The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-25 00:00:00

■ION? IN NUM

The bill is this suit was filed to obtain a declaration of
the court, that the plaintiff was entitled to have a lewd
granted to him of certain property at Paddock, near Hud-
dersfield, of which he was in possession, for sixty years, re-
newable every twenty years, at a ground rent and fine to
be fixed, as in the bill was mentioned, or at such other
ground rent and fine as the court might think right ; or that
the plaintiff was entitled to • lien on the property, and that
he could not be turned out of it or otherwise disturbed in
his possession of it, without being repaid the monies which
he had expended in and about the building, and laying of it
out, as a compensation for it, or as damages in respect
thereof ; or such other compensation or damages
as the court might think proper ; and for an
injunction to restrain an action of ejectment com-
menced by the defendant against the plaintiff. The
case has occupied the attention of the court foe ten
days; and, although the actual pecuniary interest of
the plaintiff in the CYO in not large, the Celle itself is one
of great importance, as six other bills have been filed having
for their object decrees similar to that asked in the present
one ; and as the decision in this will materially affect the
tenure of the houses in the greater part, if not the whole,
of the town of Huddersfield.

Mr. Malin*, Q.C., Mr. Daniell, Q.C., and Mr. Fielding
Nader appeared for the plaintiff.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Bacon, Q.C., and Mr.
Chapman Barber, appeared for the defendant, who
contended that there were two different systems of letting
the tenants into the occupation of the land—one by • mere
verbal or oral admission, another by verbal admission,
with the promise of a lease to be granted is future, when
the buildings were finished on theland. They insisted that
the plaintiff was admitted under the former system—(it was
clear that he had not • lease). that be was not within the
scope of the act of 1844, as that applied only to persons to
whom imam had been promised ; and that the act of 1859
was that which governed his rights. Further, they argued
that his letter of October, 18:.i6, was quite inconsistent with
the case now made by him—and, in fact, put him out of
court. At all events, he was not entitled to compensation.
That was only given in two oases : Met, where there
was bad faith—if, for instance, the owner of
property stood by and allowed • man to build,
or do other things, without telling him of his rights ; and,
secondly, where the owner so acted as to lead the other
party to infer the mistime of a contract. Here there bad
been no such conduct on the part of the defendant or of
his ancestors. The plaintiff was clearly no more than a
tenant at will, or from year to year of the property. Then
had been no part performance to take the case out of the
Statute of Frauds; the defendant was justified in the course
which he had adopted towards the plaintiff, though in truth
that was not really • hostile one, as he only wished to have
their respective rights ascertained ; but upon the wholeness
the bill ought to be dismissed, and with costs.
At the concluaion of this part of the argument, the Vim.
Chancellor intimated his intention to look into the papers in
the cause, and to have it pat into the list this day week,
when he would tell Mr. Mans upon what points he
wish to hear • reply ; and the case now stands over ao-
cordingly.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Fza. 24.
(More the Judge Ortfhtery.)
mill% V. SMITH AND 1111170 N.

Dr. Spinks and Mr. Inderwick for the petitioners ; Mr.
Searle for the respondent ; Dr. Swabsy for the co-re-
spondent
In March, 1858,Edniusd Pitt Bishopp Smith, an employe
at the Custom-house, married Adele Wallace de St. Croix.
There had been one child. The co-respondent, Edward
Busick Morita), an attorney, end a sergeant in a volunteer
corps, was an intimate friend of tie petitioner. A short
time since the respondent went to stay with Meriton's
mother at Barnes, and the petitioner, hearing something re-
specting her conduct, wrote to Win, desiring him to die-
motions his acquaintance with her. The co-respondent, in
reply, assured the petitioner that he was under a complete
mistake, and that he had put the saddle on the wrong horse.
Mrs. Smith, however, did not return to her home, and she
bad since been identified as living with the co-respondent
under the style and title of Mr. and Mrs. Clifton, in
Woburn-place. There was a claim of 2,0001. as
The jury, without hesitation, found for the h="6and
assessed the damages at 6001.
Decree niai, with costa.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-Fn. 24.
(13don Mr. Commissioner Boiroyd.)
111 EX ICTRONSBUta. —APPLICATION FOE HULSE

The bankrupt in this case was the well-known Ferdinand
Philip Flecked Stroesberg, described as of Van Farm, ock-
ley, near Dorset, since of Jertnynutreet, St. Jamei and
now a prisoner for debt in Whitacrose-street prison. SUVA
the case was last before the court, Stroosberg has been ad-
judicated bankrupt, on the petition of Mr. James Thomas
Snow, botcher, of Jocelyn-meek a creditor for 3291. This
adjudication was made so recently as Saturday lest. As
bankrupt's debts amount to 12,7974, including 1,0001. dos
to the Mitre Life Office, now winding up ; 9091. to the
Western Life Assurance Society ; 1,482/. to Mr. Meson,
of the White Bear Hotel, P y ; and 2,364/. to Messrs.
Edwards, solicitors.
Mr. E. Reed opposed the application on behalf of the
Western Assurance Company, who are creditors for I,OOW.
The application was not new hers. In January last the now
bankrupt had entered into a deed of arrangement with his
creditors ; notices were given to the creditors of an appli-
cation for release ; a day was appointed for the bearing,
bat the debtor never made his appearance. He had sub-
sequently applied to a judge at chambers, wbo bad refund
the application. He had since been adjudicated bankrupt,
on the petition of • friendly creditor, so recently as Satur-
day last. The case was a very serious) one ; the opposing
creditors wished to inquire into the removal of a large
quantity of property.
His Honour said, without going into the merits of the
case he should call on Mr. Sargood to support the applica-
tion. He thought the cane should be dealt with as cases
usually were where the petition was by a creditor. At
preset there was nothing to show the court what was the
amount of the bankrupts liabilities, not what he had to
meet them. The proper course in such a case was not to
entertain the application until after the choice of aarigneee,
so that there might be some one to represent the creditors
generally.
Mr. Sougood, who appeared for the bankrupt, said that
if that was his Honour's im • he would not now go
into the merits of the case. The application would stand
adjourned till the choice of assigneeshad taken place.
The Commissicamer—No ; the application is dismissed.
It can be renewed after the choice is made.