The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-16 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 16, 1863.

lab) Intdligentc.

METROPOLITAN COUNTY COURTS.
Mtlag days appointed foe the present west.
'IFIIIMUSSims, St. Marldn's-laaa—Meeday, Feb. 19 Tuesday,
17. Wednesday, 18.
BLoOlutairar, Portland.road.—Wednesday, Feb. 18: Thursday,
19: Friday, S.
maarryisoma Marylebooe.road.— Friday, Feb. M.
llsoirerog, Wbstehead'essove.—Thuraday, Feb. 19.
Basorman—Theaday, Feb. 17.
CMOtilawlLL. Duneen-idmius.—TueudaY, Feb. 17 Wednee.
day, 18.
BHOILIDITCH. Oldatreet-relit —Tuesday, Feb. 17 . Thursday, 19.
Bow, Bow-road.—ltriday, Feb. M.
WHITICKAIIiL, Great Preseot-etreet—Thursday, Feb. 19. Fri-
day. 20.
SorrnwAsi, Swartetreet.—Tuesdag, Feb. 17: Thursday. 19:
Friday, 20.
Lawarre, Camberwell New.road.—Tuesday, Feb. 17.
Onsiswicii.—Weduesday, Feb. 18 Friday, SO.
Woomnell —Thursday, Feb. 19.
CITY or Lowboy, Guildhall-buildings.—Tuesday, Feb. 17
Thursday, 19 ; Friday, 20.

EQUITY COURTS.—Fmk 14.
(Before the Lords Justiore of Appeal.)

LADY MARY ?OPIUM r. THg DMZ OF PORTLAND.—
JUDGICINT.
Their lordships delivered judgment in this case, which
was an appeal on the part of Lord Hoary Seekonk against
part of a decison pronounced by the Mantra of the Polls on
the 9th of July last ; and on the part of Lady Topham
against the remainder of the decision. The bill was filed
to set aside, so far as the plaintiff Lady Topham—formerly
Lady Mary Bentinck—is affected, various deeds settling two
sums of 16,0001. each in favour of Lord Henry and lady
Meg Bentinck; an annuity of 2,7201., and the income of a
fund originally consisting of 52,0001. Three-and-A.IW
per Cents., but since increased and varied by accumula-
tions and changes of securit , in favour of Lady
Mary and her sister Lady Bsutinck, but
subject to certain conditions, and under the follow-
ing circumstances :—Upon the marriage of the late
Duke and Dochees of Portland in 1795, the English
estates of the duke and the Scottish estates of the duchess
were respectively charged with the sum of 40,0031. each in
favour of the younger children of the marriage, who by the
death of Lord George Bentinck in 18414 were reduced to five.
Prom the evidence it appears that for man before
1848 a mutual attachment existed between Lady Mary Hen-
tin& and Sir Wm. Topham ; that the late duke was opposed
to their marriage, and that Lady Mary came to a determi-
nation that she would not marry Sir Wm. Topham during
her feather's lifetime except with his consent, bat that she
considered her father's control over her on that subject
ought not to extend beyond his lifetime, and she expresed her
intention when freed from that control to unite herseU to the
object of her affection. The late duke, anxious that his °Ni-
trol over his daughter should extend beyond his life, resolved
to place her in such a position with respect to her share of
the portion to younger children that she must make a choice
between 16,0001. and marriage with straitened means. Ac-
cordingly, in 1848, the late duke executed two deeds ap-
pointing two sums of 16,000/. each to Lord Henry Bentinck.
There was no doubt that once-half of these sums was intended
for the benefit of Lord Henry himself, and the question
raised by the plaintiff related to the other half. Lord Henry,
on the day of the receipt of the second sum of 16,000/.,
invested it in the names of the present duke and Mr.
Ellis (the man of business of the late duke) upon trust
until the Duke of Portland for the time being
should assign it to Lady Mary Bootjack. The late duke
also in 1843, assigned 52,0001. to the prevent duke, Lord
George and Lord Henry. Bentinck upon trust for Lady Hat-
nett and Lady Mary, in such shores as the duke for the
time being should appoint, and in 1848 charged his Mary-
lehone estates with an annuity of 2,720/. during the joint
lives of the two ladies to be paid in such shares as the duke
should appoint. The late duke died on the 27th of March,
1854; and on the sth of November, 1858, the plaintiff
married Sir William Topham. Dispositions thereupon were
made of the several sums depriving Lady Topham of any
interest therein. Lady Topham in this suit insisted that all
the appointments were, so far as regarded one-half of the
funds and the incomes therefrom, made for her benefit,
and claimed one moiety of each respectively. The
Master of the Rolls held that by no construction of an
ordinary power contained in a marriage settlement for
distributing portions among younger children could the
late duke have a right to saddle such appointment with
any fancies affecting the social relations of thoee who were
to derive benefit from it. Lady Mary, as one of the
younger children of the marriage, had a right to came in
under the covenant of the late dukes marriage settle-
ment, and it was not for her father to invalidate such right
by the imposition of these condition,. But his honour
considered that this invalidity affected not only the moiety
of the two sums apportioned under the marriage settle-
ments, but the entire appointment, and declared that the
whole two sums of lh,oool. each must go as in default of
appointment. The deeds of 1848 would, therefore, be de-
clared void. With respect, however, to the annuity of
2,7201. and the sum of 52,000!., his honour held that the
fund' therein settled were out of the duke's own money,
which be had a right to saddle with conditions
they were not illspL Lady Mery Bentinck • against
that part of the decree which declared valid t disposition
of the 52,0001. and the annuity of 2,7201. Lord Henry Bou-
tin& appealed against the declaration rendering invalid the
entire appointment of the two some of 16,0001.
The Solicitor•Geueral, Mr. Bolt, Mr. C. Hall, and Mr.
Rowcliffe were for Lady Mao Topham ; Sir Hugh Cairo,.
Mr. Hardy, and Mr. Alfred Bally were for the Duke of
Portland ; Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Hobhouse for Mr. Ellis ; Mr.
Bsgallay, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. F. P. Morris for the defend.
ant, Lord Henry Bentinck ; Mr. Gifford, Mr. S. Stevens,
and Mr. Foaling for Lady Harriett Bootjack ; Mr. Selwyn
and Mr. Bardewell for the trustees of Lady Topham's mar-
riage settlement.
The Lords Justices declared the appointments of the late
Duke of Portland, depriving Lady Mary Topham of her
share in the 40,0001. charged on the English estates, void,
and that there was no valid appointment as to the moiety
of the sum of 16,0001., but oonsidered that the other moiety
was well appointed in favour of Lord Henry Bentinck.
They directed a statement of the facts of the appointments
which derived their authority from the Scotch settlement of
the Scotch estates to be made out with the view of amer-
tainiog the Scotch law on the subject, and subject to this
reserved their judgment as to this point : they declared
the appointments made for the present duke with respect
to the sum of 52,0001. and the annuity of 2,7201. to be void
as against Lady Mary, and as they were frauds on the power
under which they were executed to be invalid.
Tee statement of the questions involving Scotch law will
be submitted to the court on Wednesday weak.

THE EARL OPDARBLET V. THE LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER

RAILWAY COMPANY..

In this appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Stuart,
decreeing specific performance of an agreement dated the
22nd of June, 1858, and sn award dated March, 1859, under
which the defendants were to construct a cattle arch sad
other works for the plaintiff, their lordships held that the
►ward was sot binding on the company, and discharged the
Vice-Chancellon decree, giving at the same time leave to
the plaintiff to amend his bill, provided his amendments
were confined to matters connected with the agreements of
the 22nd of June, 1858 This leave was limited to a month,
sad all questions of costs were reserved.
Mr. Moline and Mr. Cotton were for the company ; Mr.
Beton and Mr. Hardy for the Earl of Darnley.

I had forgotten that, though we ourselves are not unac-
quainted with the advantage of the guineas.
Witaves—When I consulted Mr. Chichester Fortescne I I
did not nay 1 was a director, I always said I was about to be
• director.

Mr. Berjeant Ghee—you were to defend the company in
the Home of Commons ; now that is not a pleasant tMng to
do when a company lain difficulties.
Witnees—lf I really belonged to the company that would
sot deter me. I did not know before the discussion in the
house that emigrants were to be mot out across the Rocky
Mountains. I should have thought it a disgraceful thing if
I had known it. Mr. Malcolm brought the inAtter before
the home.

Mr. Perjetutt Shea—The notice of motion referred to an
advertisement in the Tones of the 17th May : had you seen
that advertisement

Witness—l believe not. I cannot say that I read the
parliamentary notice, bat Initially read those things.
Mr. &meant ghee—Had you received a letter from the
Rev. Mr. Barber *airing about this company'
Witness—He asked me what I thought of it. I don't
know that I answered the letter, and I dare say 1 sent it to
Mr. Hensen. I knew Mr. Loder, and his name also attracted
my attention in the prospectus. I do not know that I ever
had a prospectus in my possession.
Re-examined—l think Mr. Ramon took away the pro-
spectus he brought. I think Mr. Loder's, and lam sure
Mr. Mangles' name was in writing and not printed.

Mr. Pinner—l am an oil merchant at CoCircb's.hill, Green-
wich. The first I heard of this company was upon going
to my bankers, when the secretary to the bank asked me
what this company was. This was the first day of the ad-
vertisement, which I bad not before seen. It was shown to
me at the hank. I bad given no authority to have my name
advertised, and I knew nothing of the company, having
never heard of it. I went at once to the office of
the company and maw Mr. Henson, and asked him how
it was that my name was advertised. He said Colonel
Sleigh wu not in, and he could say nothing about it. I said
my name was to be instantly removed. I called again at
Mr. Henaen's request., sod saw Colonel Sleigh. Mr. Powell
was with me. Colonel Sleigh said he did not know how it
was ; he thought Mr. Hansen had given authority to pat
my name in. He said my name should be withdrawn. I
threatened to write to the papers ; but he I would
' not, and said all a man could say under such •snosiL
Nothing was said about an indemnity. After some days I
received from Hansen a letter of indemnity, but I took no
notice of it. (The letter was dated April U, and said that !
the writer thereby indemnified the witness from all Sabin. I
ties in connection with the company.) I never saw any ad-
vertisement with my name in it after this. The next
I saw were some unpleasant remarks in the papers,
and a letter from Mr. Mangles disclaiming any
connection with the company. I also wrote to the .
Times, but the letter was not published. I wrote to ask
the tense, but got no answer. I called at the Times. I
afterwars waited personally upon Mr. Sampson,who ,
writes the money article in that paper, and succeeded in
getting a letter inserted in the Time. After I requested
my name to be withdrawn, I took steps to ascertain that
this was really done, and I received a letter from Mr.
Heinen, informing me that my name bad been withdrawn,
and that Colonel Pierce Somerset Butler, late M.P., had been
elected in my stead—(laughter)-and thereupon I took. no
further trouble.

Crawaramined—l bare never been connected with any
company. I was but a short time with Colonel Sleigh.
He never said anything about directors receiving 2001. cash
or paid up shares. I believe not twenty words pared
between us. No notice appeared in the Times of the
withdrawal of my name until August, but I had written
to the paper in May, and done all I could to get a letter
Mr. Samuel Starkey—l first heard of my name being in
the prospectus by seeing one of them brought to buy of
I went to the company's office and asked Colonel Sleigh
why my name had been placed upon the prospectus. He
mid it was all correct, that Messrs. Pritchett- and Collett
were respectable Dedicators. and they would see that all was
right. I have no recollection of Mr. Hansen telling me
that money had been received and emigrant. would be sent
oat. I went again to the office to see if I wee really in-
demnified. On the first occasion I told Colonel Sleigh to
withdraw my name. Finding my name was not withdrawn
I wrote to Colonel Sleigh to withdraw it immediately.
Crossaxamined-1 went to the office of the company four
or five tima altogether, and I might have been there as
late sa the last week in May. I was not there more than
five minutes at a time, for they got me out u rapidly as
they could, as I threatened to expose them.
Serjesuit Shee—You went because your name was
in it i

itiinem—And I believe the fellow would have.put your
name in if he had 'mows it. (A laugh.)
Mrt.. bierjeant Shee—Oh, no ; it would have got him no
credi

Wltnes.—l wish your name bed been there instead of
mine. (Laughter.) I never inquired of Heinen or Sleigh
whether any money bad been received, or whether any
emigrants were going out. I went to get my name with-
drawn, and to see if I could stop anything that was wrong.
I was never told I was to have paid up sharer; or money if
the company succeeds!.
Mr. Jadia—Mr. Essen called at my °Moe with a pro-
spectus, and Naked me to be a director ; and I agreed to be
a director when the company should be regularly formed. I
never knew the company was doing any business until the
dimension in the House of Coramona
Mr. Loder—l consented to become a director when a
preliminary meeting was called, that I might know whom I
wee to be associate! with. I never knew that the company
was transacting any business.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, stated that he
thought that the evidence did not support the counts in the
declaration which alleged fraud, and that the real question'
was whether the defendants were liable upon the contract
made by Colonel Sleigh and Mr. Hansen. This depended
upon whether the defendants gave authority to carry on
Seines under the name of this company. It was not ne.
casary that they should actually have given authority if
they allowed Colonel Sleigh and Mr. Hanes to hold them
out ea directors, and to transact business underthose circum-
stances. His lordship then detailed the evidence as it'
affected each individual defendant, and requested the jury
to say whether they found a verdict against all or any of
the defendants.

mind to oonaider their verdict, and after an
absence of an hour they seat to ask if the parties would emi-
nent to take the verdict of 11 of the jurors, as there was no
probability of the 12 being unanimous.
This was agreed to, and a verdict was given for the
plaintiff nzainst all the defendants except Mr. Fenner—
damages, 160 f.

THE POLICE COURTS.