The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-16 00:00:00

Rain inttilteence.

THE REV. EBENEZER DAVIRB v. THE
REV. Mt. TIDMAN.

THE SAME v. REID AND ANOTHER.
It will be in the reeolleetion of ear readers that on the
last day of the proceedings in the protracted cue of "Davin
v. Pratt, the publisher of the British Mr.
Whitely, Q.C., the arbitrator to whom the tease had been
referred, announced his intention of witholdiag his award
in that case until the adios* brought by the same plaintiff
agaicst Dr. Arthur Tailless, the forage mastery of the
London Missionary Society, and Mesa. Bald and Palen,
the printers of the alleged libel, shield haw bees peeeeded
with. The learned arbitrator was annewbell pissed en the
part of the plalatiff to give an immediate awed in Mat Noe,
without hearing the others; bet be remiimedine is his
decision, both on the ground that the determination be bed
come to would, in his opaline, save expense Is the pasties,
and that if an award were made bt the aides et " Davie v.
Pratt," it might be prejudicing the two pending saws.
He therefore gave the plaintiff until tbis ley to eeenider
what course, Wing under the advice of his eouneel be 'Medd
adopt.
Accordingly the learned arbitrator held a attains is the
" Irish Chamber " at Guildhall, this day.
Mr. Bailaatine and Mr. Lush appeared as teamed foe the
plaiatiff.
Mr. fierjeant Wilkins and Mr. Barnard again represented
the defendants.
It was then arranged that the learned arbitrator should
read over the evidence taken in the case of " DlViltell. Pratt,"
and should on that evidence, as the material issues were the
same, make his award in the case if " Davies v. Tillman; "
sad " Davies v. Reid and another." This arrangement
nreetiag with the concurrence of the parties concerned,
The learned Arbitrator announced his intention of giving
his award before be goes on circuit.
This announcement gave the greatest satiafactiOn, as the
verdict is moat anxiously looked for.

EQUITY COURTB.--Pu. 15.
MORI TIM MAIMS us 1M MI"
LTTOZNIT-OZWIZAL f. EATOLLN.
This was an Informatics, fled by the AMmenry-Gmeral, the
abject of it being to obtain a new scheme Ise Me administra-
tion of a charity at Wickham, in BaskamMemddie. Dr a
charter of Queen Elisabeth certain leads mese greats" as
trust to found a grimmer school at Wickham, and elm for
the maintenance of four poor persons. A saMet charter
was granted by Xing James by whisk It wee Mimed that
the trusts amid .stead also to the relief of ether pus mid
seedy miss ef the said borough. The mama ammo was
40M. a pm mad it ways y admittedl6ol, in the answer. Math would
thorn be imasseed . a year. The ere the
truisms
mayor, alenssen, and eseaMl, of the ostgesseles of the
hogwash, nail now sad he seem time pest the Moped-
tits of the feeds bee bum that 70i. ialas" 8.
the support ed as abed, ind tM sumbierlee
bas applied prude* is dralkis of the peseddel
rates. All Mal was Wmd for by the infoneetion was that
there should be a saw ethane on the subplot of the school,
and that the meal eiessuits may be takes of what the
charity estate meals
Mr. Loyd, with Masa was Mr. Whits, wbe;appsared for
the defendants, submitted that the salt was wholly wine-
iwassry. New raise and ordinances were made for the
school in 1862, sad be did not understand that they were
questioned.
Mr. Terrell said a serious question arose whether th
second charter, so far as it varied the trusts of the fint
charter by ineinding in them relief to the poor indefinitely,
was not a nullity.
His Homer mid he would consider a scheme In cham-
bers. The moral principle on which the court proceeded
in those mass was not to allow charity funds to be applied
in aid of the poor rate, but there was great difficulty in
carrying that principle out.

LITORSZY-011113.LL V. 11000.
This suit was instituted for the porpoee of procuring the
removal of a truant of • charity in Middlemen in the
esenty of York, and to have proper triunes appointed. It
appeased that for the last hundred years then has been a
school at Netherdale, called the Loftlioine
fiehael at which ten boys were instrueted. The charity
was fer:inded by the will of John Lazeaby, made in 1743,
who gave certain lands to three trustees, the trusts being to
support a grammar school. The defendant is s descen-
dant of the servicing trustee, and the legal estate is
vested in him. The custom has been that the
schoolmaster has been aminted by the trustee,
with the concurrences of the churchwardens, and that
the schoolmaster has bad pommies& of the charity
lands which are only dolma value. The defendant, how-
ever, in 1861, dismiseed the master, and then allowed bidi
to retain his situation on paying dm IW. a year as rent for
the land, which rent defendant had converted to his own
use. Defendant, when applied to to remedy this abuse,
gave no other answer than a recommendation to the appli-
cants to mind their own business. The defence set up was,
that the will was not enrolled, and was void under the
Hornstein Act, sad that therefore defendant was entitled.
His Honour said, when be found that a charity had been
administered for 100 years in • particular manner' he re-
quired say person who contested it to prove that he was
entitled, and the burden of proof lay upon him. This de-
fondant said the will was void under the infanta of mort-
mein. There were many other modes by which it might be
made a good charity, sad defendant had not proved that
these were not adopted. He had no evidence, however,
that the will was not duly enrolled. He would seems
that it was not, and that the heir-at-law being aware of
this devise disclaimed all interest in it, and wished the
trust to be carried out, sad that every ancessein heir-at-
law had done the sum this', would this court at this &o-
unce of time allow the heir-at law to claim the property ?
It certainly wcald not, aor would it allow the holder of
this property to say that the performance of this trust was a
mere matter of grace and favour on his part, and that he
should perform them or not as he thought lit. He should
make a deers* declaring that the whole of the income of the
charity property was applicable, subject to any necessary
outgoings, to the payment of the schoolmaster, and for the
appointment of new trustees. He should give costs if they
were asked.

Mr. Hoopsll said he believed Moor, the defendant, was
in poor circumstances, and cats were not asked for sgaini
him.: Thal 038 N of the relators were provided for by sO-
seription.
His Honour—Vary will. I shall not give the defendant
oasts, be nut pay ha own.
Mr. Reopen was for the relators, Mr. M. Palmer and Mr.
Faber for the defeadant.
- ALLAN C. RIITPINANI.

The plaintiff in this Gas; i. the inventor of tortes im-
provements in the electric telegraph, for which he obtained
a patent for this country In November, 1860, and is the
same year he obtained • patent in Holland. He also, in
1861, obtained, at his own impetus, a private act of parlia-
ment for the formation of a company, to be called the
United Kingdom Telegraph Company. One object of the
proposed company was to work a submarine telegraph from
this country to Holland. As a preliminary to this, • con-
cession from the Dutch government was requisite, and, in
order to obtain this concessioe, plaintiff, as was alleged en
his behalf, entered into an agreement with the defendant,
who is • native of Holland, and had influence with the
Dutch government, that he should obtain the onceesion,
and that he and the plaintiff should share the profits of it.
Ruypenaer obtained the concession in May, 1862; but,
previous to doing so, plaintiff exhibited models of his
invention which, in defendant's letters to the plaintiff, he
said had been of considerable service ikinducing the govern.
mint to grant defendant the concession. After he had
obtained the concession, defendant came over to this country,
and, after seam negotiation with the plaintiff and the per
who were about to form the United Kingdom Telegraph
Company, be sold the concession to Mr. Ricardo, who acted
on behalf of the Submarine and European Telegraph
Company—the price being 1,0001., and a royalty in the
shape of a share of the profits. Plaintiff bad thereupon
filed this bill, claiming a participation of the profits which
defendant had, and would derive, from the sale of the
concession.
Mr. Ffooks, who appeared for the defendant, contended
that the concession was the absolute property of the defen-
dant, and that plaistit lied nothing whatever to do with it.
Moreover, that the United Klagasea Oempeny was, in feet,
never termed, end that daltwinat was Justified in disposing
of it to resgeorMie gardse, whin would relieve him from the
eandifisen illadwita the esseession.
His Beam odd he would hear Mr. Palmer on the ques-
tions at weidurn beam delivering his decision, and he was
not rare witstherla should not require the intervention of •
jury to determine as to the facts.