The Express.
London, England, 1862-06-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(11118 DAY.)

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)
rx PARTE ACRANAN IN HZ Tit! PUTIIIMMULL
(COUILLARD'S ?AM(T) rust Cow,Awr —mown.
The appellant was the official liquidator of the above-
named company, and the appeal was from an order
of Mr. Commissioner Hill, allowing as a debt
against the company the claim of Messrs. P
arid Company for the sum of 2,070 t.
Coppear
that in the year 1868 Madame Conillard and o. carried on
the manufacture of the patent fuel at Swansea, and in the
month of October in that year entered into a contract with
Messrs. Pegg tor the Supply of small coal, not lees than 100
tons a day, at 3e. 6d. a too, delivered at the top of the in-
cline into waggons to be provided by Madame Conillard
and Co. ; payment to be made monthly by bills.
The coal was delivered pursuant to the contract
down to the month of February, 1861, when
the above-named company was formed to carry on the Dad-
aism which had been previously carried on by Madame
Couillard and Co. Alter that time the coal was supplied by
Meesrs. Pegg to the company, as they (Mews. Pegg)
alleged, on the terms of the contract, end the bills for pay.
meet were drawn upon and accepted by the com-
pany. • The contract stipulated that it might be
determined on six months' notice, and in the month
of July, 1861, the company by the person neutering to act
as managing director, and also by their solicitor, pve notice
to determine the contract at the expiration of me months.
Messrs. Pegg continued to deliver 100 tons of coal a day at
the top of the incline, but the company
not providing the waggon for removal, it was
stacked by Mews. Pegg in an adjacent field
and notice thereof given to the company. The total quan-
tity so stacked amounted to about 13,800 tons. The stack
of cal subsequently ignited by spontaneous combustion,
and was, to a grad extent, burnt ; and it was in its present
state considered worth only 3d. per ton. The debt allowed
by the commissioner was in respect of a claim by Mara
Peg; for the price of the coal furnished by them as above.
upon the argument of the appeal on the 30th May,
Mr. Halins, Q.C., and Mr. Jewel, in support of the
appeal, contended that the coos y ins not bound by the
contract with Madame and Co.
Willcock, Q. 0., sad Mr. Roxburgh, for Means. Pegg,
insisted that the original contract had been adopted and
acted upon by the company, from the time of its formation
until the notice to dramatise it, given by the company in
July, 1861.
Their lordships, this morales, delivered the decision of
the court, to the effect that there was insufficient evidence
to show either bargain and sale, or delivery of the coal to,
or appropriation thereof by, the company, and that the=
admitted by the commissioner ought to be expunged.
would be no costa of the appeal, but the appellant might
take back the deposit.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
At ACKACRN r. MAMBOSI, TRAFFORD, AND rirriddints.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. Needham for the petitioner ; Mr.
Pritchard for the respondent.
In 18.i0 the petitioner, a gardener at Lincoln, married the
respondent and lived with her for about three years. He
then traced her to • house where be found her in the
act of adultery with the co-respondent Trafford, to whom
be pee • sound thrashing. After this, there was of course
a separation, and she bad sinoe been living with the other
co-respondent, a timber dealer, pasting as his wife, and
having children by him. There were pleas of not guilty and
of connivance, but no evidence was given in support of
them.

The Court nude a decree nisi, with costs against Traf-
ford. As to the question of costs against Pepperdise, his
lordship reserved LW decision.

NO/1111 V. NOREIB.-A LOST MATCH.
Dr. Phißimers, Q.C., and Dr. Spicks, for the petitioner ;
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard, for the respondent.
This was an application fur a judicial separation, on the
of cruelty. The petitioner, who was originally a
ground
sPaviour was the only daughter of • gentleman named
Parlour, resident at Richmond, afterwards at Felthani, and
later still at Derby Lodge, Sunbury. The petitioner
had been acquainted with the respondent for about three
years be:ore the marriage ; but, according to the statement
of the learned civilian who led her case, her parents were
extremely averse to her union with him. The marriage
took place on the 14th of July, 1860. She had a fortune
of 1501. settled on her, and her husband was described as a
person of competent means. There bad been two children
of the marriage, the first born on the 15th of March, 1861 ;
and the second on the 14th day of April last. A separation
had in the meantime taken place in the September pre-
vious.