The Express.
London, England, 1852-04-17 00:00:00

relative to paying off the mortgages. By this deed.
Sir Henry bad power to jointure any future wife
he might marry to the :mount of 2,0001. a year, and to
grant an annuity of .100 J. iu favour of say stranger ; sad on
failure of twat, male of the plaintiff, S,r Henry had power
to appoint the ,state to bin own daughters. Of this instru-
ment the plainttff contending that as it was •
voluntary settlement, not for valuable consideration, it
mold be supported only on the pound that it was a pro•
per settlement of the family amuse—that he emoted it
without proper explanation of its value and effects, and
under the orders of Sir Henry, his father. Sir Henry, on
the other hand, asserted that the instrument was not an
unreasonable settlement of the family property —that it
was properly explained to the plaintiff—that no influence
or control was used—and that, according to the principles
on which courts of equity act in settlements of family
property, the deed mast be supported, He was of
'pules, as be decided in the ems of "Cook and Lunette,"
that when a person obtained • pecuniary advantage over
another, the burden of proof fell on the person taking the
beeefit. Bat this proof was given if it was shown that the
donor knew and fully understood what be was doing. His
Honour then referred to a number of eases in which it
had !eon held that • re-settlement could sot stand if the
party who could eat:icier influence received any advantage
from it. The cue of " Whieherley and Whrley" was
one of great importance, as it drew clearly a distinction
which he thought rendered all the case, reconcilable except'
" Kinchett and Kinchett," which had not been approved,
of. In " Whieherley and Whicherley" the father was
tenant for life with remainder to his eldest son in tail male,
and the father and_ the eon executed a memorandum of

agreement to secure 6001, to each of the slams widths six
months after the death or the father, and the mart sequirad
the specific performance of that agreement, though it wee
shown that the father had exercised influence; hat to
court stated that if the father had token any adven it
would not have allowed the transaction to eland. Applying
these principles to this case, end seeing that in this case the
father, under this deed, took considerable benefits, be tow
'Wend that this was not a deed properly settling
the property for the interest of the family, sad
was not such a settlement as the court would approve
of as being mast ler the benefit of the family. With re-
spect to the circumstances connected with the preparation
and execution of the decd, he thought it was conclusively
established that the plaintiff had no professional assistants,
that the deed had not been properly explained to him be-
fore execution, and that it was executed under cisme.
stances, when there was an undue influence exercised over
him. With respect to the mortgages, he had come tee
conclusion unfavourable to the plaintiff. He thought I
tai=
was the intention of the plaintiff to neva Use
The bond he gave to his father for the 111111111116/
that it should erase on the mortgages hen id 7mg
whit respect to them, it was shown *at la solicitor
ertsed one of the releases, and thong► be did so hastily,
he must have seen that the mortgage aser„ nor shook'
he make any order with respect to the 1,8001, applied ell
pay off the mortgage on Sir Henry lloithton's private OD-
tare. Oa the part of the defendant, Cecil [foibles. es
eldest sou of the plaintiff, it was contended that dm or
sentiment could nut be invalidated as against him. Bet
though, on the marriage, there was • settlement only of
the personal estate, there was no evidence that the mar-
riage took place ow the faith of this deed, and the deed there-
fore could not be held good for the purposes of the infant.
A decree must be made declaring the deed of the 7th
July, 1213, to be void, and ordering it tote delivered up to
be cancelled, and the bill must be dismissed so far as it
asked for • declaration that the mortgages on the Hoghton
estates were subsisting mortgages for- the benefit of the
plaintiff. He should be glad in • ease of this kind not to be
asked to give any directions as to costa
Mr. Bethell, on the part of the plaintiff, said he did not
desire any direction as to costa.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YESTERDAY.
ammo IX Baste.—Brroaa 100 CANPTI.I.*2 1i nora Wool?.

r" Ms. Jurrier. Eau, Asno ML Jcirics Clo.urrox.
Tux UURIN V. lIIONSIDR.—CRIMINAL INFuItMATION.

In this ease a rale had been obtained ut terns for a
criminal information against Isaac Ironside, for an alleged
libel in the sArlie 41 Free Press newspt.per, reflecting un
the conduct ut Thomas Harwell, Esq., a magistrate of
Northampton, who was one of the directors of the Midland
Railway Company. Mr. Harwell was a member of a tom-
mittee whose duty it was to provide the whole clothirg and
stores 131' the company's servants over a distance of 500
miles of the railway. It was the custom of the committee to
issue advertisements for tenders for clothing, de. In April
last year contracts were entered into far the supple of
various articles, and, amuse others, 600 crest coats. 'The
first intimation which the directors had of any charge
against Mr. Harwell was from an anonymous letter, dated
the 2nd of November last, insinuating that be had given a
contract for the supply of certain articles to a Mr. Wright,
who, it was said, was connected with him. Another ano-
nymous kiln was rectived on the 29th of November by
the board, professing to point out the manner in which Mr,
Harwell could make 3821. 103. from the contracts for great
coats. On the 2nd of December the chairman of the board
received.a letter, signed by Mr. Ironside, and enclosing a
printed slip of another letter, which he said would be pub-
halted in the next number of the Nesi field Free Press. The
secretary of the board then wrote to Mr. Ironside (who is a
shareholder of the company), offering him every opportn-
' airy for investigating the circumstances alluded to in his
letter if he would give up the name of his informant.
Mr. leo:side, however, refused to avail himself of such an
"clogged
offer, " with such conditions," and on the Saturday
I following 13th of December last) the libel complained
of, giggled Mr. Ironside, appeared in the .Ass 1d Free
Press newspaper, and, in substance, repeated the charges
which had been made in the anonymous communications
to the board. Mr. Harwell made an affidavit distinctly
despise ell the charges which bad been made against him.
Mr. Ireside, now io per-on, showed cause against the
rale, and pat in an affidavit denying that he was the au-
thor of the anonymous communications which bad been
addressed to the board. The defendant further stated that
sot any names were mentioned in the letter signed by hint,
and it twaid set be inferred that Mr. Harwell was the per-
son he had abided to. Ile contended that he had a right
to attack wed expose the met-practices of the directors, and
that there was so ground for wahine the rule absolute.
Mr. Macsaley having been heard in support of the rale,
Lord Campbell said, if the defendant had publicly made
a charge against the directors of the railway (or miscon-
duct or mismanagement, the court would not have inter-

fend ; but in the present cam there was • chugs of gross
fraud against an individual, and it appeared to have been
made with some malice. The court thought, therefore,
that it was • proper case to go to ajsu7.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAB.—YorrEaDAT.
lirrente. in SAPCo.—lkvolue Cars Jam as Jima. Jones
JOSTICS WILLLUSN .3.1) WA hied TALIOCID.
CROUCH N. THI LONDON AND NOS= WHMOIN LZAI4
WAY CONPANT.—THI CARRINaIe 9Tarpox.

TheMiatiff in this case is a carrion 1111111/111 of
his business be mis la the habit ofkg atillestki mall par-
mls directed* various persons,
the i
_tame SY la
en, sad stadia. them aka. sadestris inn The
tense wt breasht te tester is vies of soft& loresam
said to have bent bet hem wan at those yore* whilst
they ware ssesstsd to the dettmisats M wry, and at
the trial Mhos the Chief Justice at Guildhall the luny gave
a media he the plaintiff for 461.
Mr. Cowling row usury], pmemit to leave ressnosests t
enter a verde* Milo didin apse the sued,
and sixth gismos In a new kid awn th=thet the
verdict to aphid*, mikes& The
the chtosoloate as ournscia conks. sad sated thtirt
plaintiff dolhand the goods tli them te be ea*
sad steursby anted henßircalaahat to Isaias, breast
they wire ha; sad the pleas gssstlos travelled this
allsgsties, sad the reline-mks MOM int the goods were
lost by the 11?:gf. the eampany's ..vent.. Upon this
M state the it was acesseary for the plaintiff to
prove felony tie company's servants. In April, 1849,
the hewed a anti that they wail not, stew the
Loaf gYeanosto=eir mherwmasessesiniag enseal
Egtizi adheleil sr perms, er
kr dithweent&seas, ear wash* they be resew
ink kr my ssa , or the asnisate thereof, mhos
the instssis awl of ths_ wash wore dashing le
the ersping wire they were ilsilesped. coy
woo. *hat was the aims if this miser=
Canisoe Mt rooked that se sides amid la
future bin ma Abet is Itimiliss the sospamibility
of amnia % bus es kb seethe of ths an mimed that
sodding is the statute should he soseinsd to maid IN aeon
say spiel mairest between a esmeessankr sod ussyslisr
posses kr the tesveyame of psi sr somthandin The
pleisdems !Anted elks sods% sail k apoismal that
to Mae a&tst be Mil soled ems kt sad Oil slag so it
was salmiterl that it la but attat.teite a special contract
hremes the parties, sad tub the we eat at the Carriers'
Act Ups the other seats the lend nasal submitted
that there Mew mama to she Many by the amine 's
sermats, sad therahre that the mean was au a sat
t°7lsradsal3=es saidthewigiltdatobl:da new
ssveral of trial.
th ,
sad he amid ant milseshind went juries considered evi-
ction to entailed' Many wird the servants of a railway
essipany. The euidinue hue was this : The pkintiff
weda Bianksthers, aad he there rci.
sabred a gearteln ef gassela. which he put into
a ensue slim and wired it mad. Thi• was delivered to
the deilndwass and It 'mind in Loodaa apparently em
and misseled, sad was delivered to the plaintiff.
he emit is he bad that it cantabed 13 instead
of 14 scud parade. sad the Ipary hurl that sane servant of
the campany had nested tieswhim had rhea out one
pseud. sod had thes sewed im osee again so many
'MOW, was meths oppmesene at its having ilea
opensd. thee& ant th e.g
ht pasibly ham he
▪ mistake or by wheels the pared wet seek
ted to he mat, bat mewled that ikon asd kind a
verde* Isr the t
itu =gaimpoasi.
slide that Issvent etuilmozittli sr % t meld
have hose stoligest r=MI have Maid the
pared ; bushy kind that emelsedy onasessi with the
oonyouy bad spossd the yashoge Ind Mini it. lielleshied
whether thins woe eves any evidence a Macy to go to
the
Bahl
isesteL
_ _

Rs JOANNA CONNILL.—ALLIOND DITINTION OF •
RONAN CATHOLIC PAVFIN CHILD AGAINST HIM WILL.
kr. gook k thk matter, applied for a writ sf babies
wipes, iilwated la the guardians of the pariah of gt.
wok* kiengedlng than to bring up the
Um=Connell, bodige7s
abild aawrandConnell, whoa he to de-
egolust bee will in the pauper baba mob]
at Nerweed. The apileatiou was howleled urea as
Tie Ingo rider of Imam Oman, and of
'high the siabetwae. The degnsat sated
that bee ilelher, Teresa Connell, il!paelled tlik n
life eight
pear' dam leaving a whim sad tires Ohligio hhn
me liidne Wins--W depenist, Wal thin