The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-16 00:00:00

cent, Plumper, Rifleman, flown, sad Harpy. Dido—thim
ship arriv,il on the ith December, maim; the pesseAc
Irom Encl.inil in 3i days, and would leave for the Pacific
on the 16th ult. Gurs•ni left Rio in company with the
Tay for England, and would sail home. HAM, Dee. 20,
Conflict sod Itoerttik ; Conflict was to proceed to Rio, in
eunsinead of Captain Jenner, of the Centaur, who hail suc-
ceeded in the command of that ship, Captain Drake having
resigeed.

Lab, iinteUteence.

EQUITY COURTEL-YLITERDAT.
11.1 oval 10 £0w..4 Jumcw• IN Ar►e\l..

Ex TAISTI LO MA; is pl. MATT= or LOYIDAT.-

LUN•CY._

This was the petitiot;o Lneeday, who,
after having been found a lunatic under a eOlllllllO4Oll
issued against him at the instance of his sister and her hits-
baud in January last, had since succeeded in traversing
the inquisition. The petition prayed that the commission
might be superseded, and that the parties at whose instance'
the commission had been issued, and Ur. Baker, to whom
prior to the traverse the custody of the person of the luna•
tie and the care and management of his estate had loco
committed by order of the court though no grant
was made to him, might be ordered to delis, r up certain
papers and documents and other property belonging to the
petitioner in their possession.
At the hearing of the petition in December last,
Mr. Bolt and Mr. Terrell, fur the petitioner, asked for
en order according to the prayer of the petition.
The Solivitor-General and -Mr. Amphlett, for the parties
who had obtained the commission, and. Mr. Baker, did not
oppose the supersedes", but asked for a direction for pay
meld of their costs incurred in the matter of the COMMIS•
kiln', anterior to the traverse. The commission had been
properly obtained, the conduct of the petitioner having af-
forded a just ground for such pruceeding. This view had
been taken by the first jury open the inquisition, and the
respondents therefore ought to be allowed their eases
and expenses, properly incurred in the proceedings under '
the commission, which were ter the protection of the peti•
Winer. Thu court, they submitted, had power to award
such expenses, notwithstanding the result of the traverse,
under the statute li Bee. IV., c. .13, which was passed for
the express purpose of remedying the previous inability of
the court to du so.

Lord Cranworth now delivered the judgment of the court,
and observed that the supersedes was a matter of course,
and that the only question upon which time had been taken
for consideration was as to the title insisted on by the re-
eponilent to the cost of suing out the comini.sion. This
reeilved itself into two questions—the first, whether the
court had jusbiliction to award such coats; und the other,
whether, if it had jurisdiction, the present was a proper
case for its exercise. The answer to the latter
question depended upon the conduct of the parties
in suing out the commission, how far they had been ac-
tuated in so doing by proixd motives, and upon other ques-
tions of that sort relating to the conduct of the parties.
Having no information upon that sulject, the court had
applied to the Lord Chancellor, by whom they had been
told that he was 'wadi, d that the parties 1-ad acted bona
fide. They were satisfied, therefore, if the case was one in
which they had jurisdiction to award the ends, the circum-
stances were such as to make it desirable to award them.
The only question then was whether the court had juris-
diction. Now, it was clear that, independently of the sta-
tute 6 (leo. IV., c. 63, ho court had no jurisdiction to
award costs where the lunacy hail been successfully tea-
screed. That had been decided by Lord Loughbo-
rough in the cast of "Ex pane Fearne," in Vesey's
Reports, vol. S. It had been so decided on the
ground, that alter the successful traverae of the
inquisition there was no fund left out of which to pay those
costs. The Lord Chancellor there obscried that the case
was one in which, if he could act in imperio, the parties
had entitled themselves to all the costs he could give; but
that he bad no jurisdiction. The same principle had after-
wards been fully recognised by Lord Eldon in a case of
" Sherwood v. Sanderson" (19 Veg.); who had there given
costs, not by virtue of his jurisdiction in lunacy, but be-
cause the property of the lunatic in that case consisted in
part of a fund in court over which hislordehip had jurisdic-
tion. lie thought he might deal with that fend for the pur-
pose of awarding oats, but he, at the ',erne time, expressly
recognised the doctriuc laid down by Lord Loughborough
in the previous case. The reason of the doctrine was clearly
that the right to award casts arose out of the right to ad-
minister the estate of the lunatic, and ceased with that
right. The question then remained of how far that &se-
mis had been altered by the statute 6 Geo. IV., c. 53. If
that statute gave no jurisdiction in resocet of a provision for
costs except while the traverse was pending, there would be
an end of the question, for the law as to costs after the tea-
verse had succeeded would be left " as it was before the sta-
tute. Now the statute was entitled an Oct for limiting the
time within which inquisitions of lunacy may be traverse'',
and for making other regulations in the proceedings pend-
ia* the traverse ;" and the act afterwards, in section 3,pro-
seeded to enact that " after the return of the iuquieition
of lunacy, and notwithstanding any petition or order which
may be depending relating to a traverse of such inquisi-
tion, it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, or the per-
sona charged with the exercise of jurisdiction in lunacy, to
proceed to make such order relative to the custody and
commitment of the person or persons, and the commitment,
management, and application of the estate and effects of
any person or persons who shall or may have been found
lunatic, as he or they shall think necessary or proper."
The question was, whether that gave any 4uriulictton as to
costs after the determination of the traverse in favour of the al-
leged lunatic. Thecourt had come to the conclusion that it did
nut. All the act did was to empower the court to proceed
to make orders as to the application of the estate pending
the traverse, without waning, as they were previously
bound to do, till the lunacy was confirmed by the result of
the traverse. This construction was made abundantly clear
when it was seen what a contrary construction would lead
to; for the act enabled the court to deal " with the person
and the estate " of the party , and as these words were all
part of the same sentence, the consequence of the construc-
tion of the act contended for by the respondents
would be, that after the successful traverse of
the lunacy, the court would still have jurisdiction
to deal, not only with the estate, but with
the person also of the alleged lunatic. The court therefore
had no juriaiiction conferred by the act. It had been
argued, however, that though this should be so, the court
might still make the payment of the cods a condition of
the delivery up of the documents and property in the hands
of the respondents, belonging to the petitioner. To this
proposition, however, the court could not secede. The in-
quisition having been successfully traversed, the delivery
up of the papers and property of the alleged lunatic be-
came a mere act of simple testier. They had come into
the possession of the respondents, because, by anticipation
as it were, it was necessary for the protection
of the party, supposing that the result of the
inquisition would establish a title to them. It was reason-
able that for such a purpose they should have them; but
upon the reversal of the lunacy they could be looked on
only as the property of the alleged lunatic. Any attempt
to impose such a condition as the one asked would, indeed,
be simply nugatory, for it would leave the respondents open
to an action of trover, or other action, at the inmtiknee of the
petitioner. The result, therefore, of the whole case would
be a simple order superseding the commission, and for the
delivery up of the petitioners papers and property.

Banes Yies-CupeatasTra• ea.
GRAND Titt:Sll RAILWATCOMPANT T. BROOM AND

071111113.
Mr. Stuart proceeded with his statement of this ease, and
alleged, as • further breach of trust, that the defendants,
the managing directors, had appropriated certain sums as
payment to themselves for Ihrtr services, there being no
provision in the subscribers' agreement, to authorise such
an application of the funds.
Mr. Welfurd then proceeded to read those parts of the
answers of the defendants which were relied on, and was
proceeding to the depositions, when
Mr. Holt and Mr. Selwyn objected, on the part of the de-
fendant Brodie, that they could not beread on the ground
that they were informally taken, the interrogatories being
headed, In a cause of the Grand Trunk Railway Coln-
pony r. Brodie and others" (naming them), but omitting
the name of Harman, one of the defendants.
Mr. Willcock and Mr. Osborn, Mr. John Baillic and Mr
Kenyon, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Roger., and some other gentle-
men objected for other defendants, and urged that these de-
positions were so informally taken that nu indictment fur
perjury could be maintained upon them.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Collier were laird in answer, and
argued that if this was an objection at all it should have
been taken on motion to suppress the depositions, and not
on the hearing, and that since Lord Campbell's Act, 14 &
15 Viet., c. 100, a. 20, at all events an indictment fur per-
pa could be sustained, whatever might have been the case
leer, and that it would be for the jury to say whether the
' be
cause was sufficiently identified.
1 Mr. Itolt replied.
The Vice-Chancellor said his present impression was that
the depositions were inadmissible, but he would give his
opinion tomorrow. At all events, he should not dismiss
the bill, but should give the plaintiff liberty to make such
application to the court for the purpose of rectifying the
error as he might be advised.

Barons Vra-Cessintren Pram
GAILDIIIO2I I. GOODALL.
Mr. Chandler stated that an infant, a ward of the court,
in this suit, had beta soar time since apprenticed (or •
term of five years, that he had recently enlisted in the
60th Rides, and that be was to be shipped off shortly for the
Cape of Good Ilope. The guardian was dmirous of pay-
ing the smart money, as it w..s called, to gurchax his dis-
charge, but he had arertaint.d from the infant that if he
were bought out he was determined to re•enlist. Under
these circumstances the guardian was desirous to act as the
court should direct.

The Vice Chancellor thought that the will of the infant
was not to control the court in doing what was for his
benefit. It would be the better course for the infant and
guardian, with the learned counsel, to attend the court at
the private room u soon as it could be arranged. Ile had
no doubt the military authorities would allow the young
Ran to come to the court. All parties attended in private
at the tieing of the court, but the result did not transpire.