The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-25 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 25, 1852.

JAW ilutelligence.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—YesrEanAy.
ATFIAL room TIM Ittoc Corer OV COMMOT or ZOOM
MOO TIM Yore, Qom CiIIIIBIII*.—MMIIII TIM Loin CIIMMUCIO,
Loon Awn A•mvisau Novi.a tow, AMUrtitit Of va
JopolT of MR COUNTS OF tit awes bare MD CuMOM rlefa
API/ 'MIMI* Of KILMIIMUIII.
ELWELL V. THE EINISINOHAY CANAL NAVIGATION.
This is a writ of error from the Court of Escheqser
Chamber, and involves • question of the right to cludn
compensation in damages for certain injuries alleged to
have been inflicted by the Canal Company.
Mr. tiolieitor•Oenerel (with him Me Denman) was pro-
ceeding with the argument for the plaintiff in error, when
the further hearing of the appeal was adjourned
till this

day. --
The Braintree church rate ease is fixed for judgmcnt this

N[7OlllZ tux Ilursaps me Rolm.

LORD WARD ;7T71; 67.1F-DR-1;,-VORWEA- TRRAND WOLVtit-

HAMPTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. noupell, with whom was Mr. Loyd, moved that an
injunction, which had been granted ex parte in this cant, be
dissolved. Lord Ward was owner of land over which the
railway was intended to pass. The company had entered ,
into a verbal agreement with Lord Ward for the purchase I
of a pled of laud, the purchase money being 5,5061; and
they subscqui ntiv entered into auother agreement for the
purchase of another plot of land, the purchase mone of
which was to be c 5,62.51. In the early part of Veil Mr. Luf
ford, the chairman of the company, wrote to Mr. Meagher,
the agent of Lord Ward, stating that the purchase matey
was re.,ily to be paid for both the plots, but as they
only wanted at present that which wits comprired
in the 5,0251. purchase it was hoped that they
would nut he required to pay fur the other.
until possession was required. Mr. Maughan replied, de-
chalet to give possession of the land comprised in the letter
contract until a formal contract was entered into with re-
gard to the land comprised in the verbal agreement. A
meeting of the agents of the respective parties afterwuds
took place, at which cheques, dated 26th March, I/452, were
given for the respective sums of 6,6254. and 5,5001., hut with
regard to the cheque for the latter sum there was an agree-
ment that it should not be presented till the expiration of a
week, in order to give time fur the completion of a funnel
contract. The cheque for the 5,6251. was presented and
paid, but the other cheque was not presented. The at-
tunics for the company sent a draft of contract, but
it was rot deemed satisfactory, and in the meant;me
the bank of Mcßee,. (teflon' and Wragge, et: which
the cheque was drawn, stopped payment. Sometime
after this the company claimed possession of the land, hut
plaintiff declined to give it, on the ground that the purchase
ticuticy had not been paid. The company then ensued a
warrant, under which the sheriff took forcible possession
under the Laud Clauses Act, whereupon the plaintiff filed
this bill pras ing for the [Teethe performance of the con-
tract; and the court grants d an injunction restraining the
company from going on the land. The motion now la fore
the court was to dissolve this injunction, the real question
between the parties being, whether the cheque wu a good
payment; and it was contended, on behalf of time c impany,
that they had done all that was required of them,
having submitted the draft of a contract which
the vendor was bound to take ; while on the
other hand it was shown that Mr. Raiford,
who was the chairman of the company , had written to the
plaintiff's agent, stating that the matters in dispute were
by no memo nettled, and that the cheque would nut be ho-
noured until they were.
The blaster of the Rolls said it was a mixed question of
law and equity, and he suggested that, as there was a con-
flict of evidence, the motion should stand over, and plaintiff
should bring an action at law for the payment of the pur-
chase-money, defendants admitting, for the purposes of the
action, that the land wu conveyed.
This proposition was acceded to. The ease to be men-
. tioned again on Tuesday, in order to formally settle the
issue.

Barnes VICI-CIIAVC/I.IARSia Geuton Triorn.
SIIIPSON V. DENISON AND OTHERS.

This was a motion by the plaintiffs, two shareholders in
the Great Northern Railway, praying for an injunction to
restrain the defendants, the directors of that company, and
the directors of the Ambergate, Nottingham, and lhaton
and Eastern Junction Railway, from applying the funds of
the Great Northern Company to purposes which they)
alleged to be illegal. These purposes were, first, to work
the traffic over the Ambergate line ; secondly, to pay that
company, under the pretence of toll, such a sum as would
indemnity it against any liabilities it had incurred by means
of a contract to purchase the Nottingham and Grantham
Canals, and to pay such a sum as would amount to a ,
diviJrod of 4 per cent. upon the subscribed capital ; and,
thirdly, to apply, at the expense of the Greet Northern
Company, to parliament for a bill to carry out an agree-
ment which had been entered into between the directors
of the two companies embodying these, among other terms.
On behalf of the plaintiffs it was contended that this agree-
ment was illegal, on public as well as private ground,. On
public grounds because it was an agreement that one mina
pany should work the traffic over another line, which was a
delegation to another company of the duties imposed by the
act of parliament on a particular company. On private
grounds because it was an attempt to apply the fund of the
company to purposes not contemplated by the act under
which the shareholders hail subscribed their capital. Oa
behalf of the defendants it was argued that this was not an
agreement by which one company was to take entire con-
trol over the line of another, but only an agreement by one
company to work over the line of another, pay-
ing toll, which was perfectly legitimate. That the
toll to be paid might be calculated in any way,
and they have agreed to calculate it in such a way as to
enable the Ambergate Company to make certain payments
to wkieh the)- were liable. The agreement would be most
beneficial to both companies as well as to the public.
His Honour said he would give judgment next Monday.

BIIPOZZVICYCIIIANCILLLOIISta /AIM, Num.&
This being the first clay of the sittings after Trinity
term, the court eat at Lincoln's-ion.
IN HZ THE INCUMBENT AND CHUHCHWARDINB OP

Baomrros:

A petition was presented—by the incumbent and church-
wardens of Brompton under the Church Building Act (the
8 & 9 Vie., c. 70), for the apportionment of the charities of
the parish between the different districts into which that
parish had been divided as long ago as 1848,
and in March, 1849, an order was made referring
it to the Master to state what charitable bequests
had been made for the use of the parish of lit. Mary
Abbotts, Kensington. The principal charities sought to be
apportioned were thaw known as "Lord and Lady Camp-
den's Charities." From the Master's report it appeared
that Lord Campden's Charity was a gift in 1629 for " the
good and benefit of the poor of the town of Kensington."
Lady Campden's Charity was • gift by her in 1643 " for
and towards the better relief of the most poor and needy
people, to be of good life and conversation, that shall be
inhabiting within the parish of Kensington, and for putting
forth one poor boy or more cf the said parish to be appren-
tice or apprentices." Trustees were originally appointed •
of these charities, which have ever since been administered
by successive trustees.
After nearly three years spent in the Masters' office the
case CMG on in March last upon the Master's report
upon the petition of the incumbent and churchwardens of
the district of Brompton. On that occasion the court de-
cided that the gift of Lord Campden for the " town" of
Kensington was to be considered as a charity for the
" parish " of Kensington. The court, however, reserve.
its judgment on another point which was raised in argil.
meat, whether the charities were apportionable within the
22nd section of the Church Building Act.
The Vice-Chancellor now gave judgment, and held that
the charities were apportioned within the act.
The case of the " West Ham Charities," reported in 2
De Oex and Hinkle, 218, was referred to both in the argu-
ment and the judgment.
The matter will be brought on again on the:construction
of other charities in the parish._

LVMLiIf V. WAGNER.

Mr. Bothell (Mr. Matins and Mr. Martindale with him)
stated that he appeared on behalf of the defendants, and
asked that the injunction which had been made to en-
train Miss Wagner from singing, and Mr. Oye from per-
mitting her to sing, at the Royal Italian Opera House,
Covent-garden, might be made perpetual. On behalf of
the defendants be offered to pay all the costa of the suit.
, This being all the relief which the plaintiffs sought by
the bill, he presumed there could be no objection to the
motion.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. llislop Clarke appeared for Mr.
Lumley, the plaintiff, and they stated that the proceedings
had gone no further than that the defendant's answer had
been put in. If in that state of the cause the court thought
that the defendants were entitled as a matter of right to
have the bill dismissed, the plaintiff would offer no opposi-
tion ; but it must not be understood that the order would
be made upon his consent.
The Vice-Chancellor said the court always considered
such applications to be laudable, as putting an end to un-
necessary litigation. By tke order the injunction against
the defendants was made perpetual, and the defendants
were directed to pay the coats.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YzoTERDAY.
amis. ATTAR TwnT TWO IN WETTNINATIII AT Nint
BOJO= TES LOAD CHM BARON AND 14*ACIAL
O. PHINN.—CILIN. CoN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a captain in
the army, against the defendant, also an officer in her Ma-
jesty's service, to recover damages for criminal contemn-
tion with the wife of the plaintiff. Defendant had
pleaded not guilty.
On the case being called on, Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, on
behalf of the plaint if, said he was happy to say that, sub-
ject to the consent of all parties, it had been agreed between
his learned friend, who represented the defendant, and him-
self that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff for 800 i.
Mr. Willis, who appeared for the defendant, said he had
been instructed to consent to this arrangnment from a
desire to spare the feelings of the friends of both the parties
concerned. It was not denied by the defendant that he
bad inflicted an injury upon Captain Fisher, and it was to
be regretted.
The jury, under the direction of the Lord Chief Baron,
then returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages Mi.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YESTERDAY.
limas Ma. Comonemaxa Gramma.
In K Comimine.
The bankrupt was an attorney, of earlton•chambers. The
one has been frt quently before the court ; on a late occa-
sion the examination was adjourned lino die, and the bank-
rupt subsequently applied for a re-bearing.
His Honour now said the bank•rupt had, by his supple-
' mental acctatate, admitted the Mamoru, of AN. on wigch

be formerly sought to pus, and they embraced items
mounting to 12,0001. lie had charged the s-:icitor to the
assignees with receiving about :kW. assets and nut paying
the money into court.
Mr. Chidley, the solicitor referred tn, said th.it he had
an allocatur from the master fur a much larger amount than
that. Hitherto ho had teen paid nothing
Ills Honour said that was nut the regular course. Tho
money must be paid into court in tho first instance, and,
after deducting the court fees, it would go in discharge of
the solicitor's bill.

Mr. Chidley promised that it should be done that day.
His Honour said he had taken time to consider thetiase,
and he was convinced that some of the statements in the
aflidevits were untrue. The bankrupt charged etre:), one
concenied in the ease,—counsel, assignees, and accountants,
—with being guilty of neglect or culpable ignorance, stok-
ing thereby to prove himself a much injured man, tnd•
withstanding his additional accounts admitted errors in the
former ones to the amount of 12,5001. The court was
always willing to give a bankrupt a locus penitentite, act-
ing on the maxim of Lord Eldon, that it was never too late
to tell the truth, though a man might have told untruths a
hundred times; but it was essential that this principle
should not be carried so far as to harass or injure the cre-
ditors. lie would, therefore, order that the bankrunt, on
paying all the cads of this application, as be'wecn attorney
and client, and the costs of u further sitting, might bare a
day named for another examination meeting.
Mr. Chidley said that was the same order which was
made prior to the List sitting. The bankrupt lied only paid
the ordinary fees, 31. odd, while the expenses of the sitting
had actually exceeded 40/. ; it being necessary fully to in-
struct counsel. The same expense would have to be in.
turfed at another meeting.
His Honour did not think he could mike any other order
than that for the usual expenses; but the bankrupt must
pay the costs of the application before a day was named.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YEsT ERDAL

baron Ma. Commanion.a ITeLiare,

IN Tog. MATTO!. or FRANC!!! SWANNICK.
This insolvent, a chemist and druggists lately carrying on
business in the Brixton road, applied to be disch aged from
prison. Mr. Sargood opposed for the trustees of William
they Smythe. surgeon, of Vauxhall-walk, under sentence
of transportation.
It appeared that Smythe, who it will be recollected was
sentenced to transportation for life for rape (and whose
case it was now said was under further consideration), had
advanced the insolvent 3001. The insolvent hail given him
a polity of insurance, a bill of sole on his furniture and the
lease of the premises in the Brixton-road. He insol-
vent) alleged that Smythe owed him money, but admitted
Bait while he was in Newgate he (the insolvent) gave
Smythe a paper to the contrary, and this he did to quiet
his mind. '1 he insolvent had allowed the policy to heroine
forfeited, the furniture had been swept away, and the pre
wises he had given up to the landlord since he had beta in
prison.
Mr. Sargood complained on the part of Mrs. Smythe and
her cluldren, that the insolvent had destroyed a property
which was of value.

Mr. Commissioner Phillips suggested an arrangement.
Die insolvent said he could offer nu terms. Ile had
been in prison some months and very ill. Ile was brought
up by the charitable fund of the court.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips, in giving judgment, com-
mented on his conduct in depriving the family of Smythe of
any benefit from the security he had given. Ile adjudged
him to six months' imprisonment under the diseretionory
clause.