The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-24 00:00:00

THE EXPRFSS, SATURDAY EVENING, JAINUAItY 24, 1863.

slaty intrlligence.

EQUITY COURTS.-JAN. 23.
(Before the Lords Justices of Appest)

IN RI SR THOMAS MANTON WILSON'S ISTATS.
The was an appeal petition from an order of Vice-Chan-
cellor Wood, varying his chief clerk's certificate, h 7 which
the LAW had awarded Sir Thomas 3isrycon Wilson, as
tenant for life of the Hampstead estate, the sum of 1,0161.,
part of 4,6961. awarded as compensation with respect of
airtaio oopyhold lands taken by the Hampstead Junction
Railway Company. Sir Thomas M. Wilson claimed this
cum order the Oopybold Enfranchisement Acts, on the
ground that the sum of 1,0164 represented the fines
which would have become payable to him as lord of
the Hampetead Manor and as incident to his life estate.
The persons entitled in reminder to the estate, on the
other band, maintained that no pert of the 4,6911. could
be oossidered to represent fines, inasmuch as the money
was awarded for enfranchisement of the inheritance, and
Sir T. H. Wilson was entitled to the income only, and
' not to say pert of the money absolutely. The Vim-Chan•
oellor, in giving judgment, said the claim of Sir T. H.Wfiaon
could not have been enforced against the railway company,
nor, in his opinion, could it be against the
interested in remainder. When the Lands
Clausespersona Act, under which this enfranchisement was
enforced, was passed, copyholders could demand
ompulsory enfranchisement from the lord. Consequently
none of the clauses of the Eafreschisement Acts could Inap-
plicable to the present case. The Vice-Chancellor accord.
ingly varied the chief clerk's certificate so far as it appor-
tioned 1,0161. to Sir T. M. Wilson absolutely ; and against
this decision frotr T. H. Wilms appealed.
Yr. Bolt and Mr. Hetherington appeared for Sir T. Si.
Wile= • Yr. Daniel and Mr. Hanson were for the persona
interested iiiremainder. but were not called on.

Lord Jaeties Hoight Brans, in ing the appeal. said
the Vice-ehaucellor bad taken the correct Mew of the case.
The tenant for life was entitled to damages for any imme-
diate injury to his estate'; but the residue represented the
inheritance, of which the Want for life was entitled to the
annual income only.

COURT OF COMMON PLKAS.-JAir. 23.

Sittinp in Bantax—Wors Lord Chid indica Erb, and
Justifies Wthatwa,Wißr, and Keating.)

TN RI AN 47101111iT.

Mr. Garth movedfoTaTecs ciallingepon an 'Roney to
show muse why he should not answer the mitten in the
affidavit, and stated the following circumstances. A farmer,
who was about 75 years of age, and who was so unedu-
cated that he could baidly write his name, had employed
the attorney for the last 20 years in investing 5,0001. or
6,000/. on mortgage. The charge spinet the attorney mu
that he bad called in money which he had invested, wlthoet
his client's knowledge, and had appropriated it to hie own
nes.
The Lord Chief Justice said that they relied upon the
learned counsel to state correctly the substance of the afil-
davit, and the substance beets/6 stated, they would
not trouble him to go into the •
Rule granted.
cows Aug IP. BARI:NO.—ALM= 1118=PRZBFI2A1702f,

ITi; was 11a;tronria instiliTThoe;a7 Baring,
Arm of Baring Brothers, to recover damages in compeer.
tion of loss sustained in consequesce, as was alleged by the
plaintiff, of false representations by the defendant in refe-
ree., to the affairs of the °mad Trunk of Canada Railway
Company. The truth or falsehood of the imputation was
not at all io question for the purposes of to-day, the only
point being whether the venue should be removed from
Brecon, where the plaintiff had kid it, to London. The
matter as to the change of venue had been before Mr. Jus-
tice Byka. at chamber", who referred it to the court.
Mr. W. Williams, for the defendant, said that the grounds
for changing the venue were that thecae.. of action, if any,
arose in Loxdoo, the witoesses for the defendant were 111
London, and the plaintiff and the defendant resided in the
neighbourhood of London.
The plaintiff showed eases in the filet ketones, stating
that the adios was mainly founded upon document. which
bad bees psbliehed all over the kingdeni ; that he dul oat think
the defendant would have to call many witnesses, but that
if he did, it would be no peat hardship upon him to take
them down to Wales ; that be was informed that the de•
fondant did not reside in London, but in the neighbourhood
of Salisbury ; that the plaintiff would have to be in South
Wales upon other Weiner at the time of the arises, and
that his convenieoce should be as much consulted as thet of
thedefendant. Further, it wassubmitted thatit would beery
difficult to get a jury in Loudon who would not be isflusnoad
by the position cities defendant in his favour, whilst there
would be no such inflames in the agricultural county of
Homo.
The Lord Chief Justice mid that the case came within a
very clear rule of practice muse of action arose in
London, asd there would be great expense incurred by
trying it elsewhere. He doubted the propriety of trying an
English mercantile case before a Welsh jury, god there was
no doubt thetas impartial Jury could be obtained to Loudon.
Bale absolute to change the venue to London.