The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-12 00:00:00

/atm futelltgenct.

•

EQUITY COMM.-JAN. 11.

WORII Till L'11.1)
11is Lorlsbip, accompasied by tlw three
took his seat la met shortly before 2 o'ci,ck.
me, Upham, lash,' beat remutly treated ono of boy
Majesty's ooesool, was invited to take his plans within the
bar.
RR TRH CORONER or HEMIL HINTSTIAD.
fa this mits there had beta a dispet,d election Mdar
office of comer for the diutrict of Hemel Hero letead I Oho
rights of contsin of the fretholders to 'ma beiog timaltillade
and two patinae. claimed to have been sleets& TM
Matta emu before this court on an et parts applicant%
and the sheriff was ordered to make a rrrrr o.
Mr. Somme now 'wand for ono of the parties, aid
stated that • return had Wes made, Rini! Waa not of awn S
nature as to decide which of the claimats was slimed at
the once, and he said leave to pretest a petition, white
would have the affect of bringing ail the parties before the
court, and decide the question as to the rights of this
faint freeholders to votes.
Leare was given, and the petition ordered to stowable*
paper for Thursday alit.
THORNHILL O. THORNHILL.
In this cam it will be recollected that Mr. G. A. Haminalit
Chichester who bad been communed to prison for
of court in attempting to induce Misis Clara Thumb% II
ward in Chaucery, to marry him was discharged on mg.
tam conditions, one of which was 'the payment of the MCI

erste.
Mr. Built' and Mr. Renshaw, for the young lad, 's guar-
dians, now applied to the court to review the master's taxa-
tion, he having disallowed several items of raises not being
covered by the order of the court. Among others were the
costs of the affidavits on which an injunction had beenob-
tained in the first instance restraining Mr. Chichester
from attempting to marry or have 2.4 communication
with Miss Thornhill. This haviag occurred previ.us to the
commitment of Mr. Chichester for contempt, the Master
disallowed the costs, on the gieund that the orli:ir applied
only to the costs of the commitment, and did not include
those connected with the injunctios, which, it was now
contended, was in fact an integral part of the wham pro-
ceedings to which the final order of the court was directed.
Mr. Cairns and Mr. Roweliffe eupported the decision of
the Master, urging that the proceedings in the inincctiou
were distinct from those which molted in the commit-

meat.
The Laird Chasmllor said that the Master had mistakes
his duty is disallowing the cuts. It was a fallacy to sup-
pose that the affidavits which were used in moving for the
loll:Imam were not oonnectrd with the pmca.i ding fur els-
tat/deg the commitment, for they were in fart used for and
were applicable to the whole proceedings, therefore the
tazatioa must be reviewed.
Some other items were mentioned as having bees dis-
allowed, with regard to which his lordship thought the
Master was right, mad his decision would therefore stand.
The court then rose.

- - - --
BIPOIf YICI-OWICTIZOS Ott WILLUIII PAGE WOOD.
This being the first day of Hil►ry Term, the court sat at
Westminster, about two o'clock.
Mr. %phew basing been appointed Queen's Counsel,
was called within the bar.

TUE ATTOZNIT-OZNISAL 0 0510011.
This was a motion for an iujunetf.n to restrain the its.
feudist from proceeding with a building which he wee
ereetiog under the following circumstances .—The Bimini,
Dam and Oxford Railway, where it poses throvili the MI
of Birmingham, is In part arched over, and Vie siapre,
had put up for sale by auction a portion of the .amen
where the line was thus arched over. The defendant b
came the purchaser; the oonditions of sale provided that MO
building should be erected on the to of the arch odes. sad
until the plans for such building had been approved by the
engineer of the company. Accordingly the defendant ash
nutted to Mr. Hewitt, the resident engineer, the plans of
his proposed building ; these were returned to him approved,
and he had proceeded to a great extent before the eon-
veyanes was executed. The conveyance contained a
t by the defendant not to pruned with say sew
building until the planets( such building were approved by
the engineers of the company, but the conveyance had no
remotes to the buddies' then erecting. Sher ly after the
ezecutioe aphis conveyance Mr. Brennen became 'Wined
at the building which was going on, and considered that it
might endanger the safety of the arched covering of the
railway; and in consequence he applied to the resident
slhcitor of the company to interfere. The latter applied to
the defendant, who sefused to stay his proceedings. The
solicitor UMW endeavoured I, induce the magistrates to in-
terfere, wheat first refused, but ultimately an arrangement
was aka* mdse their advice by which Mr. Briggs was to
i iseeed be allowal So as with one man only, so keep up his
right. no of Birmingham tutu applied to the
Bord of TN& send down an officer to inspect the
worts. This Gam reported that there was no sign of any
immediate risk, but that the arch mu.t be strengthened
before any greeter weight was put upon it. Terms had
been proposed to the defendant by the company, sad
the defendant had offered to resell the lend to the company at
the prim given for it with compensation amounting in the
whole to B.oool.,with an indemnity *genii% any elaizu which
might be brought *gains' him by the tenants to whom he
had leased the premises, or he bad offered to accent com-
pensation for his loss, and that the company Angid do all
that was necessary to enable him to complete his building.
These terms were rejected, ethers were uttered by the ease
puny, and in the end the present information wee filed at
the relation of the company, and an iejunc•ion moved for to
restrain the defendant from proceeding with the building.
The defendant had given an undertaking in the terms of the
notice of motion; and then another informat:on was filed, as
was contended, really by the defendant, end a motion was
made to restrain the company from running their trains
over the line until the archway was wade sale ; the chisel,
as was all'4ed, beim", that the stopping of the trains wool&
be so serious an evil to the company, that they would be
tat to accede to the defendant terms of reparelesing the
Mr. Behind Mr. O.L. Ratliff appeared for the employ;
Sir. James and Mr. Speed for the defendant Bilges. Bat atser
mush dWeassioa tertian ware arranged, and t was ordered
by enaseat that until the bearing of the cause or forest:
order, the defendant should not proceed with his building
without the *unseat of Mr. Bunnell, that the co
should be at liberty to enter up en the oefendant's landaile
the purpose of doing such works as might be coronary to
strengthen the foundation, so as to enable the defendant le
complete the building according to the original plan; the
company submitting to be bound by any order the omit
might maks at the bearing as to the compensation to WAIL
the defendant might be entitled for any damage or loss ass
'mimed by the proceedings of the company, with liberty to
all parties to apply, sad the order to be without prejudice
to any question in the cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JAN. 11.
This being the drat day of Hilary Term, Lord CAnspbell,
Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Josuce Wigttman, and Mr.
'astir* Crompton having partaken of the breekfut at the
Lord Chancellor's, canes down in procesein with the other
learned judges t Westminster Hall, and took their mats
on the bench at two o'clock.
Ti l •U1131.(IIL PASTE THI :venom 01- MAIDZNIIIIAD)

N. PLOW/ AND OTIIIIIIII.—ALLZOLD LIBEL.
Mr. Whateley moved for a rule, calling on the defendants,
three of the town councillors of the borough of Maidenbeed,
to show came why a criminal information should not be Bled
against them for • libel, imputing that three mog!strates of
the borough had been guilty of improper conduct as 111/Igii-
MUD. It appeared that a gentleman named Pilchard Love-
grove, being in arrear ae to certain payments alleged to be
due to the Board of Itialth, was summoned before the ma-
gistrates on the 24th of October, 18.54, when both parties
were represented by counsel. The magistrates, niter a full
hearing, made ea order of payment against Mr. Lovegrove,
who paid the gam due with the costs. They, however, re-
fused to allow the fees of the counsel of the Local Board of
Health, amounting to from 251. to 351., as they ware in-
formed by their clerk, that it was not the practice to do to
On the 7th December, the three gentlemen against whom he
moved inlaid a handbill of which the magistrates complained
as libellous, in the form of an address to the burgesses of
Maidenhead. The learned counsel then read the alleged
libel, which stated that the magistrates had ',famed to allow
the counsel'. fees " being overawed by the impetcosity of
their .:ark or too pusillanimous to face the frown of Mr.
Lovegrove."
Lord Campbell asked if the learned counsel bad teed the
whole of the libel ? .

Mr. Whiteley replied in the affirmative.
Lord Campbell—then I don't fiat soy corruption
im-
paad.
Mr. Whately—The inegistrates were charged with failing 1
to do their duty in consequence of intimidation.
Lord Campbell—The judgments of the judges of the 1
courts of law in this country are open to comment, and
are commented on, without violation of the law, and for
anything I know, to the benefit of the public. e don't
see why the magistrates of Maidenhead are to be exempted
from that to which the judges of the land are liable.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Whateley—You see, my lord, it is imputed that the
agiltrates had not done their duty as they were over-
awed by the impetuosity of their clerk or were too pusillani-
mous to face the frown of Mr. Lovegrove.
Lord Campbell—No doubt these magistrates ere highly
honourable men, but I think they are rather thin skinned.
We most anxiously protect magistrates in the discharge of
their duty, and if any specific offence had been charged we
most certainly should have celled on the part preferring
the charge, either to retract or substantiate it. There is not
one member of this court who thinks that this is a ease
in which we should interfere. These magistrates may very
well trust to their character without putting the criminal
law into effect.
Mr. Whateley was sure that this expression of his lord-
ship would be highly satisfactory to the gentlemen for
whom he appeared, and who had only taken this COOTS' for
the purpose of showing they had not tailed in their duty.
The other learned judges having concurred,
The application wee refused.

BAIL COURT.-JAN. 11.

MITI S IN

This wu the first day of Hilary term, aid the court did
not sit until 2 o'clock.

Tal CIUZIX Z. LANOlllbat
Mv. Ju‘tice Erie mid he had t, rend • judgment of his
brother Crompton. This was an application for the rusts of
• mandamus leaned egainit the defead•ate al over.
ewe of • parish, oumm•nd.og them re inquire

sad uoettsia whether a *Male penes was the real re-
, iideat cow sad easepier of a hump is that popish.
and ocatapaadias then to alga a sublimate wider
the beer hussies act. To this the defeadaste had
aide • re.uto stating that the othilmeed was the
mildest balder sod occupier, sad theylted sighed a
gild-
date, but they had Sot boss able to withrems whether be
was the reddest occupier at the dewed tbe oasis's' applb
Gatlin, sad it sow appeared es the allarthe that at tat Ithee
of tat original appliestke he eves sat dathdierttt themitehe
of the premium. Ando woe app!ied kr at IlM,Tegekiegthe
&readmits to sig. the oertilissth but the seat to
unaduass to Wile' wallas epee the &hulas% he ems
no,. lc Tithes as to the eaegatise, sod se else seserd -
Ugly. The defendants bark* t tees**
lath se, ski/se thr
tidaate, and it am WM *WI SIM Moe
sole owner at theeli elihs wpgaralies. ISM is Ws
case must be reused, sad the pewee ride diathathed, het
I without emu.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF COIDION FLIAL—JAif. 11.
enema In 1/1100M-111,011111111MI/ 1/111811111 Mink 115. MIMS
aucul, KS. AM= seesswere, MID 11111. aesrsm WILLIAM.
Their lowed*. serived 86 Weelseinder to-day shortly
before two o'clock, and having walked is procession along
the Ball, took their seats upon the het*, and at *nos pro-
, ended to hear motions.
?BLIMP V. ILAORIV3.—MONIT LINT.
This was an action to recover 231. de. as money paid, and
at the trial before the Chief Justice at Guildhall, a verdict
liras found for the plaintiff.
Xe. Serjeut Bytes, however, now moved for a rule for
aOM trial, upon the ground that his lordship had mis-
directed the jury. The learned urjeitet stated that
the plaintiff kept a lodging-house in Jennyn-street,
and in 1853 Lieutenant Sayers;wsnt to lodge at his house.
The lieutenant vu • gentleman of intemperate habits, and
he fell ill, and during his illness an execution was put into
his room by a person named Jones. Lieutenant Sayers sent
fur his brother in-law, the defendant, and the plaintiff was
milked to pay out the *aeration, but he declined, saying that
Lieutenant Sayers already owed him 1001. The plaintiff's
cue we', that the defendant then asked him to pay the
money for him, and that the plaintiff thereupon gave his
word for the money, and ultimately paid it. The present
action was to recover this sum. The defendant's evidence
was, that he offered to be surety for the amount, that
the plaintiff declined it, and that he advanced the
money,' on Lieutenant Sayers's account. The Jury
adopted the plaintiff's view of the case, and it
was now submitted to the court, that according
to Vie plaintiff's evidence, the transaction amounted
to en andertakieg by the defendant to pay the debt
of Lieuteeent Sayers, sad ought to have bout la
under the 4th section of the Statute of Pravda.
Sale refused.
AZOO e. 701111.9 AND OTalize.—eALZ OP INDIO* ON

This was ea action against Bit Charles Forbes and Co., to
nearer damages upon the ground that they had not used
proper skill and care in disposing of a quantity of indigo
con.igued to them by the plaintiff, sad that they had acted
contrary to specific instruction. The ow was tried at the
last sittings at Guildhall, and the jury found a verdict for
the &readmits.
Mr. Braswell, Q C., now moved for a new trial, and
stated that the plaintiff was an indigo grower at Calcutta,
aad that same time ago he minde to the defendant.
about 30,0001. worth of iadi , sad the question
wia whether they were authorised to all at the prise at
which they had in fact sold. He admitted, upon the first
paned as to proper care and skill having been used, that
the pleiniiff had no ease; hut epon the question as to spo-
elk instructions, be submitted to the court anti that hal
lordship ought to have left the effect of conga ossaloPolid-
IMO between the plaintiff and the defendants for the eons&
dared= of the jory, instead of holding that the construction
of the correspondecce was a matter of law; and, secondly,
even if it was a matter of law, that hiss hip should have
held that the effect of the correspondeail that the de-
fendants were not to sell except at a higher pries than they
had sold at, instead of holding that the defendants had an-
tbority to all as they had sold. One of the letters sent by
the plaintiff to the defendants infused them of a storm that
had taken place and damaged the indigo mop, sad it con-
tained the following statement:
" Cider any circumstances I would be disposed to re-
commend your selling at least half of my consignment,
especially if there is any adman in pries; and If any large
advance fron•Febriutry rates, as much more as you can,
but in this be guided by your discretion."
It was submitted to the court that the effect of this was
that the defendants were not to sell one-half of the indigo
melees there was an advance in price.
The court was of opinion that the ermstruetion of the
oorrtspondenee was matter of law, and that his lordship
had rightly construed it.
Rule refused.