The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-20 00:00:00

ANTIS OF AN AOREEMENT FOIL A LEASE.

The Vice-Chancellor gave Judgment in this case, which
way argued ou Saturday. The claim was filed for specific
performance of an agreement fur a lease of a house in
lluundssliteh, in which a baker's business was carried on.
The ficgotiations for the lease were transacted chiefly be-
tween house agents on the part of the plaintiff and defen-
dant, and un agreement was entered into for a lease, which
the defendant subsequently refused to grant, on the ground
that has agent had no authority to 'auction certain altera-
tions being made without which the plaintiff would not take
the house, and principally as to the rsmoval of an oven.
Mr. Rogers supported the claim, and Mr. Tripp opposed
fur the defendant.

llis Honour commented at great length upon the evi-
dence and correspondence between the parties, and said he
did not think a general authority to a hou•e•agent to let
authorise.' him to enter into any agreement fur the owner
of the house. Upon the evidence in this cast he was of
opinion that the defendant was not bound by the agree-
ment, and the claim must be dismissed.
SEWELL O. MIXT.—ADMINIsTRATIoN OP AN ESTATE HT

CLAIM.
The plaintiff in this ease, Mrs. Sewell, was the voluntary
assignee of a debt due from the estate of a testator named
Stalwood to Mr. Sounder,. Mrs. Saunders was the exe-
cutrix of her husband, and she aaiiiguell the debt to the
plaintiff without consideration. The plaintiff tiled this
claim fir udininistrution of the estate of Stalwood, making
Mrs. Saunders a defendant. Mrs. Saunders did nut dis-
pute the assignment.
Mr. Stuart, Mr. Pole, and Mr. Oiffard, appeared for
the different parties.
The Vice-Chancellor decided that as the assignment wan
voluntary, the plaintiff could not enforce it against Mrs.
Saunders, and consequently it did not constitute her a
creditor on the estate of Stalwood, and therefore that she
could not maintain a creditor** suit, for the administration
of Stalwood's estate.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YestekDAy.
Nrmses BAxcv.--SioN2pg IA LU CAMPIikLI, Ma. Avant PArrmic

Moo ii..1I;;WIIoolvolsi.z.
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMVANy
V. REDVIDID.-RATINU THE ECOTON STATION Ti TOE
RELIEF or THE PooIL

Mr. l'ashley moved for a rule on behalf of the above com-
pany to show cause why all proceedings should not be stayed
in an action of replevin now pending between the company
and the parish of St. Pancras. It appeared that a local act
of .59 Gee. 111., cap. 39, empowered the vestry of the parish
to make rates, hear objections to them, and adjudicate upon
three objections. On the 16th of March, 18.10, a rate, irre-
gular only ss to quantum, was made upon the company in
respect of the station and other property in the parish occu-
pied by them. Tho station was rated at 26,000 h, and the
company expressed an intention of appealing in vestry
against the rate under the statute. The vestry, feeling
themselves incompetent to deal with the matter, sug-
gested a reference of the question to a third
party, which wee assented to by the company,
who offered every information, and also submitted
to the vestry the names of three gentlemen of the bar,
of high standing, one of whom was appointed arbitra-
tar, who was to a ttle the present point in dispute, and all
others which might afterwards arise. The agreement
come to between the parties contained this clause :—" It is
agreed that the award of the arbitrator, in reference to the
said assessment of the 26th of March, shall regulate the
assessment of any future rates that may be made by the
parish up to the date of such award, and all payments
made by the said company in respect of such future rates
shall be treated and considered as payments on account, in
the same wanner as the payment already made in respect
of the present rate." The award was made in April last,
and reduced the rateable value of the property to 15,1101.
Before the making of the award, the company had paid
400/. in excess of the rate, for which, according to the
agreement, they ought to have seen credited. The parish
chose to dispute the award, and obtained a distress war-
rant from a magistrate for the amount of rata alleged to be
due, seized some carriages belonging to the company, who
then replevied, and the action was commenced. The
award was disputed only upon the general ground that,
according to a decision in the Court of Exchequer in
" Thorp r. Cole" (2 Crompton, IMicein, and Roscoe),
parish officers had no power to refer an appeal against a
poor rate to arbitration.
Lord Campbell said that if the learned counsel's state-
ment were true, this was a proceeding contrary to good
faith and honesty, because the pariah ought to have given
credit for the payments down to the date of the award.
Rule nisi granted.
:".,TA ELKTON O. CROFT.-A Wirer' EVIDENCE.
Mr. Ilumfrey said that this ease was tried a few days
ago before Mr. Justice Erie, when a verdict was found fur
the defendant. He had now to move for a rule fur 14 new
trial, on the ground that the learned judge had admitted
the defendant's wife to give evidence in support of his ease,
without the consent of the other side.

Lord Campbell said the court must see what the law was.
Ile had a strong opinion of what it ought to be. If a wife
were admitted as a witness to prove anything which had
nut been communicated to her confidentially, it might
operate beneficially.
Mr. Ilumfrey said the practice must be settled, as it was
now ,:enstaittl) occurring at nisi prius.
Rule

BAIL COURT.—YESTERDAT.
Sternum to &NM—limas Ma. hence Elle.
Ex PAKTE —.-11411KAII COMPLIO.
Mr. Phipson moved for a writ of habeas corpus against a
gentleman (whose name did not transpire, but which was
to the affidavit) compelling him to bring up a lady who was
living in his house, and who was his niece, and whom he
had, against her will, deprived of liberty. It appeared
that the lady in question had resided in Northamptonshire
up to February, 1851, and was 43 years of age. The gen-
tleman making this application was engaged to be married
to her in July, 1850 ; but the match was opposed by her
friends, and she was finally placed, in February, It tl, in
her uncle's house, and there kept against her will, on the
pretest that she was of unsound mind. Iler uncle's house
was not a place properly licensed far the reception of
lunatics, and he was believed to be profiting by the
detention. The lady warn not allowed to walk abroad, the
wiaduas of her room were fastened and the doors of the
house locked. The gentleman who was to have been mar-
ried toner had convened with her through the closed window,
sod ale hail repeatedly bemired of him to see an attorney
tis take the necessary steps for her liberation. A former
servant in the house also stated that the lady was detained
against her will. These circumstances, and the uncle 's
house not being licensed, rendered it proper that the state
of the lady's mind should be inquired into.
Mr. Justice Ede said his mind only paused on the most
convenient course to be adopted. the better way would
perhaps be to grant a rule—the lady need not actually be
brought into court, but might be near, in case her pre•
seam was required.—Rule granted.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YrArrEaDAy.
hairs o.—Harass Caur JulTes Jumcs

M• t LT. Ma. J mint t wiLI, ANNW2: Jump CilLua
ltC WILLIAM COBRITT.—APPLICATION FOR A ROLM
mg A IiAFFAS CORPUN.

Mrs. Cobbett again appeared in this matter, and applied
to the court for a rule to show cause why a writ of habeas
corpus should nut issue to bring up Mr. Cobbett. The
ground staled to the court wax that the keeper of the
Queen's l'rison had no warrant of commitment.
The Chief Justice said the affidavit contained no mate-
rials far the present application.
Rule refused.

SHERIFFS COU RT.--JAN unity 16.
Harms NA AvAsta. OURNIT.
TRAY, GLAINTRIt, AND Co. AGAINAT J. B. Tower.—lstroa.
TART To 8111POWARI11.
This action was brought by plaintiffs, who are merchants
in London and also in Bydney, inst the defendant, who
is the owner of a vessel called the Royal Stuart, to recover a
sum of money for broach of coatract.