The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-26 00:00:00

opinions delivered by them in the court below—namely,
that the rate was valid, and that prohibition would not lie.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, who gave on elaborate opinion,
chiefly devoted to abstract reasoning on the question, took
the same view.
Mr. Baron Parke said he had given his opinion so elabo.
?Wyly in the court lx!otet that Le need do uo more now
than state that he thought the rate valid, and that prohibi•
lion would lie.
Mr. Baron Alderson who was now present but had not
heard the argument at the bar gave no opinion. Ills
lordship, however, was one of the majority in the court
below.
Lord Truro said in consequence of the great difference
of opinion amongst the kilned judges it would be necessary
that the house should have further time to consider.the
question. Ile therefore moved that the opinion given by
the judges be printed, and that the house adjourn the con-
sideration of the question.
This was Retied to.
The state of opinion of the learned judges stands thus:—
Holding the validity of the rate.—ln the Queen's Bench,
Chief Justice Lord Denman, Justices Patteson, Coleridge,
and Wightman. In the Exchequer Chamber, Baron Platt,
Justices Cresswell and Monte, and Baron Alderson; opi-
nion now fur the first time delivered, Justice Talfourd—th
Holding the in•ulidity of the rate.—ln the Exchequer
Chamber, Barons Rolfe and Parke, and Chief Justice
Wilde ; opinions now for the first time delivered, Justice
Crompton, Baron Martin, Justices Williams and Erle-7.
ELWCLL r. TUE EIRMINWIAII CANAL NA7IOA7ION.
The argument in this writ of error from the Exchequer
Chamber was not concluded when the house adjourned.

EQUITY COURTS.-YESTERDAT.
Isamu Vlcs.ram.etunasin Clineos rum=
rowitie, TRIM.

This was a petition fOtpisyusent-of money out of court,
which bad been paid in under the Trustee Act. The only
point in the MAD was, whether an annuitant, whose an-
nuity was secured upon a reversionary interest, and the
payments of which had fallen into array, was entitled to
interest upon those arrears. The tam was argued some
time back, but judgment was rewreed on this point.
His Honour now gave judgment, and after staring the'
I facts, said he WWI of opinion that interest could Lot be re-
coveted. He thought the question was concluded by the
eases which had been decided upon the subject. It had
been attempted to argue the question ss resting upon the
statute 3& 4 William IV., c. 28. But he did not consider
that that statute touched the question. The other eases
which had been cited, and in which interest had been
allowed, were all cases in which some special circumstances
were involved.

Bosoms Vi

Knomitotrr.

IN RE THE. WOLVERHAMPTON, CHEATER, MU) 1311LKER-
HEAP RAILWAY COMPANY Ex PARTE %MERU.-

CONTRIRCTORY PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMAN,
The Vice Chancellor delivered judgment in this cue,
which was argued on the 26th of March, and said that it
came before him by way of appeal against the decision of
the Master excluding the name of Mr. Roberti from the
list of contributories to the above company. It had been
argued that this case came within the princip:c of tpfill's
cue, Mr. Roberts having been a member of the provisional
committee, and having agreed to take shares. That ho was
such member was not disputed, and his acceptance of shares
was said to have been established on these graziers, namely,
that he had signed the memorandum under the Registry Act,
agreeing to take one or IROTO shares ; that there was an allot-
ment and that he had paid a deposit. Some payment was mai@
by Mr. Roberts without doubt, but it was side to have
been only to get rid of legal liability. Upfill's case de-
cided (as his Honour understood it) that although a mere
provisional committeeman or any ono taking Aare, in a
company which foiled was not liable, yet, if a provisional
committeeman age. ed to take shares when elicited, that
was binding as between him and those endeavouring to
form the company. There must be Anal and conclusive
acceptance and allotment. Lord Cranworth's view in Car-
rick's and Carmichael's case was that in which he (the
Vice• Chancellor) concurred, but he would go as further.
In October, 1845, Mr. Roberts applied to be put in the list
of provisional committeemen, and was to placed. Revolu-
tions were then passed that each member of the Provisional
committee should be entitled to 100 shares, 25 to be • quell-
ficatien. Mr. Roberts filled up a form sent to his to take
100 shares, and agreed to accept them and to sign the sub-
scribers' agreement and parliamentary contract when re-
quested to do so, and added • postscript request-
ing that he might hear again. In pursuince of
other resolutions, Mr. Roberts was then requested to
take up and pay for 25 shares, but he made no reply to that,
but in answer to another letter, requesting him to ?ay 1051.
to protect himself from all further claim• by creditors, he
paid the 1051., and could it be said that he did PO as a de-
posit for 25 shares ? Certainly not. The postenet to his
first letter showed he considered the matter as not con-
cluded, and there having been no allotment, and :t having
decided in "Carrick's" save, and in " Carmichael's" case,
that the signing the memorandum under the rnistry act
constituted no liability, the appeal must be disemissed, the
case not coming within tipfill's" ease. The cots to be
paid out of the estate.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—ThrreaDAT.

Sr mies Arm MINITT Taal INWINITIUNSTII AT NM PUTS.—
Damn nag lanai's, DAWN AND Liu:lac hams
•

BILLAMTT. lilMomeA74is.LTDlitATLlTca—o.LlEDEtii,avrat.
Bir A. E. Cockburn, Mr. Bramwell, and Mr. Unthank
for plaintiff ; Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Serjeant Channell for
defendant. . . .

This was a new trial. The action was brought to recover
the sum of 2,6961. 175., the amount of a ilouh!c-erossed
cheque, alleged to have been negligently anti improperly
paid by Messrs. Conte and Co., of which firm the defendant
was • partner, contrary to a custom and usage of bankers,
alleged in one count of th, declaration, in virtue of which,
as was alleged in another count, a duty was cast upon the
bank of exercising great care and caution before paying it.
The caution was travened by one plea and the duty upon it
denied by another, which were the issues to be tried. A
verdict for the plaintiff had been recorded at the former
trial, when the fact, and evidence of merchants and bankers
as to the alleged custom, were reported at length In the
Eareu.
veral merchants and bankers were examined to-day,
but their evidence was simi ur to that given on a former
occasion. _ . .

This closed the case for the plaintiff, whoa
Sir F. Thesiger addressed the jury for the defendant, after
which the court rose, the evidence for the defendant being
deferred till to-morrow.

THE POLICE COURTS.

Mr. William Ayerst, • lilatiiiii:anufacturer, carrying
on business at No. 7, Hobert-place, St. George's New.
town, charged James nom= Lee, a constable belonging
to the L division of police, with assaulting him.
The facts, as well as they could be collected from the
evidence of the contending parties, were these :—On Mon.
pay evening last a meeting of the friends and supporters of
Mr. Harvey, the new candidate for the representation of
the borough of Lambeth in parliament, wasappointed to
take place at the Ho.ns Tavern, Kennington-cross, at
which the candidate was to make a declaration of his
political:principles, and the electors were invited to hear
him and ask him such questions as they might consider ne-
cessary. Oa this invitation several of the electors, who have
, been sad are the strenuous supporters of Messrs. D'Eyn-
courtl and Williams, made their appearance at the meeting,
the complaisant emengst the number. Mr. Taylor, one of the
churchwardens of the parish of Lambeth, took the chair,
and comeneseed addreselog the meeting; but in a tew
minutes after Mr. Harvey entered the room, and three
cheers were called for him. The call was responded te, and
before the applause had subsided the complainant, Mr.
Ayerst, in a stentorian voice, called nut for three cheers
for D'Eyncourt and Williams. This call was also responded
to with more fervour, as the partisans of the latter gentle-
, men assert, than the former, while the friends of Mr. Ilar•
vey declare the direct contrary. But, at all events, the
circumstance gave rise to so much disturbance that the
chairman, supported, it was said, by a majority of the meet-
lag, called on the defendant Lee to remove Mr. Ayers', and
he was by force expelled from the room of meeting.
The complainant said that he had been seised by the
collar and unmercifully lugged out of the meeting by a
person who he believed to be the defendant. It was not
his wish, however, to punish him, or to do him any harm.
All he wished to eatablish was, that he had no right to in-
terfere in the manner he had done, or treat an elector at a
borough meeting with insult and violence.
Mr. Parry—l feel assured that had you acted as a gentle-
man, you would have been treated in a gentlemanly manner.
Mr. Parry— Now, Mr. Ay..nt, I wish to ask you did you
go to the meeting in your present dress—with your leather
apron on
Mr. Ayent—Yes; with my leather apron on.
Mr. Parry—Had you the apron placed over your head to
give you a more conspicuous appearance ?
Mr. Ayorst—No ; I had not.
Mr. Parry—Lid you use any offensive language to the
chairman, Mr. Taylor ?
, Mr. Ayers;—No ; I did not use offensive language to any
Zone_

Mr. Parry—Did you not call him a snob ?
Mr: Ayerst--Certainly not, for I felt that I was a snob

myself. (Loud laughter.) -- --
Mr. Parry—Did you see Mr. Harvey at the meciing ?
Witness—l did.
Mr. Parry—And beard him make a speech?
Witness—No; not make a speech, but read (Re-
newed laughter.)
In conclusion, the witness denied havinguscd any abusive
or improper language towards Mr. Harvey.
Several witnesses were called by the complainant, all of
whom said that the complainant had been treated with on-
' necessary harshness iu being expelled from the meeting,
but admitted that the constable had acted under the direc-
tions of the chairman. All the witnesses so Galled ad-
mitted to be in the interest of Messrs. Williams and D'Eyn-
court.
For the defence an equal number of witnesses were
called, all of whom deposed that it was their opinion that
the complainant had atter.ded the meeting for the sole pur-
pose of disturbing it, and that his conduct was most noisy;
so much so, that his expulsion was absolutely necessary,
and that his removal was at the desire and earnest request
of a large majority of the meeting. Some of the witnesses
also spoke of the complainant as a very excitcable person.
Another witness described the complainant as such an en-
thusiastic patron of Mr. D'Eyncourt, that at the recent
meeting he told the electors that if they wanted a muff they
must go to Lambeth-house.
Mr. Party addressed the magistrate on behalf of the de-
fendant after which,
Mr. Norton observed that the defendant in the present
case was placed in a very difficult position, and