The Express.
London, England, 1855-11-24 00:00:00

Lift Mel'Hance.

EQUITY COURTB.—Nov. 23.
MO= MI LOOM 7IIITICIIII OW •!PEAL.
DI 13 10W ILL, ♦ LUNATIC.

W. PAei wan.

-THIS DAY.

In this tees It appeared that Sir John Dean Paul wu the
oriaualttee of the estates( the Warr, sad that upon his
=et to be remoittos,lo, with his porton, Messrs.
and Bates, bed gives the usual hood to the Queen
that he would duly assoutt foe mod sigukaty pay all souse
that shoulders, to his hands In that steatetae.
Mr. winker. hi sapper of • wilts prearard by the
ectimiebie of the perste of the lauds, now asked for an
order discharging Sir J. 1). Paul from **WM» of corm Rue
of the allots of the lunatic, and requiring him to pay into
the bank a um of 511. 13e. 4d. come to hie bands, and not
duly paid em by his as such committee, and in at fault
that they would make suit ceder as they might think fit.
Their lordships comideriag that, nadir the dream
Manors, to make an order for payment against Sir John
Dees Paul, pivotally, would be unless, directed that he
should be disobliged from the office of committo, end that
proof should be taken In bytha petitioner apart the several
estates is bankruptcy of Sir John Dean Paul sod his late
partnere, Maar. Bare sad Strakat, for the amount lett
unpaid by him.
Mr. Chandler, Q.C., for the assigner of the estate of Sir
John Dean Paul, dad not oppose the making of a proof.

LllO9l V. BDIONDIS.
The arguments 11 this sue having b.. soncluded this

monies
The Viee-Chaatieller gave judgment for the defendants,
who were called upon to pay over a fund, which bad been
Enid into cowl, on behalf of the infant daughter of Mrs
Minonds, on the ground that each child was not legitimate,
the father (now dead) being physically incapacitated, and the
mother having committed adultery with her preemie
husband. His Honour weal most elaborately into
an analysis of the medial testimony, *ad the other
widens as to the husband's capacity, sad abased
that both had been more ably diseased nal
making by the mussel, specially thaw from the muses
few her, than he had ever heard in any cam He was is
rathat that evidence had not established the incepts,
m which the plalatiff welled. In addition to this,
dace had been mash daisy, and it was Impossible that be
Medd decide that a maddest ease had been made out fee
geadies the matter for trial before a Jury. The only die-
deity in the OW was the admissibility of °stela letters
alleged to be is the pcsession of the plaintiff, in which
Mn. Edatondes admitted her present husband to be the fa-
ther of the deceased child, she being then in residence with
her fleet husband, the deesell Mr. Legge. As to their being
had
he had no doubt. Neither Mr. or Mn. Edmonds
had denied the handwriting, and he thought
they bad been well advised not to do so.
There wee ales Sternal evidence that they were genuine.
Then were they admissible ? There were two poises ; how
far warts of law would admit the declarations of the wife,
end how far she might be a witness! Whatever might
have bees the poses by which it had arrived at the point,
the law bedlam NOW Waif down to the position in which
it was Mad la the ass " Rea v. Bosses (6 Adol. and
. this yes amen allow the wife for whatever purpose
she might be sailed, directly or indirectly to answer any
question which sada to show that the hatband had no
intercourse. That state of the law seemed to have come
gradually on from the time when Lord Hardwicke gave his
*sirs that it could not be done, except from the necessity
M the else. It was pat higher by Lod Ma afield, who
geld it was a rule derived from motives of public policy.
Lied Bllenberough had oecasica to consider the point on
arearatooessioss; and in Rem v. Leff " he refused to quash
saes der made upon evidence, la sheerness of which the wife
hal been examined, because there wee other evidence ;
It Wake be that the wife had not been the only evidence on
that Oat. Ia the gas of " Hex v. Hay " (11 But), he
mewl to draw back from the opinion he bed before given,
to use extent, and said he bad not intended to do anything
Sake the law as laid down by Lord Hardwicke. Bat
whatever had bean theprowles, the whole cies was concluded
by " &v. us .es ' (6 A. and II Then were these
letters admissible as declarations "ante titan moans,"
on the point of sects ? The cues hod settled
the law, though the history of the sett'annent was
far from satisfactory. In " Goodright s Mow," so
erten referred te, the declarations of the father and
mother were edmitted to show whether or not the child was
bora in wedlock, but not on the point of &COM or non-
sense. In the case before Sir William Wynne, " Smythe
s Obemberlaas" in the ecclesiastical courts, whea admits-
istaillea was sought to be taken out on behalf of a person
tab Was alleged to be illegitimate, inch evidence wee
entirely rejected, Sir William Wynne saying that ft wee a
rale having a tendency to preserve order and prevent con-
foal= in the descent of property ant the administration of
*tine. Is the Banbury peerage case it was considered
hew far such declarations might be used, and while the
kedges conceded the general principle, Lord Redeedale
said if they could be need in any case, that was one is
which they ought to be admitted, and that was all he
said upon the subject, that learned judge therefore seemed
inclined to admit the evidence ; sad looking through the
obeeryations of the ether judges, be could not find that they
adverted to that pert of the case at all. They adverted to
which he should have to - something afterwards

..Ott On s, _
He then came te the el " Mirth t. Devise," gam
Lord L/adkurst says, speaking of such a clesiseseie., that
"be 101011•4 tO it mat for the parposs of peeving that the
child was the child of Austin (for it could au be made use
of for tl at purpose), but for the pups* of negativing the
speculative emboli which bad been assigned at the bar
for the esueealestrat." No we could doubt from that what
that loused judge's view was, that such declarations were
inadmissible as evidence of any fact therein contained, but
that such declarations made by snob persons under perticular
circumstances might be used to rebut certain conclusions
which bad been attempted to be drawn from other puts of
such perees's cosdnot. Therefore he must take it to be
clear law that you eacnot admit declarations of the mother
to prove non-accue or to bastardise her child. There was
no cue cited is which such a thing bad been done, and be
could lad acne. Sir Wm. Wyone rejected them. Lotd
Itedeedale implies his doubt whether in any we they
could be admitted. Lord Lyndhurst admitted such
declarations for another purpose, but said that
for that pupae they were Inadmissible. Then, were
thus letters admissible to prove adultery f First, ketch it
necessary to clear that part of the question from those
sues in which the wife had teen called to prove whose the
child was, when it bad bees clearly shown from other sel-
dom' that it was not the husband's. Those cases were
quite distinct When it was proved that a child was not the
child of the busked it was the duty of the ungistratee
before whom the ease same to discover whose child it wee,
for the purpose of Sting the out upon the right party, and
for that purpose the mother had been allowed to prove her
adultery. Timm, could her &dustier' be admitted to prove
adultery in any other nese ? He thought when net a
party to Osamu such deelarations esuld not bo admitted
to prove newest:us, see to prove adultery, for to prove
adultery as a parties OW proof of non seem would be to
admit the evidence for the purpose of bastardizing bee child.
He edistitted that there was great force is the observation*
elf W. Holt in the distinction which be drew when
HU Etieratioss ware made " ante litem SIOUPAi." and when
=t of the bens& or injury of the child could SAM
also the east importance that there was in
leihering to eseab(Wedrules, though he might he dissatisisli
with the way in whisk ugh rules sensed toltave been arrived',
SR He agreed with what had been stated by Mr. Justice'
Sage, that altheugh the ease before yes might
mesa hardly to fail within the principle upon I
ell& the rule had been established, yet when 001
rule was clearly established it was more for the interest of
jetties that the rule should De upheld than that yes should
amps frees it is order to suit the particular ease. Then
is.. the quake. of whether these letters could be admitted
SO IMAMS' el mailsei. jra that point the enact converse
41121 IPSO I Zreellte Susilly in his argument in the
Beabavy amamented upon by Lord Eldon.
His lilimoar then eabassi to that page, 524, of Sir Harris
bliebelee, sad tbets sold the euly way in which these ;letters
were 'vides., of (leaden in &stimulus to their • being
declarations IPSO the external act of committing
to paper the entice.; of them. It would be a most
sztriuse sad would subvert the whole rule. It
wee onlycommitted to paper. If these letters
bed bees amead te Unmade, and bad remained in hin pee-
sash% that might have been external evidence of conduct,
width, without saying what it was worth, might
thething which eacht to be submitted to a jury. Bat was
net the ease hen; there wee not the laietitest evidence bow
they now made their appearance. It was consistent with
possibility, not perhaps probability, that they had been ab•
stressed frsm the ldy's desk. It was probable that they I
might have been given to some person to carry, and by that
pose conveyed to the wrong preen. To say that on such'
WOW these letters might be received u evidence of
emir* would in effect be getting rid of the rule which said
declarations they could not be received. The re-
lineation wee whether they could be received as 1
aileas by • party to the record. He confused that,'
at ON time, he was attoegly impreued with the idea that he
might admit them on that ground, but they were declare.
dens made by bar before she was administratriz, and it was
sag 1111111 to recover the money which had been paid to
bet se si siaisuutris. It was a rule that admissions made
by a perm* before taking the character of admiaistratrizl
scald not be pressed against a person in proceedings spinet
bee in that capacity. Then, though in form actin gas ad-
minis, ratite, could he treat ber as acting in reality for haul( ?
Oa that point he bad had gnat doubt ; but on the whole be
'hal sot felt *titled is breaking. in upon the rule which
eas laid down in COW of administration, said making the
present an exception. In tome respects she must have acted
sendministratrix *here were impetus which she most have
paid in that capacity, end be felt be should be laying down I
a new rule of grave importance if he were to soy that o.e I
might be treated, not as &dadaist/stile, but se eestui qui
trust. If he bed felt at liberty to look at these letters,
befog cosvinersd of their penteesess, be should not have
given the defendants their costa. But as they were not to
be locked at, he mast, with great Mumma. dismiss the
bill with costa.

dames should not issue commanding them to make certain
towers is the town, necessary for the drainage of the district
for the purposes of the Public Health Act. The loud,
which was legally constituted, had levied ratio and made
plans, but nothing bed !cep done by them to remedy the
grievance complained of, and some of the members had
stated they would not entertvin the question.
Lord Campbell said that if the board had considered the
matter this wart could not review their decision, and
compel them to make &aloe on any single application. It
was ler the booed to my whether the sewers were necessary.
If they bad llama to consider the question, the court could
compel them to do so.
Mr. Bramwell was instructed that several of the members
had stated they would not do so unless compelled.
Lord Campbell observed that this statement, for all the
court knew to the century, might have been made over
their ale. This court was mat willing to assist in putting
so important an sot into effect. He was afraid leagues had
bees formed in certain towns to p t the application of
the act to their districts, and the court would be happy to
defeat such attempts. A rule could not be gra, ted on the
fade as now stated, but the court would allow the application
to be made on other facts.
Rule refound.

IN Si lARVIB.—ALLEGED IIIaCONVOCT OP ATTORNIII.
Sir F. Thesis'', with whom was Mr. Phipson, said he
had to show cause against a rule obtained by his learned
friers Mr. Bovlll, calling on Messrs. Jarvis and Son,
attorneys and bankers at King's Lynn, to show cause why
they should not answer the mutters in the sfildavits. The
application was made on behalf of Mr. Powell, also a solici-
tor, whc:o agents sent down a writ in an action for 1,8.5 W.
to Mesas. Jarvis to be served on the debtor, a person
named Banal. 'Tice charge of misconduct was that the
Messes. Jerviei, who were solicitors of long standing, the
senior partner being a gentlemen of 80 years of age, had
received the writ on the 17th, which was on Sunday, end
not served it until the 19th, and then sot until after the
bad got [the debtor to execute a mortgage to them for 3001.
All the matters charged had come to the knowledge
of Mr. Powell in January last, and when his learned
friend had been asked to account for the delay
in making his application to the court, he had
stated that up to August last hopes were enterte;ned that an
arrangement would be come to either by the Messrs. Jarvis
making en sample apology, or by refining the nutter to
acme disinterested party—a member of the bar or en attor-
ney. This Menu. Jarvie, however, now by their affidavits
denied that there was ever such an object on their part.
They had refused ell along either to make an apology or
refer the matter. It was alleged that the Meure. Jarvis,
when direetei to serve a writ, were not justified in first
taking a legal security in a debt due to them as blinkers,
and for which they held au equi•sble security—that they
should not have taken advantage of information unsolicited

on their part.
Lord Campbell—And thus obtain a priority.
Sir F. Tbesiger—No ; for the mortgagees were on diffe-
rent pm: emits,.
Lord Campbell—What time intervened between obtaining
the mortgage and the service of the writ ?
Ste F. Thesiger—No doubt the writ wee served imme-
diately, but be would show that Mr. Powell had not been
ejudiced by the matter. He presumed it could not be
doubted that the Messrs. Jervis eculd have refused to
the writ on Burrill, who was a client of their own. It was
further eomptaiiied that Barrill, with the connivance of
the Messrs. Jarvis, put in two sham pleas, and that he sub-
sequently threatened to assign his property t• hie creditors,
se that Mr. Powell bad to compromire the matter, and had
suffered by the delay on the part of the ?dusts. Jarvis ; but
the fact was that the Messrs. Jarvis trete not acting. as his
solicitors ; but Mr. Word put in two pleas, to gain time,
though he told Burrill he had no defence ; and the attorney
being afterwards changed, Mr. Wallin was appointed
attorney, and said be would make a bankrupt of Burrill.
He salunitted there was nothing to justify the court in
granting the application of his learned friend.
Mr. bovill, in support of the rule, said it was immaterial
whether Mr Powell had suffered Wary or not. The quell-
don was, whether the Messrs. Jathis, as attorneys, tied
been guilty of misconduct.
Lord Campbell—The misconduct must be misconduct
Undies to the prejudice of the client.
Mr. Janice Erie said it appeared from a letter, which
formed part of the correspondence, that Mr. Powell sold an
estate to Mr. Burin, and received 2001. as part of the w-
alrus-money, allowing the 1,1001., for which he bad sulue-
queenly brought the action, to remain on mortgage. It also
appeared that when the writ was served, Mr. Burrill offered
to forfeit the 2001., pert of the purchttr•money paid down,
1001. paid for repairs, 601. paid for Mr. Powell's bill of
outs, and give up the estate.
Mr. Borth submitted this could not bear on the question,
fer the court was not tryieg whether Mr. Powell had made
a had bargain or not. If the Messrs. Jervis had sent back
the writ, end the facts as they slue appeared had become
known, they would not have been legally responsible ; but
they would have morally su&red, for no attorney would
have entrusted them with business &grasps the ground that
they preferred their own interests to that of their clients.
Mr. Justice Coleridge—lf they had served tho writ Rat,
Gould they not have gut Burrill to sign the mortgage atter-
' wards ?
Mr. Bovill—They could.
Lord Campbell—The legal rights of the party did not
suffer in the slightest degree.
Mr. Bovill submitted the Messrs. Jarvis had neglected
the interest* of Mr. Powell in availing themselves of the
knowledge they bed obtained through .him for their own
benefit, to obtain that which they might not otherwise have
got. They bed acted in violation rat their duty to their
elnat, se.d even now they refused to make any apology,
butjustifted their actg. He would ask their lordships not
to dim to the entire profusion that they bed a right to do
this, and he would submit that the Menu. Jervis should
make WOO apology, or do something in the way of conces-
sion.
Lord Campbell, in delivering judgment, said he was of
opinion that this rule should be discharged. This was a
penal proceeding spinet an tinker of this court, and it was
only misconduct on the part of such officer which called en
the Wirt to interfere in a mummery manner. As regarded
the Messrs. Jarvis not having served the writ on the
Monday, it would have been better that they had
done so—indeed he would say they ought to been
done so—bat he could not see that anything they
had done had led to the prejudice of their client,
Mr. Powell, who sent them the writ to serve, for if they
bed served it on the Monday, they might have got their
own security on the Monday or on the Tuesday, as well u
on the Monday, and therefore the conditiar of Mr. Powell
with regard to his claim against Burrell, had not been pre-
judiced by anything that had been imputed to MOM/.
Jervi mad Son. There were circumstances in this trans-
action to which be would not more particularly allude,
which showed that Mr. Powell was very for his own
advantage, bat be diet not see what be had suffered to
enable him to eall for the interference of this coot.
The other learned judges °puttered.
Rule discharged, but without cads.
SIII 413111 X O. RANDCOCK.—PATZNT.
This was a actin facies, under the recent act, to repeal a
patent granted to Mr. Ilendcock for improvements in the
manufacture of ludia•rubber as applied to cloths and other
fabric'. It was hied before Lord t'stopbell at the last sit-
tings for London, when a verdict was entered for the de-
fendant. A rule to set aside the verdict has since been
obtained, and wee partly argued yesterday and adjourned
to this day. As however it was the argument during the
Orithent term, the case is adjourned to the third day in nest

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 23.
armee IX MASCO. -1210111 MX. MIMS CIIOXITOX.

I
1
i I
i
[ '
I t .
1 11
1,. 1
1 I
• ' r.
' ;I
.• .
ill,
il
111
..
, ; i
I
•, I s
. I
; 1
I
i
' I
11
;-,
; ;
IP' I
I
. i;I.
II I
' • '
I
.1. I
' I
1 1
1
, I ;
I 1
I 1
Il
li 11.
1. lil 1
/
I I
1 '
i 11'