The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-05 00:00:00

EXPARTE CHIIRCRILI,-RE OUFMHB,

This was an appeal from a commissioner in the country.
It appeared that Griffiths had been adjudicated bank-
rapt alone in September last, and in October be had been
adjudicated jointly with his partner, one Thornycroft. It
was alleged that there would be assets from the separate
estate, but none from the joint estate, Thornycroft being
only a nominal partner with no means. The registrar ma le
an order suspending proceedings on the separate adjudi-
cation, sod directing the proceedings in the joint case to go
on. Against this order the appeal was brought.
Mr. Hawn and Mr. De Gee appeared for the appeal. Mr.
Kanlake was for certain creditor in the same interest.
Mr. Lovell, for other creditors. wished the proceedings
to be consolidated, as they believed that there were assets
to be got from Thornycroft.
Mr. Clement Swanton was for the bankrupt.
Mr. Eyre Lloyd appeared for the official assignee to con-
sent to soy order that might be made.
The Lord Chancellor—Why do you appear at all? It
should be known that when an official assignee appears to
consent to an order, it most not be done by counsel,
and in such cases no meta will be allowed.
In the course of the argument a question arose whether
this was not a case in which, under the 814th section of the
Bankruptcy Act, the matter ought to be brought before the
Chief Commissioner in London, for the purpose of having
the adjudication consolidated.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that it was such a ease,
and he discharged the order of the registrar, and gave
liberty to any party to apply to the Loudon commissioner
to have the proceedings consolidated. There would be no
costs on either aide.
THE LORD CRANCELLOR AND MR. COMIIIRSIONER GOCLBORN.
It may be remembered that in a cue of "Re Still," which
was heard on Wednesday last, some observations were made
bythe Lord Chancellor on the subject of the appointment of a
manager of the estate of the bankrupt. His lordship said, when
be heard that a manager was appointed, that there was
nothing to manage ; and the appointment of a manager was
one of those abuses is the proceedings in bankruptcy which
created unnecessary expense and eat up the estates to be
administered. His lordship inquired who applied for
and who granted the appointment. To which Mr.
Bacon replied that the application was made by the assignees
and granted by Mr. Commissioner Goulburn. In the Court of
Bankruptcy, on Thursday, reference was made to this
statement by Mr. Commissioner Goulburn, aid he was in-
formed that a correction of the statement of Mr. Bacon was
made in court, and the Lord Chancellor informed that the
manager was appointed by the creditors, who alone had the
power under the act to do so.
To-day, at the rising of the court,
Mr. Bacon said that he had been requested by Mr. Com-
missioner Goulbaru, who had been pained by his statement
that the manager io question had been appointed by him.
to correct that impression, and he (Mr. Bscoo) now wished
it to be known that, although he had made the statement
alluded to, it was erroneous and a mistake of his own.
The Lord Chancellor s.sid that after Mr. Bacon had made
the statement some one in court aid that the appointment
had been made by the creditors, upon which he observed
that it was an abuse which ought to be corrected.
He bad no intention of casting any blame on Mr. Commis-
sioner Goulburo, and he could say that the country was
much indebted to that learned commissioner for the care,
assiduity, and diligence which he had shown in carrying out
the provisions of the new Bankruptcy Act ; he had had
imposed on him more than his due share of labour in that
duty owing to the absence of other commissioners, and he
(the Lord Chancellor) should be sorry to my a word calcu-
lated to give the learned commissioner pain.
[lt may be added that the correction of Mr. Bacon's state.
meat by " some one in conrt " was not heard by any one of
the representatives of the morning papers who reported the
case, or it would have been duly recorded.]

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
THE BEDFORD AND CAMBRIDOII RAILWAY COMPANY r.

STAJILKY.

In or about the year 1141Wilce promotes of a railway, pro-
jected to join Bedford and Cambridge, entered into agree-
ments with the owners of land along the line of the pro-
posed railway, and amongst others with the defendant
Stanley, for the purchase of their land at thirty years' value.
The first application to parliament to venation the line was
unsucceeaful, but in 18fi0 an act passed incorporating the
plaintiffs and authorising the formation of the line. The line
so authorised deviated to some extent from the one I
proposed in 1859, but in its objects was identical with that
projected undertaking. Upon obtaining their act the com- '
pany gave the defendant notice to take his land, and they
claimed the right of taking it at the price named in the
wreement. T that he defendant objected, on the ground
of the deviations of the line, and the consequent difference
to himself in the value of the land proposed to be taken.
The company then filed the present bill.
Mr. Molt, Mr. W. M. James, Sir H. Cairns, Mr. Speed,
and Mr. Bovill were in the case.
The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the company,
by giving notice under the L. C. C. Act, had waived their
right to a specific performance of the agreement entered
into by the promoter., and, consequently, that the bill must
be dismissed. But, under all the circumstances of the case,
the dismissal would be without wets.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
DOBNAY AND DORMAT r. CABLE AND CABLE—(IN MINA
PAOPEEDO.—SPECIAL JURY.
The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinka appeared for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Dr. Tristram, and /dr.
Berle for the defendants.
This was a cause of proving io solemn form the last will
of Miss Ann Wells, who diesion the 24th of July last at
Chasm, near Epsom, of which she was the oldest inhabitant.
The instrument in dispute bore date 13th of
November 1.58, and probate was resisted on the und
that it had been procured by undue influence. The deceased
was the daughter of a brewer, and had lived a great por-
tioa of her life with another maiden sister, at whome death,
about 20 years ago, she experienced a considerable SICONSioa
of wealth. The property left by the deceased consisted
mainly of 17,3001. Consols.
Mr. John Dormay, a corn and coal merchant, and
gas manufacturer at Wandsworth, said—l have
been intimate with the deceased about 40 years.
When she died she had no very near relation that I know
of, the nearest being second cousins. She had a companion
named Ball living with her, till two or three years ago ;
and she had also an old servant named Margaret 4pikesman.
I brut began to be concerned in the affairs of the deceased
in the year 1133. I went to see her in the first instance with
Mr. Cull, who had married the daughter of the late
Mr. Beanies, the cousin of the deceased. Saw her again
about a month later by myself, and she said she wished
me to get another will made for her. She stated that Mr.
Cull had behaved ill to her and had wanted to dictate to
her about the disposition of her money. If she proposed
to make any bequest he would say to her, " Oh, but you
are leaving it away from my wife. I was aware that she
had at that time made a will, by which Mr. and
Mrs. Cull and myself were appointed executors. I
tried to pacify her, and told her I thought it would be •
pity for her to alter her will. She persisted, and often re-
newed the subject. At last I told her she moat give me
instructions in ber own handwriting. Accordingly she sent
me a list of the legacies that she wished to leave. (The list
was read. It comprised legacies amounting to about
10,0001.1 From these instructions a will was drawn up,
which was executed on the 19th of December, 1854. She
wished me and my moo to be her executors. I asked her who
was to have the residue of her property, and she said
" yourself." lashed if she would not leave it to her rela-
tions. She replied, " No, I have not been treated well by
them, and I have not seen some of them for years. Beaidee,
they are nothing but second cousins." 1 told her that I

thought she ought to leave it to Mrs. Cull as she had dots
before • but she refused. She said she would not giv.: her
more dais the 1001. which was down io the list. 'fold her
that unless she gave her at least 500/. and a bit of dual
would not be executor. The will was drawn by Mr.Coroellia,
a solicitorjat Wandsworth, from the testatrix's inotructious.
A year or two afterwards she told me that eeveral of the
legatees bad died and that she should like to make another
will, leaving them out. I told her that she had better let
her old will alone ; but I ultimately said that if she Mg
have a new one she must again give me instruction" io
writing. She did so. I took them to Mr. 'kale's, the
, and a draft u s prepared which I outputted to
praetor
I again tried to persuade her to leave ?dr,.
Cull 1,001. but she would aut. The draft having
been settled, the will in dispute was duly executed. At
I that time the deceased was to the best of my judgment of
perfectly sound mind. After 1834 I used to aasist her in the
' transaction of her affairs. in February, she
executed a power of attorney, by virtue of which
I received herdividende for her. Three or four year, ego
I asked her to lewd Ma 1,0301. for my goo. who was in Limi-
ness in the silk line. She told me to take as much as
pleased-6,0001., if I liked. She said she did not want it
and it would save me the legacy duty. After tome time I
took the money, but I psud her the full amount of her
dividends u long as she lived.
Craw-examined—Kis Wells was el 3 years of age when
she died. She had been a friend of my father, but she did
not visit me after his death. For JO years before 1.4.13 coy
intercourse with her had been confined to calling °crisis.
ally for an order for coals. I took the instructions which
the deceased had given me to Mr. Corneille, and told hint
to make out a will in accordance with them. I cannot say
whether I spoke to Miss Wells about the residue
before or after then. I think it was afterwards.
She never wrote anything down about her residuary estate.
I knew that she bad stock to the amount of above 17,000/.
I did not call her attention to the fact that the residue
would be 7,000/. or 8,0001. I did not ask her to put down
in writing who was to have that.
Mr. Hawkins—lf you required instructions in writing as
to the legacies, why did you not require it ss to the residue!
Witness—l suppose I did not think of it. When Mr.
Cull called on her she was very cool to both of
um f3he would hardly speak to na. In her list of legoriel
Mrs. Call is down for LOOM. but she said that that was A
mistake. When Miss Wells suggested that my son, John
Peter Dorsey, should be coexecutor, I don't think she hA
seen him. I don't think she ever saw him at all. She
has left him 5001. He is now about thirty-five
years of age. When I accepted the 6,01',
I did not give her any memorandum. She was a very close
person, and would never have anyone present while we die.
cussed the matter. The gift to me of 6,080/. was never
mentioned to any human being. My son only wanted
1,0001. for his business. I invested the remaining 5.0101/• in
silk, and to my sorrow lost a great portion of it. I did not
even Inform my son that I had had 6,001. given me. I
told no one till I mentioned it to my proctor about a month
ago. The memory of the deceased was defective. She was
afflicted with gout and cramp. She never complained of
neuralgia ; but she said she could not sleep at night for
thinking of her will, till she had made a new one. I daze
say she required constant attention, but I should Dot may
she was helpless.
Mr. A. A. Coreellis spoke to the preparation and execra-
tion of the will in 1854. It was read over to her, and she
said it expressed her wishes.
Croseaxammed—Had never seen her before ; and was not
is the house above half an hour.
Miss Harriet Killick, daughter of Mr. William Killick, of
amain, said her father was very aged—he was, in fact, 07.
I Was on intimate terms with Miss Wells. Mrs.
I Ball died three or four years ago. In 1844 Miss
Wells told whose that Mr. Cull had behaved very
ill to her and he had given her a great deal of trouble.
She said " That man Cull has been to me telling me what
lam to do. lam determined that he shall not oome to my
house." She seemed very angry, but she was of perfectly
sound mind. Should say that she remained perfectly col-
lerst"d till the evening before she died.
Cross-examined—My girders and I are legatees under the
will. Mr. John Dormay's father married my aunt.
I should say my family were the most intimate friends Miss
Wells had :lad in Cheam. Believe that she was very much
attached to Mr. William Hearne', but I heard her say
she was so to his family. Miss Spikeemaa was a distant re-
lative of hers ; but her other relatives, did sot visit her much.
Miss Lucy Killick and Miss Margaret Spikeemsn were also
examined, but the cause was proceeding when we went to
pram

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE RESULT, THURCOOD, AID CO.
This was the sitting for examination in the cue of Joseph
Henley. John Francis Thorgood, Joseph Henley. jun., and
Ilichard Henley. hop, corn, and seed factors, of High-street,
Borough, and of Ashton', in the county of Keot The ac-
counts show a gross liability of 11,7951. ; against which there
are good debts' of 1,17744; property given up, 1,6391., ditto
held by creditors, 1.4701. The bankrupts; bad been re-
ItuiraLd to furnish cash, goods, and deficiency accounta.
Honey, Humphrys, and Honey, in reporting on
those accounts, state that on the 7th of July, 1862 (the
date of the adjudication being the 2nd of August), a cheque
was drawn by the bankrupts in favour of one Hyatt
for 194/. lGs. ; this cheque was entered in the
cash-book, but not posted to • ledger account.
The bankrupts state that this amount was divided
equally between them, but not recorded in the books. On
the same day a cheque was drawn for mss., payable to Joseph
Henley. jun., and the proceeds divided equally among the
three Henley'. A few days subsequently a farther sum of
501. was received, and retained, making in all VW. Between
the 2nd of June and the 4th of July, goods to the amount
of 7221. were purchased, and on the latter day de-
posited with Mr. Thomas Canton, wharfinger, Horsley
down, for an advance of roar. For the last two years the
bankrupt bad had accommodation transactions with Messrs.
Wallis, of Ipswich, and bills of this chum to the amount of
2.4721. were in circulation at the date of the bankruptcy.
The trading account showed, on purchases of 28.249!.,
a gross profit of 1,9371. only, against which the expense*
and knees by bad debts and sales amounted to
8,6711. The partners drawings had been respectively as
follows : 4hlL, 4681., 519/., and 1801. The deficiency, which
on the Ist of August, 1861, was 690!., was at the date of the
bankruptcy 7,4251.
Mr. Linklater, on behalf of three of the bankrupts, ap-
plied that they might pass ; the fourth, Mr. Henley, sea.,
had died since the commencement of the proceedings.
Mr. Bagley said that the assigner were not wholly
satisfied with the accounts. but they did not think that any
better oould be obtained. They would have much to say
when the question of discharge came before the court.
Mr. Crossfield, for a creditor, drew attention to that
portion of Mews. Rouey's report relating to the appro-
priated cheques.
Mr. Linklater said these small rums bad no doubt gone
in their ordinary persoual expenditure. It would be matter
for comment when the conduct of the bankrupts was con-
sidered.
The bankrupt then passed.