The Express.
London, England, 1855-03-12 00:00:00

NIMBI INS WAITER OW TIM MU&

------ -
This nee first cams before the court about • year ego,
and had reference to a sum of 12,0001. stock, which was
left by the testator in the cause to • lady for life, after her
death to her children, and, iu ease she had no children,
to the nouns of a charity, called the 0 Nees' Institu-
tion. The lady who was tenant for if. haviog no childna,
an application was made by the trustees of the charity to
have the fund secured, to which application exceptions
mere alp's, on the ground that the executors of the will of
the testator were alone made parties to it, and not the lady
who wee tenant for life. The court had on that occa-
sion decided that it was not necessary to make the tenant
for life • party, and the costs of the then proceedings were
Wrested to be paid out of the coypu of the 12,00 W. stock,
the *feet of which wile that the income of the tenant for life
was dammed by abourillt 10a. a year. The tenant
for life, Going herself aggrieved at this renbeetisa, filed •
Maim against the theentore.to make them recoup her her low,
and the executors, in order to save farther expense, agreed
to mane her an allowance in that respect, whisk snowman
eke, however, refund to accept, velem they paid ell sorts.
Oa their reusing to do so, sae proceeded to presesate her
claim against them.
ilia Honour, in glviegjadgment ea the ease to-day, said
that it was very painful to see parties andlemly involving
themselves la law disputes, and challenging a Imeadea el
ezpense, which, lad they. beet properly advised, they ea&
most seeuredly have avowed. The eons of the i
applioatioe to this court mast .f necessity be veld estlatht
opeeifie fund in question, and the ezecaton, in paylsir
them
Out of that fund, had merely obeyed, as they were bound to
de, the order of the court. They could not be made to Naar
for so doing, and the present claim most thenfon be die-
aimed with cost&
Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Selwyn, and Mr. H. Clark appeared in
the we.

MOGI lIIIIMIAMIDADI ILIVOUAILST.
DAVIS V. osuurroz. - -

This case was argued some rims mines before his Honour,
sum which occasion it was roperted in the Do* New. I
The facts upon which the question at hese ones ere es i
Wow :—Rdward Snell, the testator is the muse, is 1765, 1
by • will, attested only by two witasemse, left eertain
property in Devonshire to trustees upon trust for his sou,
John &nil, for the rest, residue, sod remainder of his tent
and ietereet therein, or for so math thereof assegai elapse
in the lifetime of his said sum John, with • einasisdee is
favour of his son John's Uwe, if mu ; esti if sow, tbs. the
testator gave the property in quakes to hie sea William
absolutely. John Snell died without issue, mad William
succeeded, and died in 1800, having, by his last
will, dated 1799, without noticing this property,
given the residue of his estates to his widow; who, by
nor will, dated 1821, gays the residue of her property to the
plaintiff, then • Miss Snell. William Snell had five
children—William, John, Edward (who died before 1826),
Thomas (since deceased), and • Mrs. Plymisell. A question
bad arisen whether the Devonshire property wee free-
hold or leasehold. If the former, it wee suggested that the
testator's (Edward Soon) will Wag ezeentad by only two
witauses, when three were requisite, he must be taken to
hays died intestate ea to the estates, and that they passed to
his heir.atlaw, and wine vested in William Sash, one of
the defendants; if the latter, that they passed by the will,
and the plaintiff took them under the residuary bequest
to her in the will of Mary Snell. A deed was executed
in 1826, which treated the property as freehold, and
arranged for the division of it between the plaintiff sad the
other fear surviving children of W. Buell. The plaintiff
now alleged that she was induced to aelmieses is this deed
by the representations of Jobe, and William &tell, hie
brother; and that she was, when she executed it, under a
misapprehension of her right. She therefore prayed that
the deed might be set aside.
The Vice-Chancellor, in delivering judgment, now said
he thought that from the manner in which the original
testator had dealt with this property, taken in connection
with the other cticumetamon of the case, it mast be con-
sidered that it wee leasehold. That point settled, there
neat grins for consideration a question with regard to the
deed of 1826. This had been represented as a family
arrangement, but after attentivelconsidering the matter,
the court mid not look upon it In that light. This being
so, his Honour did not think that the plaintiff, a married
woman, Gould be considered as bound by that deed, and It
must therefore be declared void.

°DUET OF

.-.-MARCH 10.

smashed Met nosy seas by their dierimposno busteent,
bet is Ms ease it arose frees misisetoses wet whisk
ieseivese bat se 'ems&
Ossmiesioaer esteetabsol the Si.* view, bss, tame.
mush as those was • debt IS ParNewest* es wee, he •
Wm. be amid me WIN a day the WI seam lb,
boteever, r ft wee • ens et altigetiest, Sad tbe Mae was
hmened fee poor sae. who bed bees sedemod by dime%
we punk• as ',Oath* to be Rai is ibleisi isms
SW he • rieisaliiir aim /Ir. Dunn sew mask sad
reolseed do sweet el the aso.
Kr. Csarstegeose at owe greeted Ka applies.
sad • &dog was oppdsesd ter • peolootiai older to
be putted.

sr SP =MUM P. A.II7SDIZ.L.—A LOO 111211110=11311.
This tannest, who lad been surly Ave peon in prism,
ens te be heard. and Yr. Bargood appestat to oppose for
Mr. Monism, el the well-known Sea of Mont... end
Dillon, in the City.
The insolvent, ea attorney, did net appear, and It was
stated that*, want of hada was the reason.
Mr. Suing said the insolvent had Use men ems is..
years In edam. sad as he had incurred el Ohs empires
Alta; his eshabda, the reason stated nail set b• the
motive. The leal stated sons dreponannen
ocentioted with thened debtm a usswieng by the sassiest ,11r
Morrison.
Mr. Cannthidoner the
t, teens Mei
could not be the consist wed neemannilat the leseh
vines attorney, who was in Is it hi diet
be bed better COM• Up to be gibe Est *lli Napa
all his life in prison. Be bad eine* ban neatly Ave pleas
in oontinensent.
The ease was struck out el lb. $B4.
11•11111 P. Rimurse.--sagesenr• To • " sowniti

CLUL'•

-----
The defendaat was eueneaoned under the Small Debt,
Let for 41. lls. debt, and " twelve pounds sixteen shillings "
law costs in riling a judgment. The debt was for clothes
connected with a.. Boating Club " at Chelsea, of which the
defendant was smeary, and the plaintiff was preferred as
the tailor on account of his It. There was a balance of
41. Ile., and ea action wee brought in cam of the superior
courts, as Martin lived at Orford.
Mr. Comatiseioner Phillips said it was a miserable COM of
41. 1 tr. debt and 121. 11.. costs
The plaiatiff now attended from Oxford, and complained
of the expense he had been put to in coming all the tray to
support hist:Wm.
The defendant offered to pay the debt and costs at 11. a,
mama.
A long inquiry took plane, toad Mr. Commissioner Phillips
asked the defendant the object of the " Boating Club," on
which he mid it was for " exercise."
Mr. Commissioner Phillips thought he might have taken
exercise by walking instead of belonging! to a " Boating
Club."
Ultimately the plaintiff agreed to take 11. a month, and
the defendant was informed that in default of payment he
would be committed.

CITY SHERIFF'S COURT.—MARcIi 10.
WWI ZIABILLL OVIUIST, NM, S.C.
NUMMIIT C. Till 11103111 COONTIIis 88888 OLD LAND
BOCIBTT. LIU TO D/001111011 IN BUILDING
BOCITILIS.
Is this ease, which was reported in the De* News a
short time doe, an application was made for h now trial,
en the ono' that the court bed ass ladeditaila es try the
ease. The Oh were thess:—The hod boom a
subscriber to the misty, bat Wei dbillisiM with bis
matment, kid gee this soulite IMO s.l_ the ohs lo
withdraw kis sabsestede" bat Mot bake ne hale In
load, and as the seerieley it *s emus* was Dot areit
le Mow bow the moo oohed MI bees emai his
Meow arse talgoest for the aseisall Maimed. It was
mar esaireafiediK4 oder the oho, avy Mamas* or die-
puts wee, ytbe rake, to be settled by seldhatioa, and that
if arbitrations was not resorted to, that the matter mot be
referred be a magistrate, in the same manner as under the
set ter the vegslatioa of benefit societies, as the rates had
bees .renamed by M. I.T. Pratt. The defendant, in re-
ply. mid this the mei* had over appointed arbitrators,
awl slow= no dsuee by which they could be sompallimi
to do es t forther, that them societies did net ones
Within die hiseription albssfit societies, and therehre the
::iistratise weld net aside the gewgaw. He ales so-
thee the preemie ease was sot a " aquae er dif-
fesseme as the seeetwe at dm money was admitted, and
the de on the repayment was NON.
His Honor said le lad referred to several eases, and
bad no doubt as to the *bastion of the court, for no
other remedy Tani dopes the shareholders than by an
action at law ; therdsue Iyd net ass any gamed for dis-
turbing the judgment.
SOUTH-WWITIBIN 2AILWALT COMPANY V. OVDX-110.011-
TMIT DICIIION TO RaILWAT EXCOUIORISTS.
The &feudist is a eolisitor in George-yard, Lombard-
street, sad the ;South-Western Railway Company sought
to maw tibia the differenos of fare from dost, be
Wale. end Guildford. The question involved in
tbe ease wee tb• right of the company to charge a larger
fare for • shorter distance than a longer one.
Mr. Bellhatins appeared for the company. Guildford
burlap • esesad line (the Scuth-Rastern) from town, the
South Western Company, in order to wore as large a
'share of waft as possible, are in the habit of issuing on
Saturdays astern tickets at the Waterloo-station to that
tows at the rats of to. The defendant has • residence I. the
seighbearbesd of Woking.station, and the return tare to
that pleas being 61., although five or six miles soarer
Leedom, he took a 6s. ticket to Guildford, and on reaching
Woking left the train. The difference in the fare, Is., was
sad refused, and a plaint was issued at court
Ose the roomy of the soot. A verdict was entered for
the iellawiest, end, is osaseqesnee of what was suggested
by the eon, fa ease to render the contract clear and &a-
llot, the words, *1 Available only at stations named
'Mason—Wabwise sad Guildford,' were endorsed upon the
beck of the Whets. The defendant on three occasions took
Guildford tickets with that condition exhibited sou them,
and got oat at Woking. and it was for the different* of fare
that the action was brought. The defendant submitted that
he bad a perfect right to leave the train short of any dis-
tance that he had paid far, notwithstanding the words upon
the ticket.
illllr. Salentine contended that the defendant was boned
by the ticket to go to Guildford, and teat if he got oat at
any place short of that distance, he was liable for the faro
which was fixed for that particular station. The company
hedonism* for issuing di. return tickets to Guildford; but
the same did not prevail for Woling=th the le
of the latter place had no grew et & edosiMlig
that the fare was lower than ibe INNOpei MI int bus
authorised to charge by the estetpulknost.
His Hisecier, in giving said, that It 111111.441 to
him that there was nothing algal in the charts. n • set
of parliament specified that the company shoubl aN doge
more than • certain amount per mile, est Se tare to
Woking cis qp within the rata. If, therefore, the ishaileat
bad the benefit of the labour of the company, he was bowl
to pay them their charge for it. He would give • oast
(or the difference of the fare, Is. on the three occasions.
Verdict for plaintiffs. Damages, fie.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.