The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-13 00:00:00

THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 13, 1862.

lain Intelligente.

EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 12.
(Mere the Lord Chancellor.)
MMITYI( r. WFATBIWOIL_

This was an appeal from the Master of the Rolls. The I,
snit was instituted for the purpose of having it declared !,
that an agreement entered into between the plaintiff end
defendant, dated 22nd January, 1862, was frandaleat and ;
void as against the plaintiff, and should be delivered up to
be cancelled, and that the defendant should be restrained
by injunction from commencing or proceeding with any
action at law against the plaintiff on the said agreement.
It appeared that the plaintiff had made advances of money
to a Mr. Archdeacon, for the purpose of carrying on a pub•
lication, entitled " The House to Let Directory," and by the
agreement in question, the plaintiff appointed the defendant
to act for him as hie deputy and superintendent of the
business and premises of the "House to Let Directory," at
294, Strand, or elsewhere, the defendant to be paid 31. a
week, and in consideration of his services in editing and as-
sisting in the publication of the work, the defendant was to
receive out of the profits a sum of 161. a month, together
with residence on the premises free. On the faith of this,
as alleged by the plaintiff, he advanced a further sum of
1501. The publication in question having lapsed, and there
being no prospect of the plaintiffs recovering his advances,
he alleged that he was induced to enter into the agreement
in question by the misrepresentation of the defendant as to
arrangements entered into between defendant, Archdeacon,
and a third person named Banks, and he sought, to have it
est aside. The Master of the Rolls made a decree in the
plaintiff's favour, only omitting the word " fraudulent "
which was in the prayer of the hill. The present appeal
was then brought.
Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Pigott, for the plaintiff, supported
the decree ; Mr. Hetherington was for the appeal.
The Lord Chancellor said that the bill disclosed two
agreements, the first of which was not complained of, but
the second, which the plaintiff desired to be cancelled,
tallied in all its provisions but one with that which was not
impeached. The agreement on which the case turned, so
far as its provisions were identical with those of the other,
could not be set aside. As regarded the latter part of it,
which did not tally with the first agreement, he must hold
that it was unduly obtained. He could not, therefore,
affirm the decree in all its particulars. He should, there-
fore, vary it by declaring that only the latter 7ortion of the
agreement complained of was obtained by misrepresentation
and ought to be cancelled ; and he should restrain the de-
fendant from taking any proceedings on that portion of it.
As regarded the costs, he could not give the whole of them
to the plaintiff, but should direct the defendant to pay one
half of the taxed costa. There could be no costs of the
appeal.

of legisLtion
_
ral place. it hied altered the phraseology.
After conferring together,
The Lord Chief Justice said he was by no means satisfied
that the magistrate was wrong in hie decision. The act
complained of, was clearly within the meaning of the act.
Mr. Justice Wightman considered that these detonating
articles were fireworks, and that they were in truth but a
special species of cracker. The magistrate ought to have
convicted the respondent for manufacturing them without •
license.
Mr. Justice Blackburn bad come to the same result as
Mr. Justice Wightmsn in considering that the magistrate
ought to have convicted, but on different grounds.
Mr. Justice Mellor was also in favour of a conviction. Re
thought the words of the statute were sufficient, but that
they were by no means free from doubt.
Judgment accordingly.

SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at Guildhall.—(Before Mr. Justice
,Crompton and a Common Jury.)
HARRISON V. HOLLNGSWORTH.
This was an action brought by • lady, who was living
I under the protection of a gentleman, against the defendant,
an auctioneer, in Holborn, for negligence. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Littler was counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Francis for
the defendant.
The awe occupied the greater portion of the day, and was
sot concluded when the court rose, we therefore reserve
our report.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 12.
Sittings in %ann.—Before Lord Chief Juatice Erle, and
Justices Williams, Byles, and Keating.)

The court was occupied all the morning with m►tters in
the special paper, but nothing occurred to furnish materials
for a repwt.
Shortly before 2 o'clock their lordship adjourned in order
to meet the other judges in the Court of Exchequer.
ISittings at Nisi Prins in London.--(Before Mr. Justice
Willem and a Common Jury.)

(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal)
CORY V. RMS.

This was an appeal from the decree of Vioe•Chanoellor
Wood pronounced in June last, and dismissing the bill as
againsti the defendants, Mr. James Eyre and family, of
Bath. The object of the suit is to obtain a declaration of
priority in favour of the London and County Bank, in re-
spect of advances made by them to the late John fladleir
upon the security of a mortgage deed, in possession of the de.
fondants, the Eyre', and affecting the estates of the Marquis
of Chancier, in their favour. The sum secured upon the
marquis's estates is now represented by 200,0001. paid into
court by the marquis to free the property from the in-
cumbrance. . . . .

The only cue before this court was one in which the con-
test wu whether some oil cake, shipped on board the Daniel
Webster, at New York, had been damaged by bad stowage
or by the perils of the sea. The details, ware, of course, inte-
resting only to the parties.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 12.
SECOND COURT.

Tli;argumetit is not yet concluded.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Holt, Q.C., and Mr. H.
Stevens, appear for the appellant+, the Bank ; Mr. Gifford,
Q.C., Mr. Beale., and Mr. J. ?moon for the Eyre
family ; and Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr. Watford for other
defendants.

sittings at Nisi Prins at Gaildhall.—(Before Mr. Baron
Martin and a Common Jury.)
HOLIIIB V. FALCONER.—ACCIDENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an omnibus
conductor, in the employ of the London General Omnibus
Company, against the defendant, the proprietor of the
Lyceum Theatre, to recover damages for injuries sustained
through the alleged negligence of the defendant's servant.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Kemp were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Name for the
defendant.

(Before the Muter of the Rolls.)
HOLT V. WHITE.

This bill was filed praying a declaration of the court that
the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the agreement
herinafter mentioned, and which was made on the 15th
September, 1855, between Mr. C. J. Mare and the de-
fendant. By that agreement Mr. Mare sold to the de-
fendant his stud of race horses for 5,000/., payable by in.
stabnents : and it was further provided by it, that in came
the defendant should win any of the stakes for which
the hones then sold were at that time entered in
the then ensuing October meeting at Newmarket, the
defendent should pay to Mr. Mare half the value of-
such stakes, the former being first allowed to deduct
the entries and forfeits paid by him the defendant. In
September, 1855, Mr. Mare became bankrupt, and the
plaintiff was appointed one of the creditors' assignees.
By virtue of certain arrangements the bankruptcy was sub-
sequently annulled, and the plaintiff became beneficially in-
terested in portions of Mr. Mare's property, including what
was due from the defendant in respect of the purchase-
money for the horses. Of the 5.0001. purchase-money • eon-
siderable portion had been paid by instalments, but in the
plaintiff's view there remained due of that amount in May,
1860, the sum of 1,0001. The plaintiff's solicitors thereupon
applied for payment, or an arrangement with respect to it ;
but the defendant denied the justice of the claim, having, as
be alleged, paid 1,2701. for forfeits left in arrear by Mr.
Mare, without paying which he could not start the
home. An action was therefore commenced is
Mr. Mare's name against the defendant, who pleaded
the above-mentioned payment as • set-off, and now
the plaintiff, the bill alleged, was advised that is the
event of proof being given of such set-off his action would
fail, and thereupon be instituted this suit. The defendant
by his answer, among other things, stated that he inquired
of Mr. Mare at Limmer's, after the agreement was signed,
whether the stud was clear, and thereupon Mr. Mare said
that he was liable for and would repay the defendant all
the moneys paid by him in clearing the stud.
Mr. Etaggallay and Mr. F. Waller were for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Cs.ldecott for the defendant.
His Honour, in giving judgment, said the plaintiff glad
taken • chose in action which was subject to the equities
subsisting spinet it in Mare's hands, and the case was •
peculiarly proper one for • court of law. Except only that
proceedings at law must be taken in Mr. Mare's name, the
case made must be alike, and be judged by the same prin-
ciples in both courts. A jury would best determine
whether the monies had been paid as alleged, and whether
a promise bad been given or statement made as contended
by the defendant by Mr. Mare. The bill must, therefore,
be dismissed, and with costs.
NZ THE ROTHISHITHE CO-OPERATIVE AND OrDUSTRIAL

It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that about
eleven o'clock on the night of the 14th of May last the
omnibus pulled up on the near side of the road, nearly
opposite the Adelphi Theatre. He was talking to • pas-
senger inside when the defendant's coachman, who was
driving • brougham and pair, drove so carelessly, it was
alleged, that he ran the pole against the plaintiff's knee and
severely injured it. He was taken to the hospital, and after
baying his knee dressed went home and was confined to his
house for four months, and was at the present time unable to
perform his duties.
The defence was that the driver of the plaintiff's omnibus
pulled up too rapidly and without any warning, in conse-
quence of which the pole struck the plaintiff's leg and caused
the injury complained of. It was alleged, on the part of the
defence, that the negligence was on the part of the plaintiff
in not giving • warning, and not on that of the defendant's
coachman.

mission caps, end themsking and keeping of ammunition, &e. Mr. Linklater opposed, for the Hon. Richard Bingham,
And by the 13th section, the justices might make licenses the detaining creditor ; Mr. E. Reed appeared for the
conditional on precautions prescribed by them for preventing bankrupt.
danger being observed. Tha learned comae contended at .Mr. Linklater objected to the bankrupt passing, on the
some length that fog signals came under the denomination of ground that he bad nut filed the required cash and goods
fireworks "or any other composition or preparation of an account.
explosive nature." I Mr. Reed stated that some of the bankrupt's papers bad
Mr. Justice Wightman said that fog signals appeared to been lost in the office of the official assignee, and be was
be a special kind of cracker ; fireworks in the ordinary ac• thus prevented from preparing the account* required.
ceptation of the term were prohibited from being used Mr. Edwards, the official assignee, denied that any papers
in a public thoroughfare under a penalty not exceeding 51. bad been lost.
If any person chose to let off one of these detonating Mr. Linkleter said that such unfounded imputations
signals in a public thoroughfare, he would be liable to the ought not to be indulged in.
penalty. Ultimately, the last examination was adjourned, and it
The Lord Chief Justice considered there was great diffi- was ordered that the bankrupt should only be released or.
culty in the case ; and with regard to the act, it was the giving bail to the amount of 1,0001.
worst dranopip of he had ever seen. In acme-

The bankrupt was described as a confectioner, of Stone's.
end, Borough, and also of the refreshment rooms. Surrey
Theatre. This wee the adjourned examination sitting.
Debts, 1,2001. ; no assets.
Mr. E. Reed opposed for several creditors. The bankrupt
bad not filed a deficiency account, as ordered at the last
sitting. His business at the Surrey Theatre had no doubt
been carried on at a lose, but there had been a considerable
profit on his business at Stone send. Tine business the
bankrupt had transferred to his brother, but the assignee
had retaken possession, and bad obtained 501. foe the estate.
After bearing Mx. Peek for the bankrupt,
His Honour passed the examination, and adjourned the
order of discharge.