The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-24 00:00:00

Raw intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YartiaDAT.
Misuse my Leen Jams we amern.
AnsaLug-0 ip, Mgaggegg.
The Leda* deli • visa this ewe, the
epee white wee AI poet hese 011117 la
kat. will IMP glowshopla Or
Ile
dee to thelt mode el ete Orin asedas serrr:7%
eladi lis Derwisk-cistresidomilel the Low Meet-
kitt. as HM Hill the the Malay
ies": it dedered dot vim amid be sew
dalesd wavily to the Sem and epos mid of the
selabilehed Chetah ef beethuedr and le bete the &Ind-
ira Ikeisall. doe poems Meld., eriaider, reefteeed
keel Me is. sod re=lbeeddies at dee chapel
eauettei'LLreeed that the sushi to be eitU.r
• es • reseled: Mailed= resegaised minis-
ter et Chareh of Ihmodeed ; and that Murdoch hail,
gheeWinelmstlem I. the dr pewohted the free church end
avowed iM00111.11•211 /1 with • 11WW•tUniosi with the
Church:v.. The lallarmatiow Mao sought the re-
moval of two of the trodear of the chapel on thu same
ground By the deem wade by Vice-Chancellor Wi,
In Not., 1819, it was declared that the Low Meeting-heave
von subject to trusts fur the appropriation of the
Mlle. as • place of religious worship on the
model of the chinch of Scotland, and in as strict connexion
with the same as was practicable ; and that no person was
%Wined for, or competent to exercise the office of, minister
eir pastor of the Low Meeting-house, without being • licen-
tious or regularly onlaiard slander of the Church of Scot-
land, aid in full connexion and communion therewith ; end
the decree restrained the diteedant ltlunloch from occupy-
lag and using the pulpit, and from preaching and teaching
in, and in any manner officiating as the mullet, r ur peter
of. the reseting-hons• ; and it restrained the defendant and
the trustees from permitting any other parson to utticiate in
the pulpit who was nut • minister or licentiate of the
Church of Scotland. From this decree the defendant,
the pastor. sad the tritium, had appealed to their
lordship..
Lord Ju-tire Knight Bruce was of opinion that the decree
below should be wholly alfunied, and the appeal dismissed.
Be Obserreil that the main question was as to the fitness of
Yr. Murdoch, after joiring the free church, and snowing
opinion. inconsistent with • communion with the este,
jibed I. hureh of Scotland, to be continued se minister of the
chapel. This depended upon the evidence in the cause. There
Was nothing in the deed" relating to the meeting-house to
afford an answer to the question. The trusts, as they there
•ppeare.l. were fur " protestant dissenters” generally—a
Sera large enough to include every claw of diameter, whe-
ther in r.,snrsion with the Church of Scotland or not. It
was admitted, moreover. on both sides, that the congrega-
tion to which the chapel was attached had from its com-
mencement been • corporation in opinion, views, awl pro-
fession. pn sby terian. There being nothing in the deeds to
allow fur which clan of preabytcrians the benefit of the
trusts WS. intended, recourse must be had to usage. It
wax mot necessary that the usage should have been
established at the foundation of this eongrigation_;
but it was competent to the congregation, with
the Concurrence of the trustees, at any time to introduce
new regulations not inconsistent with any deed or instru-
ment of trust. The practice of electing none but a licen-
tiate or minister of the established Church of Scotland,
whieh had been uniformly observed fur 60 years prior to
the institution of the suit, and with one or two exceptions
for • long time anterior, .forded an inference that a rule
requiring such a qualification had been adopted by the con-
gregation.
Lord dilative Lord Crsnworth was of opinion, that taking
the congregation to have been in ita origin presbyterian, no
indeed was admitted on both sides, the usage only 'stab.
lisheil that the congregati.m had an option to reject any but
• pastor in communion with the Church of Scotland; not
that any rule had been established binding them not to
elect a pastor of any other claw of preshyterians. Their
lordships having differed in opinion the consequence was
that the judgment of the court below was admix!, and
with coos_

Mr. Molt, at a later period of the day, applied for leave
to give notice of motion to suspend the operation of the de-
cree pending an appeal to the !louse of Lords which
the parties intended to prosecute ; and that until
such notice could be given, the court would di-
►ect the operation of the decree to be suspended
in order that no interruption to the service might take
place on Sunday at the chap:, such service being still per•
formed there by Mr. Murdoch, under the indulgence of an
order suspending the decree of the court below pending the
appetl which had been made by Vice •Chancellor Wigram.
Their lordships gave leave to serve notice of motion for
to-morrow (this Joy).
- -

IN VIE Maras or BROWNS.
This was the petition of a tenant for life of settled pro-
petty which had been sold to a railway company, and the
proceeds paid into court. The object was to obtain the re-
investment of the money in other lands to he settled on like
Uwe The application had been made in the first instance
to Vire•Chancellor Kinder;ley, who had declined to make
an order without the presence of the parties entitled in re-
mainder under the settlement. The investment proposed
had be. it approved by the Master.
Mr. Bethel! and Mr. Speed, in swiped of the petition,
said that the objection taken by Vice-Chancellor Bindersley
was entirely new. The orders for reinvestment had been
made 4- ir 20 years upon the application of the tenant for
life in the absence of the parties entitled in remainder. It
was considered that those parties were sufficiently guarded
by the court. The expense to companies of carrying nut
their negotiations with the tenant for life were sufficiently
eneres% bat if in addition they were to be called upon to
lad out and serve the parties entitled to the inheritance in
remainder, the expense would be greatly increased.
Mr. Baggallay appeared for the trustees.
Their Lordships thought that the parties in remainder
might be considered as represented by the court, in analogy
to the can of a private settlement where the parties in re-
mainder were always repro-ented by the trustees. The
master, in fact, on these occasions was to he looked at ae a
quasi trustee. It wee improbable that the tenant for life
would desire en improper investment; and if he did there
was the check of tee master ; and of the railway company
itself, which, if it colleded, might itself be held to be a
invitee. and es he obliged to pay the money over again.
Under the circumstances it would be nnadvisablc to disturb
a practice which had prevailed no keg.

Serums re I recaure.rwor.—Deesee sue Lees Cam-suss.
Ii e F AAAAAA

or Loans JrATICIIII.
An applisustion in this cam was made to the Lords Jus-
tices under the instates II George IV. and 1 William IV.,
c. M. for • refs/sacs to the Kean to inquire as to the pro-
priety of selling a prelim of tho lusatier Mate, with the
view to sat *sin So dot AM. The application was mode
under the /1111 A omen a the latter .'state, I.ltßh gave the
Lord Coansellor power to maks an order. The Lords Jus-
tices, however, entertained a doubt so to their jurisdiction
in the matter, inamanish as this words of that section de-
clared that it should be lawful for the Lord Chancellor,
instructed as aforesaid," Ike., the referee,* being to the
13th sestion, which is is those words: "The Lord Chan-
cellor of Great Britain. being instructed by virtue of the
King's sign manual, with the ears and comietmcnt of the
custody of the persons and estates of persons found idiot,
lunatic, or of Eruntad Wed, by petition or motion, in a
summary way'. Their lordships entertaining doubts whe-
ther their jurisdiction extended to this matter, referred the
petition to this court.
T • Lxd Chancellor said he would consider the applica-
tion, and at the same time look into the question of the
jurisdiction of the Lords Justices. If be found that they
had no jurisdiction in this and similar cases, he should
adopt the necessary steps to have the defect in the act under
which they wets appointed remedied.

loom Tenaluacarane Its Imo ?dam
Dualisms las r. Ilors.—Ho,►aa v. Dassiarias.

Mr. Bothell filidelaill la reply is Ina eiesser—
Tim Vies Closaller sal be ameba she ikes to eentidee
the quartiee. The ale sill be awed lass lie itosoor
RSfrivol
RS Till utasst Ewes. Pavanes. Fla MC10311'01?

tidase.

This owe was somewhat similar to Bs Iq'it is reported
ia 3 Deli. and NW., no.
Mr. Dottie' and Mr. ReOmagh appeared in support of an
appeal by the oMeisl mower, asking that Mr. Tanner's
wee swat be pissed sa tie lin of the eontnbutories of this
es spas) end saisayeased to shoe. tkat Mr. T had
Warred 'liabilities kayoed throw of Mr. Beaky.
Mr. Maim apperml kr Mr. Tanner.
The wit raearied Mededioa. A fuller report of the
we is pmepesed wail tar jetlisiese shall be given.

Urea, Trra.riwerinAas lirmarUrr.
IN Da TM. ONZAT 14011,TD or ENOLAND AND Tollit•
SKIDS •ND 01.411710 W UNION KAIL.AY CollrANT.—
PDTITIoN To MACHADO. lAA WI/Miro-Tr 01IDEA

This was a petition that the order made for wading up
the affairs of the above cosepany might be discharged, or
that it might be referred to the Mister to ascertain whether
any further proceedings should be taken under the winding-
tip order.
Mr. Roxburgh for the official manager, and Mr. Smile
for another party, raised a preliminary objection, that Mr.
Carrick had now so interest in this company ; 1w was •
stranger to the affair., and was therefore not entitled to
present this petition. The farts were these—that Mr.Cavick
had originally been placed os the list of contributories by
the Meter, but he had appealed from the Master's derision,
sad Lord Cranworth, before whom the ease was hoard, had
decided is his favour, and his lordship said at the end of
his judgment, as appeared by the printed report, that his
name was to be taken off the list of contribut cries, but
liberty we to the colleini manager to apply to the
Master, aad produce any further evidence to replace his
mane ups the Bet.
Mr. Daniel submittal that this order of Lod Cranworth's
had not yet bees drawn up, and consequently that Mr.
Carrick'. name was still upon the li.t of contributories, and
he had, therefore, • right to take them proceedings.
The Vice-Chancellor said the order sot haring Men
drawn up made no difference. As Lord Cranworth had
directed Mr. Canick's maw to be tam of the list, that
order walltaftkient. Moreover it was clear that Mr. Car-
rick maiotained he was not, and ought sot to be a contri-
butory. Ceder such circumstances he could not now apply
to have the winding up order diaeharged. Bat if Mr.
Carrick thought Gt to waive the order of Lord Cranworth
sad to esinsow. ledge that he was a contributory, then
be NA& its heard upon this petition.—lt subsequently
append that the eider actually prepared is parirrese of
lard Cvssweethbesest we so this effect, the• a raws
ease was Mirk es _
ureter to miss his report, mg cow
Mar bey hertbes Misses this 10.16 be protium* by the
Amid selymdest:velebssibe Ws Ali use obeli* with
lbe Is his eftesjediptses. kis

honour oonsidered that the understanding of all parties was
that the order male did not positively direct Mr. Carrick's
same to be expunged from the list. Under these eircnot-
starless he thought Mr. Carrick was entitled to present the
' present petition.
Mr. Daniel then opened the case on behalf of the peti-
tioner but the court yews before the opening was con-
' elnelesi.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YErnanay.
Senior sa Loss Carr u!.u. Illa.hones !ammo,

147. JtorioTo Orsioroo. LIP M. J Wm, Wsoirrigar.

TSB NAVAVIS or ISALISBORY V. Till ORIAT NOSTIMUI
RAILWAY C . IIIVoLTANTDICI6IO/1.
. _

Thit was a special case from Chancery, for the opinion of
this ware The plaintiff is the owner of certain lamb at
Hatfield, in Hertfordshire, and on the 21st of May, 1841,
the defendants served him with the usual notice of their in-
tention to take certain lands deeteribed in a schedule and
plan thereunto annexed ; and culling upon him, within 21
days, to state the sum he was willing to receive for the
same. The land was surveyed on the 18th Jane, sod all
other necessary measures taken to citable the company to
eater on it under the 85th section of the Lands Clauses
Art. The special act of the company was pared in June,
1848, by the 27th section of which the compulsory powers
of the company for taking Land were limited to flre years.
la June. 18:il, the company applied to justices with a view
to assess the compensation ; a surveyor was appointed, and
on the 21th June the amount at which the land was valued
was paid into the hank to the credit of the noble plaintiff,
the compulsory powers expiring on the 26th of
the same month. On the Bth of July the come
pony summoned the tenant who was in possession
of the land before the justices, in order that the compensa-
tion to which be was entitled fur his interest in the land
should be assessed. The justices mussed the amount at
251., which was tendered to the tenant, and refused. The
1 marquis then tiled a bill in Chancery praying that the de-
fendants might be reetraiued from entering on his hind ;
and the case came on fur argument before Sir J. L. Knight
Bruce, who sent the present case to this court to take the
opinion of the learned judges on the question whether thu
defendants, under the circumstances stated, now have, or
had in July, 18.11, the right to take the land in question.
Mr. Bramweft, on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted that
the company had no right to trice the land after the expire.
tioa of their compulsory powers entree they had actually
entered on it. The servise of the notice was not sufficient
to bind the party on whom it was served, although it had
been held to be binding against the company giving notice.
In " Adams v. The Black wall Railway Company" (2
M'Naughten and Gordon) the Lord Chancellor held that the
notice was only preliminary to compulsory proceeding., but
was not a compulsory proceeding in itself; and as the de-
fendants had not exercised all their compulsory powers
within the tire years limited by their act, they had no right
to take the land.
Mr. Phipson, nu behalf of the Company, contended that
the measures which they had taken before the 26th June
were sufficient, without any actual entry on the land, to
entitle them to take peessesoon of the same. It had been
held by the Lord Chancellor in " Doi si. The London and
Croydon Railway Cornelliny" (1 Railway Cases, p. 207,)
and " Stone r. The Commercial Railway" (1 Railway
Cases, p. 37.5,) that the service of the notice by a railway
company on the landowner was the commencement of a
contract. The learned gentleman cited other cases in sup-
port of his argument.
Mr. Shapter having replied,
Lord Campbell said, the case had been fully and ably
argued, and they had bad all the authorities which could
be adduced before them. It was a subject, moreover, to
which the attention of the court had been fro quently di-
rected ; and he therefore thought they might now, with
perfect snftty and propriety, express their opinion upon
the case put to them by the Court of Chancery. The
question was, whether the defendants, in July last, had a
right to take the lands of the plaintiff, comprised in the
notice, dated the 21st May, 1841. It was conceded that
all the measures necessary to be taken, except the actual
entry on the land, had :been taken by the defendants;
but they had not entered prior to the period pointed
out by the 27th section of their special act; and
the court had to determine whether they had a
right to enter after the expiration of the time limited
by their act. It had been determined in the case of Armi-
stead and the South Staffordshire Railway Company, and
also in the case of the South Devon Railway Company, that
if the company had entered before the expiration of the five
years, an action of ejectment wou.d not lie against them;
and the court had now to consider what the effect of their
entering afterwards would be. That would depend upon
whether the entry was to be considered one of the compul-
sory powers; becalm the act said that the "compulsory
powers " shoull not be exercised after the expiration of five
years. Now, was the entry a compulsory powers Ile
thought it was not, but merely an set for the completion of
the purchase, and not a " compulsory power" for making
the purchase. The terms "purchaser" and "contract"
were used in these cases; but, in point of fact, there was no
purchaser and no contract; the legislature might, however,
place the parties in the same situation as if there had been a
contract between both parties. That court had determined
in Osborne's case that, as far as the Inndowner was con-
cerned, he was in the same situation as if there had been a
contract, and he might compel the company to complete the
purchase of his land which they had given him notice to
take, after the expiration of five years; and that deci-
sion had been solemnly confirmed by a Court of
Error in the Exchequer Chamber; so that, after
the expiration of five years the landowner might compel the
company to go on. It had been decided by the late Lord
Moncrice one of the mast able, learned, and discriminating
judges that ever sat in any court of justice, and also by a
' majority of the Scotch judges, as well as by the Exchequer
Chamber, and by Vice-Chancellor Turner, that, after notice
had mart been given, the parties stood in the relation of
vendor and purchaser. Now, looking at the power which
it bad been determined the landowner had of compelling
the company to go on, he did not see any reason why it
should not be retiproeal ; and the judgment of the court
must, therefore, be for the defendants.
The other learned judges concurred.
Judgment for the defendants.
KING, CLIRC, e. LIQUOII6II.—BUILIAL FEM.
This case came before the court upon demurrer, and the
question for the consideration of the court was whether cer-
tain moneys in the hands of the churchwardens of Wap
ping Stepney, were payable to the rector, or might be
applied for general parochial purposes. The question
turned upon the construction of an act of parliament, by
which the baguet of Wapping Stepney was separated from
St. Dunstan's. Stepaey, and awhich provisions were intro-
duced fur enabling the vestry of the parish to fix the
amount of certain burial and other fees in relation to the
burial of the dead, paying 1001. annually to the
rector, if the said fees should amount to that sum.
The fees haring exceeded that amount, a difficulty arose as
to the appropriation of the surplus, which had been claimed
by the rector, but refused to be paid to him by the church-
wardens, on the ground that the surplus was applicable to
general parochial purposes.
Sir F. Kelly haring bees heard in support of the rector's
claim, and Mr. Cowling on behalf of the churchwardens,
The coast deferred judgment.