The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-13 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 13, 1862.

MOVABLE PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL

ThiTl;i!l poised through committee.
PCBLIC WORKS AND HARBOURS ACT AMEND-

the great advantage of having more tried men appointed
to preside over them.
In the discussioo which followed the views of the author
of the paper scarcely met with any support except as re.
garded some matters of detail. The paper was generally
admitted, however, to be of a suggestive character.

. -
-GENT BILL.
This bill puma through oommittoo.
ELECTIONS (IRELAND).

Lean waa given to Mr. Aoaa-Ewn to bring in • bill to
amend the law relating to the duration of contested elec-
tions for counties in 'reload, and for establishing additional
places for taking the poll thereat.
DISCHARGED PRISONERS.

RAW intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—MAY 12.
(Before Vico-Clrurcellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
ONDON AND WISTNINSTIM DANK V. ?AMU.

Mr. ADDFALEY obtained leave to introduce a bill to
amend the Lw relating to the giving of aid to discharged
prisoners.
ITNIVESSITIES (SCOTLAND).
Leave was given to the LORD ADTOCATZ to bring is
bill to alter and amend the Universities (Scotland) Act, in
so far en relates to the bequest of the late Dr. Alexander
Murray, in the Univenity of Aberdeen.

This7a747GmThy the London and Westminster Bank to
have it declared that they had rightfully paid a sum placed
on deposit to the indorses of the depositor. It appeared
that a Mr. Williams deposited a um of 3,000/. in the bank,
receiving therefor the usual deposit note. This deposit note
was, shortly after Mr. Williams's death, presented to the
bank for payment by his natural son, Mr. J. Williams, and
the bank, seeiag that the note was endorsed by the father,
paid the amount. They were not then aware of the father's
death. Some years afterwards Mrs. Parker, a relative
of Mr. Williams, the deceased, took out letters of ad-
ministration to him, and then made a claim upon the
bank for the amount paid Mr. Williams, jun., on the
ground that the right to it did not pass by indorsement. This
wan so at law, but Williams, jun., set up that the indorse-
went had been made for valuable consideration, and there-
fore amounted to an assignment in equity. Proceedings
arising out of the suit were taken at law to determine
whether this indorsement was for value, and the jury
found in the affirmative. A motion was now made for a
new trial.
Mr. Rolt, Mr. M. Chambers, and Mr. Langworthy, were
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Hawkins, Sir H. Cairns, Mr.
Dauney, and Mr. Daniell were on the other side.
TheV ice. Chancellor said that he had communicated with
the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas who Vied this
cause, and that learned judge informed him he was quite
satisfied with the result of the trial. Under these circum-
stances the motion for a new trial must be refused, and this
being cleared away, there would be a decree according to
the terms of the bill.

CROWN PRIVATE ESTATES (SCOTLAND).
Tha LORD ADVOCATE also obtained leave to bring in
a bill to remove doubts concerning, and to amend the law
relating to the private estates of her Majesty, ber heirs and

ELECTIONS (IRELAND.)
Mr. AGAMELLIS moved or leave bring in a bill to
limit the timilloaroceedlng to elections in counties and
boroughs in
Mr. WHITESIDE said that In the absence of a reform
bill the hon. member had given notice of two bills dealing
with the whole system of electing members in Ireland. He
thought th►t some explanation ought to be given of the
meuures. . .

Mr. AGAR-ELLS said that the object of the bills was to
assimilate the law at Ireland to that of England by limiting
the elections to one day, and by limiting the time between
receiving the writ and the election.
After a short discussion,
Mr. OOLLINS expressed a hope that the bill would be
allowed to be brought in.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be
brought in.
The Universities of Scotland and some other bile were
laid on the table, and the house adjourned at half-past 11
o'clock.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-Day 12.
Sittinp is Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justin Cockburn and
Justices Crompton, Blackburn, and Mellor.)
PTM V. TUS OSSAT NOSTECILS ILULWAT COMPASS.
In this ode a rule bad been obtained by the defendants
calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict,
which had been found in her favour with L 3,000/. damages,
should not be set aside and entered for the defendants,
upon the ground that there was no cause of action, the
plaintiff having sustained no " pecuniary " damage within
the meaning of the statute the 9 and 10 Vic, chap. 93,
on which the action profound to be founded, sad that the
damages were excessive. The plaintiff was the widow and
administratrix of Mr. Francis Elm, who was killed by an
accident which took place on the Great Northern Railway
on the Zird of April, 1860. The action was brought under
Lord Campbell's act to recover compensation in damages for
the " pecuniary" loss which the plaintiff and her children had
sustained by the death of Mr. Pym, which was attributed
to the negligence of the company, and the de-
ficiency of one of the rails on the line of
railway, which was at the time under repair. The
deceased was a perenger by the express train to Man-
chester, and when the train arrived at the Hatfield station
it ran off the line, owing, as the plaintiff alleged, to a defici-
ency in one of the vale, whereby the deceased sustained
an injury which caused his death in a few hours after. The
plaintiff was thus left a widow with nine children, the eldest
son being rather benefitted than otherwise in a pecuniary
point of view by his father's death. Mr. Pym was a gentle-
man who pursued freehold property of about 4,0001. per
annum. By his mamage settlement his widow was entitled
to a jointure of 1,0001. a year, and a sum of 90,0001. had
been invested at 4 per cent. for the benefit of the children,
eight of whom had thus an income of 100/. a veer each.
The eldest son was 10 years of age, and inherited the bulk
of his father's property. The eldest daughter was 11 years
of age, and the other children were respectively of the ages
of nine, seven and a half, six, five, three, and two years,
youngest being only two months old at the death of the
father.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Garth showed
cause spinal the rule ; Mr. Hawkins, Q„O., Mr. Phipeon,
Q.C., and Mr. Hull supported the rule.
The Court took time to oonsider.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—MA y 12.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lard Chief Justice Erie and
Justices Willes, Dyke, and Beating.)
SHAIIIST V. THE SOUTH lAMBS HALLWAY COHrAIR—
CAIWOE ?SWIG! FROM BOULOONS.
The plaintiff in this case was resident at Boulogne, acid
the coulee of his business was to collect small parcels there,
pack a number of them into one parcel, and then send them
to his agent in London, who distributed them to the per-
sons for whom they were intended. The company made
an order that such " packed" parcel' should be charged at
a double rate ; and the plaintiff having sent some parcels,
and been charged at this rate, sued to recover what he eon-
tended were overcharges. Hu case was that there was no
more risk or trouble in carrying a packed parcel than there
was in carrying any other parcel; and that, therefore, the
order of the company to charge double for them was void
according to the decision in our court& This question was
DOW retied by means of a rule to enter a nonsuit.
The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said that the
defendants were a railway company, and also a steam-packet
company, and the money had been paid by the plaintiff under
the act constituting the defendanta • packet company. As a
general rule the lea loci contractus penned the case, and
according to the law of France it was not illegal to charge
higher for packed parcels. Upon this point the court was
unanimously in favour of the defendants, but his own opinion
WWI that, even if the railway legislation of England was ap-
plied to this contract, the defendant' would still be entitled
to judgment.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—MAY 12.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
ut RS MAIM:eI.—DISPUTED ADJUDICATION.
The trader in this cue, a timber merchant at Nine-elms,
had entered into a deed of arrangement with hie creditors on
the 18th February hut.
Mr. C. E. Lewis, on behalf of certain creditors, now sub-
mitted that the deed was informal, through not complying
with the seven requisite* of the statute, and that it was
consequently an act of bankruptcy.
Mr. Hoffman argued in favour of the validity of the deed.
He contended that the duty of the court in reference to
those documents was merely ministerial.
His Honour said it could not be contended for a moment
that this deed was within the provisions of the act. The
sums were left blank ; the amount of debts was not even
stated; and, what was more important. possession of the
property was not to be given to the trustees for a twelve-
month, provided payment was made by the trader of a cer-
tain sum—also left blank. The deed wee clearly not within
the provisions of the statute ; it was therefore an act of
bankrapt..7, and the adjudication must be confirmed.