The Express.
London, England, 1855-06-01 00:00:00

Kab3 3intelltsence.

-
SUMMER CIRCUITS FOR THE JUDGES, 1&545.
Yesterday the Judges et ties several Omuta of Qom's Bench, (haw
ma nes% sad lisehataer aseecabled In the tectearcer Cb.m►r,
Westminster RAU. lee the ;wpm cd the several circuits
IV= whisk UN* win rahrestlvely ironed to d the tundra/ !UM,
am metals la sad far the &threat acetifies of land
and Wales,
whoa the toilowlig arrampossts wen agreed to :

- - -
SOUTH WALES AND CHESTER CIRCUIT.
The Lord Chief Justice at the Court et Qeeenh Bomb, whl wog
the Lord CWef Jurfee of t►e Court of Cam= Pleas, et Cbeeter As.
dem to by held at Cardiff, Haverfordwett, Cardigan, Carmarthen.
Steen, Ptestelse, and Chester.

NORTH WALES AND MESTER CIRCUIT.
The Lord Chief Jostles of the Court of Common Plea., who meet*
the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Doeen's teeth, at Chester As.
else; to be hdd at Newtown, Welly, Carnarvon, Peaamarta, Rs.
thin, Mold, and Cluster.
OXFORD CIRCUIT.

The Lord atIM Baron of the Court of Exeheque•, end the Hon.
Mr. Janice Erle—Asalzes to be held at Abingdon, Oxford, Woemoteri,
Stafford, Shrewsbury, Ilerefwd, Monmouth, and CSokerster.

NOttIrOLIC CIRCUIT.

The floe. Mr. BaroiiP;;lZS—r—oxi the Boa Mr. Baron Alderson--
Matzo to be held at Aylesbury. Bedford, Huntingdon, Cambridge,
Ipswich, Norwich, and the City of Norwich.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.

The Roe. Mr. ladles Coleridge and the lion. Mr. 3natioe kfaule—
Ageism to ha held at Northampton, Oakbam, Liatoln, Nottuigharn,
Derby, Leicester. Coventry, and Warwick.

.7:----1111111112 HOME CIRCUIT.
Tb7"flon. Mr. Justine Wightmau and the Hoe. Mr. Justice Cress.
well—fireices is be held at Hertford, Chelmsford, Maldatono„ Lewes,
and Croydon.
-.-_..._

WMTERN CIRCUIT.

The Mu. Mr. Justice Williams and the Hoe. Mr. Justice Crowder
—keine to be held at Winchester. Devises, Dorchester, Exeter, Bo&
rein, Bridgewater, and Bristol City.

NORTHEILN CIRCUIT.
The Hoe. Mr. Baron Platt and the Hos. Mr. Jue'lce Crowder
Arises to be held at Innesstec, Appleby. Carlisle, Newcastle, Durham.
Took. end Liverpool.
In Town—The Hen. Mr. Bunn Martin.

EQUITY COURTS.-MAT 31.
■ Mai • ICR. C NAMCILLOI6 111 a. IPTIMAT.
CAMPBELL V. HOOPER.

This wu a bill for an ordinary foreclosure decree upon the
ease as stated by the plaintiff. The demece wu, that the
mortgege was made by a lunatic, who had since been so
found by inquisition ; that the plaintiff had notice of the
lunacy when he advanced his money ; and it wee submitted
on the part of the defendants that the plaintiff woe not entitled
to the oroinary decree, but that the court, following the
mune adopted by the Lord Justices in " Jacobs v.
Richards" (18, Braun, p. 300), in the note, would retain
the bill for a year, giving ►iberty to the plaintiff to bring such
ection übe may be advised, and if he did not succeed

within that time that the frill might be dismissed. The
money was advanced by the plaintiff to Mrs Cumming, and
the mortgage was executed by her after proceedings had
been taken to establish her lunacy under the usual commis-
sion for that purpose. Those proceedings were the subject
of very lengthened discussion and great expense, and were
before the public on various occasions. The question now
discussed was simply this, whether, where money was bon&
Bile advanced by a mortgagee without notice of the incom-
petency of the mortgagor, upon a mortgage security given to
him, he should have the benefit of his mortgage security
upon a suit for foreclosure or not.
Mr. Matins and Mr. Taylor were for the plaintiff; Mr.
Bacon and Mr. Morris for the principal defendants, the per-
sonal representatives of Mrs.Cumming ; and Mr. Burfon for
another oefendant, interested in Mrs. Cumming's estate.
The Vice• Chancellor laid he did not understand that the
simple finding of lunacy should deprive the mortgagee of
all equitable relief, and upon the authority of several cues
to which his honour referred he thought there was no
reason why this court should rot administer the equity be-
tween the parties, and interfere for the purpose of putting
them into their former position. He thought that there
must have been some misapprehension in the case of " Jacobs
v. Richards" of the view taken by the Lords Justices, of
which a very imperfect note was before him ; and acting on
what he considered to be the general practice of the court, he
thought that the insanity of a mortgagor, of whom no ad-
vantage had been taken, did not invalidate the transaction,
and the decree be should make would be in the common
form for foreclosure.