The Express.
London, England, 1852-12-06 00:00:00

lain inttlitisence.

EQUITY COURTB.--SATu RDA T
• Bayou TM Las= Jimmie aw Anus.

Lim tr. Buse
This was an appeal from the decision of the Muter of the
Rolle upon the following question of construction, arising
upon the will of Mary Tabitlea Lee, the Ustatric in the
cause. By the will, which was dated in 1017, the testatrix,
after devising her reel estate, gave her residuary personal
estate to trustees upon trust for John Lee, but if he should
di* is her lifetime without leaving any child or children
him surviving, then she directed that the residue of her
trust meets should be in trust for the Rev. Charles Leer.
John Lee did die in the lifetime of the Metairie, but leaving
children, who now, by their claim filed in this court, claimed
to be entitled by implication to the testatrix's residuary per-
sonal estate. The blaster of the Rolla had dismissed the
claim.
Mr. Roun:iell Palmer, )lr. Terrell, and Mr. Greenside,
in support of the appeal, said that there was no gift to
Charlie Lee, inasmuch ss John Lee bed died leaving chil-
dren, and that, unless an estate by implication on the resi-
due was held to be in the children of John Lee, there
would be an intestacy, inasmuch as the gilt was of residue.
A construction resulting in lot/Macy was one, they con-
tended. which the court would, if passible, avoid; and the
inference was strong in this case that the children of John
Lee were to take by implication, seeing that throughout
the will it appeared that, with regard to the real estate,
they were the primary objects of the testatrix's bounty.
Mr. (Mecum and Mr. Faber, who sppeartil to oppose the
appeal, were not called upon to andress the court.
Their lordship., in delivering Judgment, observed thst if
the will was to be construed eceording to the rules of
grammar, sense, and idiom, the case was one of intestacy.
That being an, it was incumbeat upon the plaintiffs, who
alleged there was no intestacy, to show, not only that there
was none from the context of the whole will, but also to
show upon whom that property as to which there was no in-
testacy was to devolve. Admitting, however, but only for
the purpose of the argument, that the will exhibited an in-
tention on the port of the testatrix against intestacy, still it
was impossible to determine from the language of the will,
whether tho gift was to the personal estate of John Ism or
to his children ; and, therefore, section the hypothesis most
favourable to the plaintilh—vis., that the testatrix's inten-
tion was against intestacy, still it was impossible to say that
there was anything but intestacy in the result. The appeal
must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs, to be paid out of
the personal estate.

Bayou •ft Kum or ma lou.s.
MORRIS 0..0•1:111211..

Plaintiff is • clorgymius and defendant is • schoolmaster,
at Sydenham, carrying on • boarding school there, in
premises known as Sydenham College. Piaintiff purchased
awLlcrifteere hpiliT4tohoti
ischool,eas the.
.fogo::doearabiiollnfobcrigte 7501., of
remain-
ing 2:41., at six months; defendant signing a memorandum
I. hat he would not negotiate the bill, and that plaintiff was
rd pay it by five instalments, at intervals of six months.
B„iisequently defendant was in want of more money to
earn • on the business, and it was agreed that the partnerhip
about. t be dissolved, which was done, and that
a fres h partnership should be entered into between
plainut r and defendant's s3n, "on terms hereafter
to be as reed upon ; " and • friend of the plaintiffs, a Mrs.
Nelson, Ivanced 460/. to the younger Gaultier, for which
plaintiff he wine jointly liable. When this was done, how-
ever, dere.. Int and his son i.aued a fresh prospectus, leav-
ing out plaint ff's name altogether, and they unfurnished
his sporsosem, in the school, and, as plaintiff alleged, took
measures to t tc, ode him from the partnership. Plaintiff
also discovered it defendant had negotiated his bill, by
vetting it discounts d by • Mr. Moses, who sued him upon
it. Plaintiff thereup on filed his bill, praying that the
partnership ac aunts In, taken, and fur a dissolution of the
partnership, and the cause now came on on • motion for
an wijenetion to restrain the di fenda.nts from receiving the
partnershipdebts and for appointing • receiver. It was
alleged, on the part of the defendant, that plaintiff eli-
procure for the younger Gaultier • title to holy
orders, to
which he had not done ; but this plaintiff denied,
though he alleged his willingness to have done so, provided
he had found him qualified.
His Honour granted an Injunction is the terms prayed,
•ad appintcd a receiver.

TRH 01701 D, WORCIATII, AND WOL ZZZZZ UPTON
RAILWAY COMPANY O. THI SOUTH STAFFOIDAHIIIII

RAILWAY C .-7MOTIOXyO/ •N.DIJCNCTION:

This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs for an in-
junction to restrain the defendants from continuing to
keep possession of a piece of land near Dudley. which the
defendants insisted they had a right to take for the pur-
pose of making a junction and erecting a station at Dudley.
Mr. Matins and Mr floral appeared in support of the
motion. The arguments occupied the court all day, and
were not concluded at the rising.

ECPIIII VICFCZAPCELLOt eTrAIIT.
LOW Munnrros g.

This cue was argued some time eines at eonsideroble
length by Mr. Russell sad Mr. Bates for the plaintiff., and
Mr. Bacon, Mr. Wigrasa, Mr Malin", Mr. Cheadle,
Mr. Follett, Mr. Brodenek, Mr. Nalder, and Mr. Hinde
Palmer for the several defendants; but the judgment stood
ever to enable his Honour to consider the decision in 'a
then unreported case of " Lord Bardagtes v. Liddell,"
which was not reported.
TM Vim-Chancellor now jediseat. He said the
of tk-

gave
~sestlsalavelved a ceestraction of the Thoihnson Act, on
time iralhm te the will of Mrs. Beams* he the ecru-
mama of the interest and eassal_peseasis et • am of
MUSK dashes the life of her eonbeemeat. TM
itesectles. sae only question neeseesey sossidler was,
w dm trust for acconaststies wee width the map-
teak et the mond seethe GMs daft* while meets
trees ite swaths proviaiers :
warder,. The trot
tryst of the email yesseeals . being for the
anainteaesse awl= Whereas , with a trust to
accumulate the sis ar the asthma WNW& ; sad, after
the death of Witham, te Awe et the Imes& at the
50,0004. and the acenmaadoes, so a othapetest poet thereof,
for the maintenance and oducadile of his children daring
their minorities, or until their midges Amid beams pay-
able under that her will, end as ems me they should
attain the age of 21 years, oe H ffenstemes, at-
tain that age or he married, Oen umn trust
to call in the 50,000 L, sad all the memardations.
end pay and divide the amt emeag all the ehallmn of
William, in the
The words of the second clause In the statute, which are
applicable to this case, are thus which mention except
from its operation, " Any provides for raising portions for
my child or children of any pests taking anieterest
under such conversese, mettlesome% or devise." Ma chil-
dren provided for by Mtn. Beaumont out of theme sonimu-
latices are the chiles's if her as William. This provi-
sion, to which the sessisslatiese are Eedisated by their
grandmother, she derwthea m thek perdu" I clad, so far
as appears, is the calf gamin. made he them. There-
fore, if the wean awe" Is be seaddeeed without refer-
ence to decided ems epee the usdeselles of this clause in
the set, there would ears lithe is bolding that
this was the case of a Med nig INSIMIUMiIIe on perrision
for raising portions far the Attires ef apmesmsed under
the will which directs the eimaskeles, the it was
within the exception in the sesoni seeliFn, mil therefore
not to be restricted to the elatnesey peeled et twee=
years from the death of the testatrix. But d.
by judges of learning and ezpeeiesse rapport the preyed-
Son that the tram fee aessaislades in this will was not
within the exception as to gardelsea for portions, and that
for the excites beyond the period if twenty-one years the
trust for accumulation was invalid. The decision of Lord
Langdale in " Eyre e. Marsden " (2 Keen, 664),"0f the
Vice•Cheneellor Knight Bruce in "Morgan v. Morgan"
(20 Law Journal, 109) ; of the Vice-Chancellor Kindenley
in "Bourne v. Buckton " (2-Bittions, N. 8. 91) ; of the
Vice-Chancellor Turner in "Jones v. Magas" (9 Hare,
635) ; ham all been quoted and relied on is the
argument of the present cue to support the con-
struction that the accumulated dividend on the tilt
In Mrs. Beaumont's will of 50,0001. is not within
the exception of the gad section of the act as to
Of the cases quoted at the bar the decision oft Mt«
Chancellor Knight Bruce in " Beach v. Lord St. Viseest"
(19 Law Journal, 1301, proceeded on a just eonstruction
the exception es to . It had seemed to his Honour
at the time that trust for accumulation was a valid
treat to the full extent directed by Mrs. Beaaniont's win.
He had expressed this opinion with diffidence, and he had
postponed the judgment in the present case that he sight
be guided by the Lord Chancellor's opinion in the ism if
" Lord Barrington v. Liddell." Having bad an opportn-
nity of reading the note of that judgment, it was a great
eausfaction to find that upos a review of the authorities
which so unfortunately confined and embarrassed the coo-
stroction of the exception as to portions the Lord Chancellor,
Vhe has not restored, bad at least established a just prin-
ciple of coastruction, and had held the trust for accumula-
tion in that case of " Lord Barrington v. Liddell " to be
valid, and within the second section of the Thellusson
He was bound by the principle of the decision in " Lord
Barrington v. Liddell," indepeade, tly of his own clear opi-
nion, to hold that the trust for accumulation in the present
case was entirely valid. The decree would contain a decla-
ration to that effect.

COURT OF QUEEN'b BENCH.—RATUIDAT.
Arras at SIN PllRM—Bereas LOAD Carrot WOO • BrICIAL
JWIT.
Too Qom r. Orroa AND OTNlll,Coarusatowaan or
LAND TAN FON VIZ TOWIII HANLITS.—ASIIIANNANT or

TIM LAND TiA.
TWA wee a writ of mandamus, calling apse the Laud Tax
Cosamossinsms of the Tower Hamlets division to cause the
quota of land lax raised therein to be equally mimed on
the different parithes and districts forming that division.
The writ Oyer*, amongst other thior, that there are 23
parishes in the Tower Hamlets—that the commissionen did
meet fur the purpose of assessiss the laud tax equally span
those pariahee, but that, by eelosr of certain old =NW
meats, they refused to make an equal stscessiest. Ths
eorsoiesioners returned that they did meet, sad did seas
as ape erwesereet, atoordang to the statutes is that basil
provided.
Mr. Watson. Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Hall) taidhkeem%
paired for the ratepayer, of the districts of Christ c
gad the Artillery Ground, who were the real sm.
rts in tine matter. It was right in
aroald say there was no personal imputation is the
toe whatever, end that the true point for ultimate dollies
would be a question of law. The matter at issue was one
of vat pow, importance, sad, upon the Anal decision of
the mart, the method of rating the laud tax, sot may is
Os Tows. Hamlett bet ia peat cumber et other diet.
dam thiettibtat the matey, would depend. iltAve the

statutes relating to the lead tan the whole meow' of the
to: to be raced is the various divider;
makisg up the I.:a tendiellikalia:llll.ll aeegertlaw sentribstable
by each division Wag a laid Minns ewe. Every divides
is mein sabdivided is welshes or dieleigh, each of whidk
districts pays • erred" tuft towards the groin sum fler
which the division is Balita Now, osesediog he the esw
"traction put upon the statutes by the lesemed seawells tt
was the duty of the illtelmiedwers of the divides W 111•1
their diuretic* la dalay the twee payable by web MOW
imposing it, sad the gullies of Wet for the Puy in via
case to consider was. whether are sat the usembeleasse of
the Tower Hankie had se wed their discretion. If Way
found their venlig is tic negative, then it would be teethe
court to say whether the statutes did or did not require a
discretion to be used. Ile submitted that they did.
Mr. Brookfield we then stalled sad examined by Mr.
Hall—He was sse et the Land Tax Commissioners for the
Tower Hamlets !iv ee. and had been so for twelve years.
He was aware that dodos that time it had been the prac-
tice of the ennemissienam to calculate the quota of each dis-
, tritt upon ea obi •1811111Millt, without soy regard to the
present value of the property. la the year 1830 parties
began to express dissatisfaction at this arrangenseta. Me-
I morials were sent in from the Christ Church aid Artillery,
Ground districts. Ile was present at the meeting of the
commissioners in last April. He presented a memorial from
the Christ Church distrait. Ho moved the equalisation of
the quotas according to the present value of the rateable
property in each district. An amendment was proposed, to
the effect that the commissioners had no power to 'quahog.
Mr. Lush, the clerk to the commissioners, was of opinion
they could do so; but ultimately the amendment was
carried. A nullities' then passed to make the assessment
out according to the old quotas. All the commissioners
knew these quotas were unequal.
The wane , on his cross-examination by the Attorney-
General. said there were about a dosen commissioners pre-
sent. He believed the present quotas had been in use up-
wards of half • century.
The inequality of Uwe quotas was admitted on both
sides. Uoder them the assessment in the Christ Church
district was Is. 10d. in the pound ; in the Artillery Ground
district, 2s. 2d. in the pound ; and in the parish of St. Ca-
therine, 2s. 7d. in the pound, while in many of the other
parishes it was eta very much smaller rate.
Mr. Lush, the clerk to the commissioners, was then
called. His evidence was to the muse effect as that of the
last witness. In addition, he proved that the Board of In-
land Ite , on being consulted by the oommissioosn,
had thought it Adelaide that the mama quotas should be
adhered to. _ _

This was the ease for the prosecution.
Some discussion then took place between the learned
counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Attorney-Oatmeal (who
with Mr. l'hinn was for the defendants), and his lordship,
as to the beet mesas of raising the question of law before
the court. After which
Lord Campbell told the jury it had been agreed on both
sides that • special verdict should be taken, subject to the
opinion of the court on the law of the case. He thought
they would have no difficulty in finding in this ease that
the commissioners made the assessment, according to the
ancient quotas, upon the several parishes within the divi-
sion, believing that they were bound to do so, and without
having refried to the vale* of the property in the respective
parishes at the time the assessment was made. Having
band the fact, the law would be lift for the settlement of
the court above.
The jury thereupon found a verdict accordingly, subject
to the opinion of the court upon the law.

ARCHES COURT.--SATUADAY.
Barons &a J. Dooms.

Till OPTIC* OP JUDOS PROMOTED ST TIM BISHOP OF
Haat:ono Louses Da. Tnoursol C•anz.
This was a snit charging the Bar. Dr. Tbseapion, vicar
of Kingtoo, with various ecclesiastical damn alleged to
hare been committed by him between the maths of Much,
1850, and January, 1851.
Drs. Addams sod Curteis, ea bred of tea Tee. gentle-
man, tendered a protest ea norm pease. the principal
of which was that the dived eines bed hew committed
more than two years beim the aressemeetat of dr suit
in this court, and Met the IMP thineibee bowel by the
act of the 36:1 Via.
Drs. Dayford and Tries, ea the other bead, sestsuded
thetas proceedings before the bishop had bra eras under
the act in question within dr prescribed Yoe, sad es the
ease bad then been sent by his Medd* by huhr at »quest
to this court, these were preseedrae ia esatraation of the
original, and were not a new salt, so that they were not
barred by the statute.
The court took tints to consider the point.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—ELtruiroAL
Bloom Ma. Otemanoun Clociaiss.
lit Re Burr.

adjourned rad ti This was the insmuna on meeting in the
ease of Edward Butt, lseeman, of Edgware-rood. He
owed to unsecured etediton, 1,6161., sad estimated his
wets at 5261. He had began with a capital of 2711. ea the
72nd of October, 1850: the profits had been 7261.; losses,
5321. ; trade ezpsases, 6111.; larankrmariag sad perms'
ditto, 1.0231.
Mr. Reed opposed foe the melgoses, and *masked the
bankrupt u to the items in his aesecust. He admitted
having incurred a considerable less by hewed sake of made-
up goods," and having gone oa maim purchases from his
erotan. _ _

attpbtorted the bssim
miflL nomd f„ the
The bankrupt pared, all quantubuns
cartiticata meeting.

LNSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.--BATVMDAT.
"mos Ma. flionismosa P. sues.
111 TIM Xenia or ROallaT P. PITTIOIIW.—A BCIIIII
Ix COWL!.
This insolvent, a tailor, applied to be disbargod on bail
till his hearing, and a sin owswell wYi as .d a wawa-
Coo in court. One ot he pospossid aaauYm was Gana
Holyoake, described as a lessimellor, eaNher, lad Wits, of
Woburn-buildings, Tsvilishaquam. Thom was NM ob-
jection to taking tho oath as required, sad des party
wished the following remarks to his road to Mr. Gammis.
&ions Phillips .
" This geoileman wishes to state to pour Him that
upon a lat. occasion, whoa ealhd apes to make Mb is a
Chancery suit, he, before being swam, chili per.
minim of the judge; to declass that while thresh vas
legally binding on his ecoseiews, it was not apeerles
of his faith, sad he prays ham to make the NM dialladw
lion now."
Mr. Commission's Phillips asked him what hs mess" by
the paper Put read. Did he mesa that by it not has a
profusion of his faith that it was not oa tho faith of a 1
Christian ?
Holyoake--Yos.
Mr. Commissioner Phillip—l hlak so. Pray what do
you call yourself ?
Holyoake—A secularist."
Mr. Commissioner Phillips asked hits what ho meant by
the term " secularist ?"
Holysake said it meant ass who gave the preference to
the Wiles of this
Mr. Commissioner Phillips was not gelid with the
answer. He had pot himself forward as one of the bail,
and demurred to the oath. Do you (domaaded the learned
commissioner) believe in a God
Holyoake—l am not prepared to my.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips indignantly declared that he
would not hear him. Not prepared to my (remarked the
commissioner) whether you believe in a God ! You pet
yourself forward in a court of justice, and bring scandal
loss it by saying that you are not prepared to my whether
you believe in the Deity ! Go and attend to your " tem.
ler" Whams.
Holyoke who had some days previously sworn an affi-
davit of bail, stood down and made hi. way out of coon.
The insolvent wont back to prison.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION-ROUSE.
Joints Bagnell, an omnibus conductor, war charged with
having permeated a policeman.
William., a City policeman, in plain clothes, said—l saw
the defendant yesterday morning pushing the people about
es he walked along, and be war particularly rtugh In his
conduct to some females. I said to him, "If I were you I
would not knock them about in that way." He said, "Do
you know who lem f lem a police.constable." I said,
"If you are, you ought not to act in that way." He amid,
" llyou don't mind, I'll take you to the station-house,"
and be collared me. I told him there was no occasion for
that, for I was myself a polieweonstable and would go along
with him. Whea we came to the top of Bow-lane, he
said he would show me his authority, and he struck me a
violent blow on the noes. I then took him Into curody.
Sir R. W. Carden—lt is very well for you that the
policeman has not charged you with the arm& es well as
the aet of personating a constable. If he had, year punish-
ment should be one which you would have mom to remem-
ber. As it ir, you are fined 40e., or must go to prison fur
21 days.
OUILDH LL.
Alfred Grouesitt wee charged with Mean SS sore
reigns, aa4 • large quantity of voluble progeny, adage. 7
to Messrs. Tapirs and Co., carpet wandesteem .ed W
street, Checpside, his employers. This camhas is.
mended, the Alderman wishing to molder bow tor • pro-
mime held out to the prisoner would agent am seams
aubeequen•ly obtained, and whether his esmOrmish shim
such cirsumstance., could be received.
Alderman Farebrother said he could not ilmidt Ms ease
without expressing his reret with regard to dm Oendoct of
the pawnbroker, in taking goods in pledge helms than
cee.third of choir wholesale value, and atoms& percher
in the same description of property for aloe vas-half its
value, and that, too, of a mere youth, WM beg NM two
ditrrrent names and two different addresses; no irguiriee
being made, no bill of parcels given, sada* troo=„01;
4 ' nor, in fart, any thing to show the natanoof tbo
beyond the witness's depositioa. He semi wiry well under-
stand how the matter stood. The pawnbroker, having got
the prisoner in his power, iart‘ed sggiling him Into cue- ,
' Mdy, availed himself of It,mid, by esoldigto motet of the
mafortanatr youth, a "Mom sfvoWmip la ern.
ployme, which, bat fror ascii aboomeMes, would be
Miss of. With regard to the psfsease. the avidness was
mastasive se to his guilt ; and Arad therefrom, some
le the determisatioa to commit him Om cad Ism it
' he • so Amide as Milo ant of premise
I theimp prism/es Wed whR• waking immissism.
BOW-STREET.
Avis, undertaker, of 47, High-street, Giles's,
r was charged upon a summon,, with having made a false
statement to the district registrar of Bt. Olin's, relative to
the death of Diana Tees drake Avis.
Mr. O. flinipsoa, surgeon, end registry of deaths he the