The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-24 00:00:00

HOOK V. HOOK.

This was a cue raising a point in gavelkind tenure, which,
strange to say, seems never yet to have been determined.
The question was this, whether the great nephews of a
deceased person were entitled to take as representing their
father, who, it living, would, with other nephews, have
been a ealieir in gavelkind of the deceased.
Mr. Higgins and Mr. Osborne were in the eau.
The Vice-Chancellor remarked on the singular want of
authority which prevailed with reference to this case, and
after examining various old decisions which bore indirectly
upon it, came to the conclusion that the great nephews took
as representing their father. Whether the right of repre-
sentation in gavelkind went beyond this it was unnecessary
to decide, and upon that his Honour was unable, at present,
to form any decided opinion.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 22.

Sittings in Banoo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Crompton and Blackburn.)

GLOVER V. PERSIGNY AND BILLACILT.-THE HORNING
CHRONICLE.

This was an application on a matter of proceeding, and
was of no interest except with regard to the relative position
of the parties. The plaintiff, Mr. Berjeant Glover, was a few
years minoe proprietor of the Morning Chronicle. The de-
fendants Count Persigny, the French Minister of the In-
terior, was at the time of the action ambassador to this
country, and M. Billanit was a member of the government.
The action was for work and labour for writing and pro-
curing to be inserted in the Morning Chronu/e,
and other newspapers in this country, oertain articles,
&c., by the defendants' orders and directions. The
plaintiff swore in his affidavit that he was employed in
England by M. Billault as Count Persigny's agent, and that
in a personal interview with the latter in Paris this employ.
ment was confirmed. Count Persigny had appeared to
the action, and the difficult, was with reference to M.
Billault.

Mr. Gray now moved to set aside an order of Mr. Justice
Crompton, setting aside an order of Mr. Justice Mellor,
the object being to restore the latter. which was that the
plaintiff should be allowed to give notice of declaration, and
proceed in the action as against both defeodanta. There
was abw•aoother point in the proceedings relative to alleged
negligence on the plaintiff's first attorney.
Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 22.
SittiEp in Benoo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and
Justices Bytes and Keating.)
RURRELL V. RA DA BANDIDLC—A BRIP OF WAR FOR
PORTUGAL.

In 1858, Mr. Scott Russell, the plaintiff, entered into a
contract with Viscount Bandeira, the Minister of Marine
for Portugal, to build a war steamer of 400 tons burden for
the price of 10,4001., the ship to be " finished, fitted, found,
sod equipped in manner similar in all respects to that
which is practised with ships or vessels of the same class in
her Majesty's navy under contract with the Admiralty, except
machinery." The questions now raised for the court were
whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover 3,3181. for
work done, as he contended, in addition to the contract,
and there wen also a question whether the defendant was
entitled to claim the penalty provided in the contract of N. a
day for delay in completing the vessel. The case was partly
heard on Friday, and was resumed this morning.
Mr. Bovill addressed the court for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Collier for the defendant.

The Lord Chief Justice said that the claim for things
supplied seemed to divide itself into three heads. The first
related to things supplied during the performance of the
contract; the second was for extra spars, Ar.., or what
might be termed "warlike equipment ;" and the third for
things supplied after the ship bad been delivered and ac-
cepted. Under the last head the amount wu 1161., and
there was no doubt the plaintiff was entitled to recover
that. As to the second bead, he thought it wee clear
that the Portuguese government believed that the vessel
was to be supplied with extra mute and sails,
but he also had no doubt that the contract
did not bind the plaintiff to supply those things. The
plaintiff, however, having been required by Admiral Sar-
toiins to furnish the articles, which cost about 2.000/., and
having refused to do so, it had been arranged that he should
furnish them " without prejudice." Not having been
obliged to do this under his coot:set, but having done so
upon request, he was entitled to recover the amount. The
remaining heed of claim was for things done during the
construction of the vessel and upon verbal request ; but the
contract provided that all alterations made without •
written order from Admiral Sartorius should be included
in the contract, and therefore the plaintiff could not recover
on account of them. As to the penalties, the plaintiff did
not seem to be liable, inasmuch as the delay had occurred
in consequence of acts done by the Portuguese government.
Judgment accordingly.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 22.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
ANDREW V. ANDREW.

Mr. Serjeent Pigott and Mr. Stecley Hill for the peti•
tioeer.

ItWas a snit for a dissolution, on the ground of cruelty
and adultery, brought by the wife of a Berlin wool shop-
kee Shrewsbury. She was married to the respondent
in Jululy, 1852 ; and she deposed that his conduct was very
harsh and unmanly. The adultery was proved by means of
• number of love letters (which were read by the judge
privately), and by the evidence of a surgeon.
Decree nisi, with costs, and custody of the children.