The Express.
London, England, 1852-05-10 00:00:00

*4:g : '

qma weitefflialletWageore. Her replyweetethefelletriogelle*:
"If yes dr mosey, I *all be at Pleathwitja=
• of_41011." it weld be a
gig oteetneetit—lf ride*
*my that dim topside yes do eel tie
*dog by Or Moe Age s
11. the retro* is to be at eh ad.
The wee dm. glut M. Dm* had wood to yelio
segsgeotatt, ** the period ef its aped
altered. Dorkgrel this pedal ther bed nil appered say
dlesetisteetloo at the etedeash DE the ll* of 40, et
Hamburg, they go theme' the hest of a oftottel pees*
Without ewe weed of obiteeks it the strike meth*, H.
and Mettle. Wages, predated the egreement below the ao-
, mad dope* that they had as reed** su the 16th
of mead op to the la of Area INlN.wed that they
considered the awn* it be et ea modli op** that they
had heard from smother authority that Mr Lowey was not
• *nos who very falthAilly observed Ids pecuniary mad
*Ur engagements. Oa the 6th hp* Wwww,
wrote to lir. Loft*, easeweekg *et she trefteit the
ai
t at ee oppeorol that em the itk of
thatnillth so
YAM. Wigan bad emeinded ma an.
wanton with Mr. dye, which the limaned
evened thought was an .et which would set
improve the repstatioe of Mdlle. Wagner, as as anisteow
advance her interest. It was clear that the letter of Mr.
Lumley, which the defendants stated was in M. Wagner's
depository at Berlin, contained an allusion to money; and
when it was alleged that no mon7 had been offered Mha
Paid. why WAS that letter not prmhieed, which might have
shown that there had been suck an offer no was denied by
the defendants to have been made ? Upon the affidavits
it was clear that Dr. Becher told the Wagnen he had the
money at his hotel, reedy to be paid to them. The only
way in which the payment of the 3001. could be treated as
• condition precedent was, that it should be paid before the
Wegner, left Germany ; and this was satiated by the actual
tender of the 1001. made on the 16th of April. It appeared
that M. Wagner thought be could make • moo profitable
engagement with Mr. dye, and thereforehe urgedthe nos-
payment of the money as • ground for sidling the eon-
tract with Mr. Lumley. The learned counsel insisted that this
vat not • case Involving foreign law, bet that English law was
alone applieable to it. In support of this be cited, "Robinson
v. Bland" (2 Bur.)," Flack v. Holm" (1 Jae. a Walk. 406),
" Wynne v. Jackson" (2 Russell, 361), "Rothschild v.
Currie (1 Q. B. It ). As to Mr. dye's conduct, he saw no
apology for his interference between the Wagons and the
plaintiff; but for that interference this gentian would not
have arisen. All Mr. Lumley's conduct bad been correct
and proper, sad be hoped that that gentleman would obtain
the protietion of the court (nen proceedings tending
greatly to his injory. In conclusion, ke said he felt regret
that the whole of the peruanry treametions of Mr. Lumley
had been sought out for the purpose of injuring hint. He
hoped that the court would not lose sight of snob conduct.
It was reasoni.ble to expect that persona who resort to such
means of attack would be equally isneerupulous in their
efforts to deprive him by any moans, however unfair, of the
benefit of his agreement with this young lady.
Yr. Bacon having concluded,
The Vice-Chancellor said he would sit on Monday only
for the purpose of having this ease determined.
Mr. Hislop Clarke will then follow Mr. Bacon is support
of the injunction.