory, know the facts stated in this paragraph of my own

attempted feated by Mr. Laird.

knowledge; and I, the said Edward Henry Gregory, know them from constant communication with the said Charles William Gregory, at the time, and during the continuance, of such experiment.

5.-I, the said deponent Charles William Gregory, further say, that the said experiment was commenced in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, during the time of my partnership with the plaintiff, William Law Ogilby, and the late Robert Ogilby Moore, and before the time of my present partnership; and both the said William Law Ogilby, and Robert Ogilby Moore, had, on several occasions, without my consent or concurrence, engaged in speculations or adventures on their own private account, as well as on account of the firm ; and on two of such speculations in grain engaged in by them on account of the firm, one with Messieurs G. L. Jackson and Sons, without my concurrence or even knowledge; and the other with Messieurs W. and R. Hickson, not without my knowledge, but without my consent, losses (and, in the latter case, of considerable amount) were sustained. I believe that such speculations were contrary to the articles of partnership existing at the time, but that such articles were not adverted to by any of us.

6. In reference to the statement contained in the third paragraph of the said affidavit of the said William Law Ogilby, that, in the month of September last, he put a stop to the insurance therein-mentioned being continued in the name of our said firm and put it into his own name, and that it was his intention to let the firm have the benefit of any profit that might result from it. We both say, that the paper writings marked A and B, hereto annexed, are true extracts from the ledger of our said firm, for the months of September, October, and November last. The paper writing marked A, is the account of insurances undertaken and done by the said firm on their own account and risk; and the paper writing marked B, is an account of insurances undertaken and done by the said William Law Ogilby on his own account and risk; and the said papers show that the statement of the said William Law Ogilby is not correct, that he stopped the insurance in the name of the said firm; but that insurances were continued to be made by the said firm at the same time that the said William Law Ogilby was making insurances in his own name. The insurances so undertaken by the said William Law Ogilby in his own name were without the

consent or concurrence of either of us, and we have never heard, and do not believe, that it was intended that either of us should participate in any benefit from such insurances.

7. In reference to the statements contained in the sixth paragraph of the said affidavit of the said William Law Ogilby, expressing his belief that the screen therein referred to was erected by the plaintiff Andrew Ferguson Moore, and that the man therein referred to had been.employed by him, solely from a sincere conviction in his mind that it was necessary for his personal safety; we both say that the office in which such screen (or more properly barrier) is erected, is a room of the Partnership length of thirty-five feet or thereabouts, and of the width of indignities. twenty-one feet and upwards, having a fire-place at each end, and fronting eastwards upon Ingram Court aforesaid, from which it is lighted by five windows, aided as to two of such windows by outside reflectors; the eastern side of such room nearest the windows, to the width of about nine or ten feet, is railed or partitioned off, and fitted up with desks in succession for the partners and clerks of our said firm, and at the extremity of the room from the entrance are two desks, one on either side of the fire-place, nearly in a line with each other, both of which derive their light principally from one of the before-mentioned windows, which is partly in a line with such desks, and partly a little to the rear thereof. The desk on the western or dark side of the room is that occupied by the said Charles William Gregory, and that nearly in a line with it near the window is the desk occupied by the plaintiff Andrew Ferguson Moore. The screen or barrier referred to, which is a most unsightly and conspicuous object, covered with unpainted sheet iron on the side next to the desk of the said Charles William Gregory, has been constructed so as to intervene between the desk of the said Andrew Ferguson Moore and that of the said Charles William Gregory, and to intercept or obstruct the light from about three-fourths of the window from which such last-mentioned desk is lighted as aforesaid. straight line drawn from the centre of the desk of the said Charles William Gregory to the last-mentioned window touching the top of the said screen or barrier, terminates at the lower end of the uppermost pane of such window, below which nearly the whole window is covered or intercepted by the said screen or barrier. The position of the person employed by the said Andrew Ferguson Moore to watch the said Charles William

A

Gregory is within little more than three feet of his said desk, and such person sits facing the said Charles William Gregory, in an oblique direction at that distance whenever the plaintiff Andrew Ferguson Moore is in the house, and from his position there is barely room for the said Charles William Gregory, or any one, to pass to or from his said desk, and at times such person is obliged to move his legs to allow a free passage.

8.-Although the said plaintiffs were apprized, by a letter from our solicitors, on the seventeenth day of January last, of the intention of the said Charles William Gregory to return to his place of business on the twenty-first day of January, such screen or barrier had not been erected in anticipation of such return; but it was brought there on the day of the said Charles William Gregory's return, during the hours of business, while we were both in the office, and was partly fitted under our own eyes and in the presence of the clerks of the firm and customers, who from time to time came in and made observations upon it; and on the day following in like manner during business hours, and in our presence, and in the presence of the clerks and customers, it was permanently fixed.

9.-If the said Andrew Ferguson Moore had really felt any apprehension for his personal safety on the return of the said Charles William Gregory to his said place of business, he might have consulted his security much more effectually by changing his present desk for one at the further extremity of the room. In that case he would have been entirely removed from the said Charles William Gregory, and the said Andrew Ferguson Moore would not then have been obliged, as he is now, to pass and repass in close proximity to the said Charles William Gregory in going to or from his said desk. We believe, however, that it is the fact, and that the plaintiffs well know it to be the fact, that the object of the said Andrew Ferguson Moore, in erecting the said screen or barrier and employing such persons as aforesaid, was to endeavour to annoy and degrade the said Charles William Gregory in the eyes of the clerks and customers of the house, and by that means to drive him out of the said firm, and several of the respectable clients of the house, whose attention has been attracted by the said screen or barrier, have expressed to us in strong terms their indignation at the proceedings of the said plaintiffs. The person so employed by the said Andrew Ferguson Moore does not attend him in the streets or anywhere except in the said office.

10. We both say that the statements made by Joseph Norris, in his affidavit filed in this cause on the third day of March instant, on the part of the plaintiffs, that the said screen is a simple screen, and is not conspicuous, and is not so high as to exclude any light from the said Charles William Gregory's desk, and that there is no reason whatever for him to burn gas throughout the day, are wholly false. The light is, in fact, so obstructed by the said screen or barrier, as to oblige the said Charles William Gregory at almost all times, except in very bright weather, to burn a gas-light for the purpose of transacting his business during the day. The paper screen of three feet three inches long, stated by the said Joseph Norris to be placed round the said Charles William Gregory's desk, between him and the said man, consisted of two half-sheets of cartridge paper placed between the desk on which the said Charles William Gregory writes, and the light top-rail which surrounds it; and such paper has recently been used by the said Charles William Gregory to intercept the obtrusive curiosity of the said man who, otherwise, would at all times be in a position to look him in the face while at his said desk. The said Charles William Gregory has since caused a ground glass screen to be put up in the same position as the paper for a similar purpose.

Between WILLIAM LAW OGILBY, SAMUEL BROWNING

POWER, and ANDREW FERGUSON MOORE Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

WE, CHARLES WILLIAM GREGORY and EDWARD HENRY GREGORY, both of Ingram Court, Fenchurch Street, in the City of London, Ship and Insurance Agents, severally make oath, and say as follows:-