The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-27 00:00:00

Raw iintelligence.

EQUITY COUHTS.—YZETUDAT.
llmam a LONOI/44OP.—Barans m lass a•■rrf.m.
ralarra. r. CAWST.—COMMITTER o► • LoxAnc.—
Tw■ NSW LAW or BVIDINCI.

The moment he the defendants wee resumed yesterday
gaerelag by Mr. Mains, and mother question arose by way
Of episode to this elaborate cute. In the original suit,
Windt was instituted by the plaintiff, Mrs. Percival, the
three eammittees of Miss Caney's estate, Stanton, Vervell,
and Page, were joined aa defendants. Mrs. Page, the wife
of oue of the committees in that suit, was examined as a
witness on behalf ol the defendants. Subsequently, as
folly captained in our report of yesterday, the lunatic died,
sad the nit was revived against the three committees sod
M. Page and Mrs. Verrell, as the next of kin and
plasm
trsstratrixes of the lunatic. In the court below, the
Vice-Chancellor held that Mrs. Page's deposition was
taut admissible as evidence in the revived suit.
TM now question arose and was elaborately argued
yesterday. Mr. Nabs was proceeding with his comment
en the evidence adduced, to show the insanity of the dee
fondant, Mica Carley, in ll4iH, when Mr. Russell, on be-
half of the plaintiff, objected that the deposition was Mad-
sensible. Counsel were heard at length on both aide., but
the argument need nut be stated, as it will appear from the
judgment.
The Lord Chancellor said he was of opinion that this de-
position was admissible as tenancy. It was the exami-
nation of the wife of a person who atuod in the position of
defendant in the original cause, which suit had been
subsequently revived us the common form, so as to include
that witness at a defendant. The point had been very ex-
tentively c.irrieil out in the argument, sod it gave rite to
some rather peculiar questions. The first point that
anise was, whither Page could he examined. It was ne-
cessary, thertione to inquire what ens his position and
legal character at the time that the deposit' of Mrs.
Page was taken Ile was simply a defendant in the
character of committee of the lunatic, Sarah Caney. Ile
(the Lord Chancellor) had devoted particular inquiry to the
question of tho power which the cementer of a lunatic re-
ceived from the crown. 'That point hail been very clearly
decid, 1, sod the conclusion was that the committee took no
interest or estate from the crown, but had a mere authority
to manage the estate; he, therefore, considered that Page
had then uu interest in the lunatic's estate, fur nothing ap-
peared to make the committees defendants exeept as com-
mittee, of the estate. Mr. Page, therefore, stood as a de-
fendant without interest, not even eta trustee, for he was
nut so inuili as a trustee, his position only amounting to
that of a joint manager of the estate. But it was said that
m one of the detendentt to that suit he was liable for costs.
Suppoeing that Mr. nice had any liability with regard to
the costa, or proceeding a step beyond that, that he was
liable as to the subject matter of that suit, nothing
could be clearir than the proviso of the act of par-
liament that a defendant may be examined on behalf
of a co-delentlant, or on behalf of the plaintiff, notwith-
standing hit interiet in the matter in dispute. Whether,
therefore, he was liable in respect of the subject matter or
for yeti, that would term no objection to his being ere-
mite il. It was said that an examination could only be
made by order. art order made before the enactment which
made defendants liable to be examined. The question then
arose were the defendants monied to such an order ? Ile
thought th it as Mr. Page had no interest is the suit be-
yond his character as committee, that he was entitled to
have that order. But seturnine that Mr. Page could be
examined, did it follow that his wife could be examined ?
The lung established rule of law was that a wife could not
be examined fur or against her husband. No alteration
had yet hen made on the, established rule of law. It was
a rut • founded. in his opinion, on • principle which Wilson"
valuable a yen than the administration of justice, and that was
saying a great deal—the necessity of tiresereing the confi-
dence and the happiness of domestic life. The liability to
error through misconception, the preservation of the confi-
dence which should i list between man and wife, supported
the mod rule that a wile should not be called on to give evi-
dence against her husband. Many valuable opinions had
doubtless been expremed against that rule, but until the
legialeure eaprretal a clear opinion on the subject he
should not feel justified in departing from it. Therefore,
though ho was clearly of opinion that Mr. Page could be
examined, he doubted much whether as a general rule it
would result that Mrs. Page could he examined also. Dot
inasmuch re Mr. Page had no interest in the original suit,
It seemed to him that in no sense could the examination of
Mrs. Peke be said to be evidence against her husband so as
to brew it within the rule of law which would have en-
eluded her testimony. Ile thought, therefore, that she
was properly admitted as a witness. Looking at the prayer
of the original bill, and the issue raised at the time
Mrs. Page was examined, he was of opinion that 1
the was neither examined for or against her
husband. The corniest& ,ee which had subsequently
occurred td champe the character of the defendants in the
revived suit, could not diet the admissibility of that evi-
dence. It accrued to blim therefore, on a consideration of
the whole cireunistangies of the case, that the deposition of
Mrs. Peg, could now be admitted and used as evidence.

The argamest ea no merits of the gamete at line be-
tters no puree will be rewired tad proceeded with to-
urney (this dap.)

assess to Mum SI •n Sett&

TUB ATTottalti-Olateltal. r. TOO TiLOOMIS OP TEM
GulLDruitla
Thia ease came as upon an information of the Attermey-
°mural, sad Mr. W. F.. James mow applied to the nowt
fee a reference to the Master foe a 'theme for an improved
adainistratium of the funds mid in the mataapentest orateId
nstates.
Instates. the chanty Watt founded by Arehberhop Adams,
in the reign of King Jam. I. One portion of the hada
tyros foe the purpow of establishing a 'manufactory, which
:bad laileii, and there had been several suits with reference
to that portion of the (undo, the application of which
bad ben differently ordered by the court. The founder
bad provided in his ordinances that the rents should remain
ne they were at that time, but the taboo of the land had
Mom much increased. One object of the present proceed-
ings WWI to have a new scheme for letting them.
llir Roundel' Palmer. who appeared with Mr. Shibbear,
he the defendants, took an objection that the Archbishop
of Caaterhury, wlw wss visitor of the charity, with large
sod general powers, ought to be a party to the snit.

TM Master of the It.dla said his present impression wax,
that he could sot deal properly with this can in the absence
elf the srehlashop. Mat probably the arehhiehop would
counsel. and submit baud by the deeiaioa
:get:to be
evert is the same "maw as If he bad Imes re-
galed, made party. Tim ere meat go oat of the paper
with liberty to apply to restore it.

Sra lama Pas=

RS THE JIHNT STOrIL COMPANIES WINDINO-UP ACTS
ASII THR DIFILICT EXETER, PLTDOCTH, AND DEMON-
tom RAILWAY CO AAA N A .—CAPTAIN TANNER'S CARR.
Tt.o. was a notion by Captain Tanner that bia name
raight be wrack out et the list et contributories in the
rempsnr, on which it had bro. Owed by the Muter
air Willi,m Moue.

The motion was argued a, length on the 21rd instant, and
was shortly noticed in the Pis of the following day.
Mr. Malin and Mr. Kw,.lake, is support of the motion,
said that question' of liability had arises frequently before
la this company. Bosly's cam (3 Ku. N. and Gordon,
2147) and Itubertes case (2 ib., 191) ems similar to the
present. Captsin T +as only a member of the provi-
sional emarnittee, and if Ur. 'testy woolliest liable there was
noniron why Captain Tanner should be on the list.
Mr. Daniel sad Mr. Rosburgh, foe Its ellicial masmger,
submitted that the awe against Capita' Tamar had been
tarried further than any previous ems • that be Mauled
the nmetiag of the provisional committee that
the eommitteeof assuagement—this Mr. Diem Zdams; '
be Remover attended the meeting held subasemingly widelh
received the report of the committee of assansmasmt, wt.
lag fully what it bad done and which modomed mad
adopted the report, and this Mr. Baird eat dam.
The ennittee eirmainaeuteat wu sot the meat lip-
mitadtzeyia Tamer. „ beepthaeapri when lib led
Kr. Maas, I. reply. submitted that sash was net the
rrfaftereass, that the peevish:mai camadliMe had INIONINI
ia =Masse. Ist Captain Tamer sues as le do pew
eatollage of the company that Named the sets if the taw
mittrs of management, a men slimarm
The motion stood over for jailmmand.

The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment at the sittings( the
court this morning. His Honour said the question sa to
Captain Tangier's liability was said to be concluded by the
decisions is Roberts' ease and Besley's case ; but the essen-
tial difference between the present case and all the others
was that Captain Tanme was a party to the resolution of
the 7th of October. Itt4s, appoisting the committee of ma-
nalremest This circumstance did not exist is the case of
Roberts. It is true he was at the meeting, but he left it
before the resolution was passed, and the Lords Commie.
aioners expressly rested the it judgment on the ciresunstiu.ce
that be did not concur in the resolution ; and, referring to
the case of Besley, it appeared that he had nothing to do
with the meeting, and the Lord Chancellor rests his judg-
ment on the fact that he did not attend the subsequent
meeting. This is reptatvalystated in his lordship's judgment.
The question bef ore the court was as to Captain Tanner's
liability to contribute to the expenses incurred by the
committee of management. in whose appointment he must
be taken to have concurred, and he considered that this
question depended entirely on the relation in which the
committee of management steed to the provisionil
eem-
mittee, or at least to those suembere of that committee whit
concurred in the appointment. If the committee of ma-
nagement was to he retarded ge • onlienteinsittee of the
provisional committee, t the members et the
Wood committee who appointed the mormidttse er:ssrt
nagement might well he liable se metrliame twee& the
exposers incurred by that committee ; but the eene would
he vary different if the committee of management we to
he regarded es • body of persons acting in the hnestion
of the projected company for themselves, and
of the provisional eonsmit'sr. This wee • WiledhlgehooledialZ
storied to by the Court of Ilreheiner he Mho am of Itep
nail v. Lewis," and Wad v. Re,h and
W. Ma). (Here his Hamm reed the Jeep mil of
the Lord Chief Duos to thew mow M kisith.)
Hie Honour however is the present ewe meddered then
the ismatittee of wee a
j=destesipseesse ming
he themselves OA. gemmiggits,
sod net es meets sod on Warhol the peovidenal mar
name. Now • provisional ismiNes wok's 'epitomes
&deem of promoting the whew, sod who wee to sit
thet pewee provisionally. hot is to top amen Whir
1111111111pOlalt amid be mode I when weilhot bosom moo
adenoid a eolleisot maim of moue was thowd.....
oodevtge le de whit inwasememy to hem he
delbpaty. sod to ago In 111

act, and those persons at • meeting of the provisional com-
mittee, held on the 7th of October, 1545, were funned into
the committee of management, and thereupon the provi-
sional committee and their duties ceased. The committee
of management was the committee of the intended
company, and nut of the affairs of the pro-
vidonal committee, and the contracts they en-
tered into were on behalf the company they had
undertaken to form, and not on behalf of the Ora
visional committee. Thus the engineers employed to
make and deposit the surveys, plans, and seetaests, were
engaged in the name of the company, and the account
opened with the Beene Bank was in the name of the com-
pany. The committee of management charged themselves
with these duties en their own responsibility, and were not
I diligent' of the provisional committee. Looking at the
decisions on this subject, his Ilanour weld not see any
ground on which the committee of management could be
authorised at law or in equity to call on the provisional
committee for • contribution towards the expenses incurred.
In December, It i 5, the project was abandoned. Debts,
however, having been incurred by the managing com-
mittee, they made • report, in which, after giving an ac-
count of what they had done and of the position of the under-
taking,they stated that they had bees advised by counsel that
the provisional committee was liable fee the debts of the com-
pany, and • meeting of thu provisional committee was called
for the alit of December to receive this report, and to take
into consideration the liabilities, and decide on the best
means of settling the claims on the company. The pro-
visional committee had taken no part whatever in the pro.
ceedings of the committee of management ; they appear to
have ceased to set from the 7th of October, and they were
in no way liable in respect of the debts incurred.
Capt. Tanner attended the meeting of the 31st of Decem-
her sa a numb, rof the provisional committee, but it ap-
peared to hint that Capt. Tanner was at that time under
so liability to the creditors or to contribute to the commit-
! tee of management, and he attended the meeting under the
same eirtusustances as Besley did, and if so the Lord Chan-
' eellor's judgment in Boilers ease had established
that he did nut become liable as • contributory
by concurrieg in the resolutions passed at the meeting.
Subsequently to that time, Captain Tanner took an active
part in winding-up the affairs of the company, he attended
general meetings of the provisional committee fur the pure
pose of adjusting claims on the company and obtaining con-
tributions, and he acted on a finance committee eppeinted
to investigate the accounts of the company: but if he was
not originally liable as a contributors-, his subsequent con-
duct could nut make him liable. 'the Lord. Chancellor's

observations on llesley s case, which his Honour toad,
appeared to be conclusive on this part of the cue. Captain
Tanner's name must th, retort he removed from the list of
contributories, but without costs.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCIL—TESTERDAT.
Ihrnpus us klAxvo.—iitattaz Low CAirms.., 111 a. Jt @TICS PAITBION,
AIM M. Jrmca Warr.Aw.
THE Quisrt v. IImanuND.—JUDGIIRST.

A quo warrautu had been granted in this ease, calling
spun the defendant to Ally by what authority he exercised
the office of town councillor of the borough of Great Yar-
mouth. The case was argued in the present term, and re-
ported in the Express..
Lord Canipbed now gave judgment, and said it was re-
quired of the court to put a construction on the words
" place of abode" in the 32ud seetiun of bth and tith Wil-
liam IV., cap. 76, which enacted that every burgess entitled
to vote in the election of councillor might vote for any
person by delivering to the mayor and swum a voting
paper containing the Christian and surname of the person
for whom he votes, with his " place of abode" and descrip-
tion. At the time of his election to the office of town
councillor of Great Yarmouth the defendant resided in
High-street, and carried on business as a miller in Church-
road, his places of residence and business being both in the
parish of tiorlstone and iu the borough of Great Yarmouth.
A eertaiu number of voting papers desenbed him as "Wil-
liam Hammond, of Church-road, Gorlstoae, miller." After
an attentive consideration of the act, the court had come to
the conclusion that "place of abode" meant " place of real-
dente." Joluton's Dictionary defined "abode" as "ha-
bitation, dwelling, place of residence." A man's place
of residence was where he lived with his family,
and where he slept. The case of " Riekett v.
Williams" (3 Meeson and !Lampe), which had been cited
by defendant's counsel, did out apply to the present ease •
bat has reference to another act of parliament. In the
present case the court had been much pressed by the feet
that the defendant was as well known by his place of buai-
' nese, as by his place of residence, but they held that the
"place of busiue.," was sufficient, they must lay down a
general rule which would defeat the object of the legislature ;
and if they qualified it by a condition that the party must be
equally well known by his place of business or residence,
great confusion would be introduced. The words must,
therefore, be taken in their plain and ordinary sense, and
the rule to set aside the verdict and fur a new trial made
absolute.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER.-YEZTERDAY.

amuses AT JIM lears, IN Lomm—lareas YL SAWA PLATT

Al4l, • IiPICI4.I. JOIT.

WTXX O. FIZMINOWLY.—Tsar

This was as action upon a bill of exchange for 2001.
drawn by a Mr. Aspinall upon the defendant, and accepted
by him, and indorsed to the plaintiff. Upon the pleadings
tt was not denied that the bill was drawn, accepted, and
ladersed, as stated in the declaration, but the defence set
lap we that the bill was simply given to ensure the delivery
of the bons Bleho,which had been purchased by the plaintiff
log the defendant, and which had, in feet, been since deli-
vered, and therefore that the plaintiff was not entitled to
recover. An action was tried a week ago, in which the now
defendant was plaintiff, which action was to recover 2001.,
the balance of the pureliase-money of the horse, and on
that occasion the then plaintiff was committed for perjury.
The plaintiff in this case was, up to last Wednesday. the
manager of the Birkenhead branch of the North and South
Weks Bank, and the defendant was described as an
African merchant, but the action arose out of certain turf
transactions. to consequence of the form of the pleadings,
the defendant'• case was first laid before the jury.
The defendant and many other witnesses were called,
and according to th, it statements the defendant and
Aspinall called upon the plaintiff at the bank on Saturdsy,
the 21st of June last, and, in consequence of what took
place, the defendant, the plaintiff, and Aspinall went on
the Saturday to Cheltenham, and on the Sunday they saw
the horse Mello at Mr. Scott's. The defendant screed to
sell Etch° to the plaintiff for 4001., and on the 30th June
I the plaintiff paid 1101. on account, which, with 601., the
amount of another transaction, made 2001., leaving 2001.
still due. The ball in question was given as security for the
delivery of the horse, which was to be delivered in time to
run for the Liverpool Cup on the 10th of July.
A number of witnesses were called, who proved con-
elusively that the defendant was not in Liverpool on the
26th of June, the date of the bill, nor within several days
of that time.

The ilsTntiff himself, Mr. Aspinall, and several other
witnesses were called to make out the plaintiff's can.
The plaintiff deposed that the defendant told him when
he saw the hone on the Sunday at Scott's. that be (the
horse) could not lose the Liverpool Cup. On the 30th of
June the defendant called upon plaintiff at the bank, and
plaintiff paid him 310/. in money on account of the horse,
making, with the 601., the whole of the purchase money.
, It wax his own money, and had never been any portion of
the bank money. On the 9th of July the defendant sent a
telegraphic message from London to plaintiff, directing him
to meet the hone at Edge-hill. The horse, however, was
not sent in accordance with this message, but plaintiff
afterwards received the horse at Cheltenham from Scott.
The defendant was present when the hone was delivered
up, and he made no claim on plaintiff, but plaintiff paid
441,, the amount due to Scott. Plaintiff, on the 26th of
July, a month after the date of the bill in question, ad-
vanced to Aspinall 1001. upon it out of his own money.
Mr. John T. Aspinall, who is a coal-agent at Birkenhead,
stated that in the early part of June defendant told him he
could put him on to the winner of the Liverpool Cup, and
asked Win if he could find • purchaser for Eleho. He in-
tentioned him to Wynn, and they all went to Cheltenham to
see him. The defendant applied to witness to lend him
ening massy before he went, and when he came back he
laid be ewe have some money. Witness drew the bill in
question in Wynn's parlour at the bank, and it was ac-
cepted by the defendant, and witness gave him 2001. upon it
out of money he had in his own pocket. Witness kept the
bill until the 26th July, and then he got the plaintiff to
lend him 2001. upon it. On the 30th of June witness saw
the plaintiff pay the defendant 3401. On the 6th ofJuly
defendant, Scott, and witness dined together, and it was
then said that the mare Truth, which belonged to the de-
fendant, had beaten Etch*, and Scott said it was of no use
to send Eleho to Liverpool.
Thomas Wilk., a clerk to the last witness, was called, and
said that he had seen the bill in question in Mr. Aspinall's
possession in the month of July, and after the Liverpool nee
a hone trainer named Billington had both Truth and Elcho
to train for the defendant. On the 2.5 th June Truth was taken
away, and the defendant left • letter for Billington, in
which he said, If she does all we ask her we shall back
her for the Liverpool Cup. You shall be in whatever I get.
Mind, do not let any one know that, the mare is gone any
where. If any one asks, you say site is amen and having
physic." The mare was not amiss at this time. Etch° was
tried with her in March, end the defendant was present.
Truth beat Eleho very easily. Elcho broke down at York
in August, IMO, and was consequently tired in September
following. Part of the charge made against the defendant
was that be had represented that Bloho was sure to win the
Liverpool Cup when be had entered Truth, which he knew
to he a better horse, for the same race.
His Lordship, in summing up, directed the jury that the
ease was one entirely for them and be then teed through
his notes of the evidence, pointing out tho contradictions
between the evidence, and he starred them, without fear
or favour, to give their verdict on that aide on which, ae-
, cording to their opinion, the truth lay.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for 2001., the
amount of the bill, and 31, interest.

1 MIDDLEBEX BEBBIONB.—YEBTEILDAT.
Mr. Witham briefly charged the grand jury.
SINTRXICI.
John Whittle alias &raw Vilegi, esertieted last woke
.(obtaining by fable pretenses a gusnahy Mr violin strings,
the propsrty of H. Olualaa wee hey* no hr iudgmast.
The Minted Judge brink, reempleelated t ton. or the
ewe. and and the her
led enned who &hhe ooded the pd
mew at On *ld eantended hat the false pretense anupd
bed set been sod Iheeehre there wee me one to
el, to no jeep 1 however, was of a eisteley e=
and the jury hand his rib& wing the homed
wished to lave aan is as Oil to be silmillod le Na

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY

Court of Cringed Appeal. Peeling clear upon It ha was
unwilling so mil up • we, bat la the Inertia since the
trial ho sd lase iMIIIIIISiOn et Mr. Baron Park* upon
it, and that knead piles bad 1111111111rnel in the view he
had taken, that the Nee bid Ws jeoperly left to the
Pry. After saes abeeneidoes •• Ifte -41eureeey of Baron
arka is giving slinks. hommed Judie sentenced
eh. primmer Is ling•III11. gilt kkener, for sin
maths.