The Express.
London, England, 1864-07-25 00:00:00

.2IRTROPOLITAIt COUNTY COURTS.

YtYnfair ypWnt at m: 7;;;s1c.
WAITIONITIK Si. llartlie-Iron—lloaday, July 26; Tem
day, le ; Wedawday, s 1: 11wwwlay, IL
Baonow, Whilehead'agrova—Moaday, July 16; Tuesday,
1e: Wedoesday, 27.
Balwiryoati. —Friday, July 29.
CLARLAIIWKAL, Duncsa-terrere.—Tweeday, July 22 ; Wednes-
day. 27 , Priday, 29.
Stioutorrea. Old-Weeet-read.—Tuasdity, July 21; Thursday. 28.
Bow. Bow-read.—Friday, J•l9 29.
WEIDIACHAPIL, Great Prestotatoret—Tueeday, July 22 , Wed-
riesdar. 27 ; Thursday, 26; Friday, yx
Sown wawa, SwanstreeL—llonday, July 22 ; Tuesday, IS
Wednesday. 17: Thursday, 22
CITY or Lamer, Owlidliall-buildinp.—Tlutraday, July 18:
Friday, 20: Saturday, SO.
LOAD MAUS a CollAT.—Thursday, July IS ; Friday. 22 ; Satur-
day. M.

EQUITY COURTS.—JULY 23.
(Wars tho Lord Chaaosike.)
TEM AITOINIY 01111IMAL r. TIMPLZIL.

In Mb ease a motion was made that Charles Copland
Templer, a memenger of the Court of Bankruptcy, might be
ordered to pay to the seeenntef the Obief Registrar • ram of
2.000 f. odd. It appeared that Templer had been ordered to
amorist for his reeeipte aad and oa examination of
the amounts rendered, certain charges were disputed, and
especially those made for the exposes. of many journeys,
which it was alleged were Dever made. The present motion
was made, and it prayed that, in addition to the repayment
of the overcharges, Timpler should be ordered to pay the
mete, and to show cause why he should not be dismissed
from his office. On his behalf, it was argued that he bad
acted only in accordance with the practise which prevailed
in respect to the charges of messenger., and that if there
was any overcharge not justifiable, it did not amount to
more than 4711. 14a. 6d., which alone he ought to be
ordered to pay.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Roxburgh, and Mr. H. B.
Miller appeared for the motion; Mr. Bacon and Mr. Martin-
dale ware for Templer.
The Lord Chancellor remarked in strong terms on the
discreditable system which bad grows up in regard to these
particular charge.. and stated that before giving hie judg-
ment be would tenure carstolly iota everything connected
with this case, with a desire, if possible, to give the defen-
dant the benefit of any doubt which might arias out ul his
baying acted only in accordance with the system.

Sr R. T. Hindersley.)

8 CBSOL r.

This wu a motion for a new trial. The m►tter recently
came o• in this court before • jur►. when a verdict was
given for the defendant, the question being whether • state-
ment that the defendant wan • poor was, on the ground of
which the plaintiff bad agreed to accept 7001. from the
defendant, we tree, and the jury found for the defendant.
Defendant sa agent for the plaintiff bad pureliseed a lottery
ticket which was drawn • 10,0001, prize, and plaintiff allowed
defeedut 4,400/. se his share, bang onehalf of the sum
actually received. Subsequently he was dissatisfied with
wh►t he bad dose. and defendant gave him 3001. more, and
after various proceedings in the German courts b• ulti-
mately accepted 7001., and eigted the release in question, it
Wag represented that Schneider wee • poor mu, and
could not pay more. The grounds of the motion for the
new trial ware the absence of an important wawa, and
that the verdict wan against evident*.
Mr. Belly and Mr. Itesehaw appeared in support of the
motion ; Mr. Glass* and Mr. Swanton against it.
The Vice-Chancellor refused the motion with cods.

(Mors

ies-Chastaillor Se J. Stuart.)
M.HAII V. MDT.

Mr. Malting, Q C., sad Mr. W. W. Cooper, moved in this
ease for an injunction to restrain the &readapt, Mrs. *Why,
from proceeding with an action at law, under thaw dream.
station :

la Atigust. 1863, the plaintiffs and No. Selby mitered
into an agreement for carrying tie theatrical perfornithoss
at the New Royalty Theatre, in Deanatreet, Soho. The
defendant Yrs. Selby wee in the first instance to be the
directreee of the theatre at • salary of Si. per week. A
subsequent arrangement was, however, made between
the ism, by which the defendaot's Wary was
to 101. per week ; the defendant to receive the
money at the doors of the theatre and to pay it over to the
plaintiff., whose duty it was to be to find the other
funds oeceaszy for the expenses of the theatre; and after
payment of those expenses the profits were to be appor-
tioned, in thirds, between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
Mrs. Selby became ultimately dissatisfied with the amount
of tbe than of the profits paid to her, and brought as adios
at law against the plaintiffs to recover the sum of 2504,
whereapoe they filed a bill, and now moved foe as injusic.
lion to restrain the action.

Yr. Jowl appeared for the
detepodiat. . .

Tb. Vi

retard to (root the isjaDetioo.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Jutr 7.3.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BANCROFT V. BANCROFT.
(Cooliouad from Saturday's Lrpress.)

Mr. W. itnmsey end ►in wife corrOboisted tits petitioner,
but they admitted that though they knew of her nusoondact
they bed not thought of telling the respondent of it before
he married her. Romney lies ► calico printer, and Haymer
an indiarubber manufacturer in Manchester. .
.. .
_ --

Aim Hollins, a servant to the parties, was also called.
The Quote's Advocate admitted his eliwat bed Mateo tb•
petitioner, but submitted that the plea of puovoesitioe bad
bees made out. This respoedent, wbo wee the petitioeier io
a cross suit against his wife, was aho prepared to show that
she had committed adultery.
The further hearing of the one was ties saciamed.