The Express.
London, England, 1852-11-25 00:00:00

la trusto.la to t►e intent that the inhabitants of Hemel
Beupettad. se long es they continued to reeds to the dis-
trict, Ji• uld receive a tiebtt geeing the the right or pas-
turage therein. The learned counvel contended that antler
tie above nt..otioned ite. the holthrs of these tickets were
sot enticed to vote.
The coact granted a rule nisi

BAIL COURT.—YmutDAT.
NITTIPO4 to lust 0.--itsrvas Ma. Juatrca Cantreon.
The Marquis of Winchester took the maths as lord-liento-
sue or roe county of Southampton.
?RR WIWI 0. JOIIN EARNIIIIAW.—Q°O WASI.AItTO.
The Attornry•Oeseral moved for • rule to show canoe
why a writ of quo wamnto should not be filed against
John Karnali'w to show by what authority ho claimed to
Mid the oaks of town councillor of the boroush of Olh•
heat. It appeared, among other reasons alleged in favour
et the granting of the rule, that sin voters were prevented
Beat getting to the poll. They got ups, a coach, which
was upset and broken to pier... Several policemen were
tolled to ■wet in getting theta to the poll, but without
warreess; and, in consequenco of the opposition and riot,
*ay were not able to vote. Ile could not quote any pre-
sident in Layover of his application, hut he hoped the court
would consider t let n rule ought to be granted, in con-
moque- re of the intimidation which had prevent d clean's
from recording their votes.
sale nisi.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YLSTLIDAT.
Ownsus Ilmors.—Baross Unity ltsrws Jams, 11.1111 C•
MAULS. M. Junin stmusss, £55 Ms. JlMfirllTALruene.
CuLI e.

Mr. V. Lloyd moved in this case for a rule eallieg upon
the je,low of the county court of Wiltshire and the plaintiff
to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue to
stay all further procrt,lines in this cote.
The plant was issued in the county court for 42f. 8.. 3J.,
and the particular. of demand contained items amounting
to about 1701., but this sum was reduced by credit given for
bills of caching. received on account. In order to bring
the ease within the jurisdiction of the county court, it was
sought fin thrt to reduce the claim by setting off against the
debt IW., the price of good. supplied by the de-
fendsut to the plaintiff. It was now, however, submitted
that the plaintiff had no power to compel the defendant to
set hi. d,..t off egaint the plaintiffs claim, so as to reduce
it below and therchir. that there ought to be a pro-
hibition.
It.:e granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YEsTERnAT.
tarn taan rums Wow.. Ma. 1.1.1t0x
run. Ma. HAWN PAW. *xi, Ma. Ballow MAatis.
Li %MET r. WAUNnI CAel.

Mr. Cruel having, upon a former occasion, obtained a
rule nisi, calling ;spun the plainitf to show cause why the
defendant should not be allowed to demur to the declara-
tion, as well as to plied the several matters propowd to be
pleaded.
Mr. It ,ggins (with Mr. I. Bailey), on the part of the
plaintiff, now anvared to show cause, and said that the
plies proposed to be pleaded were—l. Not guilty. 2. 'Tra-
verse of the contract being in force between the plaintiff
sad Johanna Wagner at the time of the defendant s enter-
ing into hie contract with the said Johanna W
3. Traverse of the defeudenes knowledge of the seitCOW
tract being in fore:. 4. Traverse of its being in senilie•
quince of the sets ot the defendant that the said James
Wagner did not appear at the plaintiff's theatre,'
Be (the learned counsel) apprehended the defen-
dant would not be allowed to demur, and to
plead these pleas. The point to which be desired to
direct the attention of the court was, that the Lord Chan-
cellor had given judgment and affirmed the validity of Mr.
Lumley's contract with Mille. Wagner; and when the
validity of the contract had been investigated with a power
of appeal, the defendant ought not to be allowed to vexa-
tiously rouse the same points again. The defendant elected
to go into the Court of Chrncery, the plaintiff took no part
la this, but the defendant elected to go and be bound by a
deer.* of that court; to which decree Johanna Wagner
submitted, and hound herself not to sing at the theatre of
Mr. Oye, during the cristence of the said contract; to
this decree Albert Wagner submitted, as also did
It,. Frederick Oye, restraining himself from ac•
opting the services of the said Johanna Wagner.
The Lord Chancellor then ordered the injunction to be
Wised, restraining Madlle. Wagner from singing; from
Albert Wagner permitting her to sing; and from Mr. Oyes
accepting her services.
Mr. Baron Parke—The defendant could not in the pre-
seat case be bound by this.
Mr. Noggins said the plaintiff's ease was, that after the
Lord Chancellor had confirmed the injunction the defen-
dant aided, assisted, and advised Milne. Wagner net to
appear at the plainutf's theatre, in violation of the said In-
juactisn.
Mr. Baron Parke—This, then, is partly as action for di/-
obeying the injunction ?
Mr. lloggins—lt was, and it was left to their lordships'
discretion as to whether the defendant should be allowed
I. demur ?
Mr. Baron Parke—No neon has at prima bees assigned
why he should sot.
The Lord Chief Baron—This appeared to be a ease for
which the late act bad been provided, In order to save the
espouses of a sew trial, or arrest of judgment.
Mr. H • If his lordship thought so, he would my
teething of on the question of the demurrer. The
dideadant proposes to plead sot guilty, but the 80th section
of the new act riziies that some specific ground for so
doing should be ed, but the defendant does not ven-
ture to say that the p ea of not guilty is true, either in sub-
limes or fact. The defendant only says " that he is ad-
vised, and believes that, as it is uncertain how many or
what statements of fact in the declaration would be pat in
isms by the plea of not guilty, he could not swear to it ;
bat be does swear that he is not guilty of say
wreingfal acts t muds the plaintiff or any other
in his dealings with the said Johanna
7141.:1:r." That was all as to substance, but
he could sot swear as to the fact of not guilt
The second plea traversed the contracts being
fore* between the plaintiff and Mdlle. Wagner when the
defendant enters-dint° his contract with that lady. The third
plea traversed the defendant's knowledgeof thesaid contract
bring in forge. The facts with respect to this stood thus •
The defendant states that he received a sommunication from
Johanna Wagnt r to the effect that the contract was put an
end to between herself end Mr. Lumley, and he then sn-
eered into communication with her. The plaintiff's answer
to this was, that his contract was made in November, and
in December be himself told the defendant that be had
made each contract with Mille. Wagner; and three months
after this, in the following April, the defendant entered Into
his contract with Mille. Wagner.
Mr. Boron Platt—Then take an issue on the merits.
Mr. Hoggins—The abstract does not state that the,
traverse got only to pan, and not to the whole, of the des.
eiaration. There were two distinct facts, but this pion
ravened only one of them.
The Lord Chief Baron thought that it traversed the
knowledge of the contract.
Mr. lloggine—lf the defendant had limited hitetaslfdsts
awnli of the declaration as traversed his koowledorf
soot:act, then he might have pleaded this plea. Me AO.
duration states that the defendant, well knowing the Sillts
• wises, made his contract with Mile. Wagner to sing at hi
theatre, and then wee on to state that the defendant, Wig
knowing *het the Wegner. were bound by this contrail M
the plaintiff's, aided, assisted, and advised her not to elm,
sad indemnified her from the consequent* of so dais.
Mr Baron Parke—Therefore you say you hews IWO
causes of action. The answer to both is that the defendant
kse a not of Cie coutract.
Mr. II "gains —The fourth plea was a traverse of its beige
is eonseq..enee of the defendant's sets, that Johanna W
net did not sing at plaintiff's theatre. With respect to
be would only ask if the 76th section of the late set went
be in force.
Mr. Baron Martin—That plea looks like not guilty.
Mr. Creasy argued that the multifarious charaeterelf the
deelaration required it; but if hie learned friend would wee
to proof of not having indemnified bring given under not
guilty, he would withdraw the fourth plea.
Mr Hogging said he would not agree to that, but esm.
Waded that the plea of not guilty ought to be withdrawn,
nod that the several matters should be traversed sew
lately.
Mr. Creamy would, then, prefer leaving the pleas is their
present form.
The Court then granted a rule absolute for the defendant
to plead the several matters proposed. The demurrer and
pleas to be delivered in a week, but no further proceeding
to issue, in fact to be taken tall demurrer has been
Rule absolute accordingly.
TASIN SS e. WOULMSR AND 070
SIRS.

-RAILWAY L1...D1L1%

This action, which was tried before Mr. Baron Martin
last week in the Exchequer Climber, was brought on an
agroeiselit made between the plaintiff and defendants, by
which the latter persons undertook to indemnify the plain-
tiff against his liability for any further claims on account of
a railway project eslled the" Direct Exeter, Plylncffith, and
Devonport Railway." The defendants paid 1001. into
court, and pleaded that as sufficient to cover their liability.
The deed of indemnity was pet in at the trial, bat the
itimm judge gave it as his opinion that that was of no
avail as against any of the costs arising oat of on attempt
that had been made to wind up the affairs of the company ;
under these circumstances a nonsuit was entered with leave
given to the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict for what he
claimed, lees 1001. paid into court. Each party to consent
that the other should have the liberty of examining any, or
all, papers which were in the Master's office.
Sir A. Cockburn now moved, pnnuant to leave reserved,
for a rule to set aside the nonsuit, and to enter the verdict
for X9f. . Gs. 3d.
The Court granted a rule nisi.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YEarzzakT.
Bona rue Cover Cnenetertorno.
_TN Tito MATTER OFJOSIPIt WINO ARNOLD.
. .

This rasoiicriT,.l;7lPPlii4Warier the Protection Act,
war opposed by two creditors in person. Mr. DOW/0 sup-
ported.
The insolvest had married a dreswmaker awned Smith,
who owed a number of debts, which he now inserted in his
se! Mule, inelirsion one of the oppoeing crediu.n.
The Chief Commissioner remarked, that as a man took
his wife fur better or worse, he took her debts with her.
(A iamb.)
TM needier's etimplained that the insolvent bad as means
to the debts be took upon himself by the massimp.
dolenir. DeW/0 ahnensill that autos the ourriage la April the
bed bola iossaaad abet* la and 51. hod Was pad.
The Mbar MAW sawlminaa that after he had obtained
rdis a- Nam Oa imahaat same le Ms coact.
see Sink II ma a ass ks
11ww•Of odd be dada M jusloslaa.t
Villhild polialks, cad
a ay di lito fad abar.