The Express.
London, England, 1862-07-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 10, 1862.

Lab) intelltgnitc.
EQUITY COURTS.-JuLY 9.
(Wore Vioo-Cbanodlor Wood.)

U THI RAION INSORANCR COMPANY II PA= TEI
ANCHOR COM:PANT.

This was a summons adjourned from chambers, having
for Its object to determine the validity of a claim made by
the Anchor Company against the Saxon Company, cow in
the course of winding up. Some time dace, a Loud was given
by the Sazon Company to the Anchor Company, for a sum
of_ 2,000 i., for a good consideration. Subsequently the
Era Company purchased the property and business
of the Saxon, and took upon itself the
liabilities of that office. To carry out this trans-
action with reference to the hoed in question
that document was, with the assent of the Anchor, treated
as cancelled, and a new bond given by the Era. Things
being in this state the validity of the Era's bond was con-
tested in this court, and it was decided to be bad as ultra
vireo of the directors of the Era Company. Now that the
Saxon was being wound up the Anchor Company sought
to enforce the old bond as spinet its assets.
The Vine-Chancellor was of opinion that nothing which
had occurred with the Era office had the effect of abrogating
the claim of the Anchor against the Saxon. The bond given
by the Era had in effect been held to be simply and purely
null, and so, in no way, to affect the rights of the Anchor on
its original security. It followed therefore that this claim
must be allowed.
Et THE MAXON INEURANCI COMPANY EX PARTS THE ERA
COMPANY.

This was soother case arising in the winding.up of the
same company in referenoe to the purchase of its property
and assets by the Era Company as above stated. That par.
chase was made in consideration of 3,0004, but as it ulti-
mately turned out that the value of the Saxon's assets and
business, when its liabilities were taken Into account, was
far beneath that amount, it was now sought to recoup the
Era a portion at least of the 3,0001., if not the whole of
that sum.

Tit; Viee-Chaneellor said that the claim set up on behalf of
the En Company must fail. There wu no frond alleged
shown.tt the Ses.txon, thnere might
have nothing
inatednaortimprodvident
one, or the speculation altogether unfortunate; but that
alone wee not sufficient to induce this court to interfere.

COURT OF QI7EEN'S BENCH.-JULY 9.

After Tars Sittings at Nisi Prim at

_—TLord Chief J ustice Cockburn nail special juries.) ----
The court was occupied the whole of the day in disposing
of oases of ao general public interest.
The noise, confusion, and bustle attending the alterations
and fittings up of the interior of the Guldball, and the erec-
tion of a large temporary building in the yard for the pur-
poses of the forthcoming civic banquet, ka, to the distin-
guished foreigners in this country attending the Inter-
national Exhibition, are intolerable, and offer the greatest
obstruction to the business in the law owls. Great com-
plaint,' have been made by several of the judges, and the
Lord Chief Justice has on more than one occasion been com-
pelled to interfere and threaten to adjourn the sittings
unless Use noise was made, and more respect paid to the
administration of justice.
SECOND COURT.
(Beim Mr. Justice Mellor and a Common Jury.)
WOOD AND ANOMIE!' V. WOOD AND ANOTHER.

This was an action for neglect of • peculiar character.
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Philbriek were counsel for
the plaintiffs; Mr. D. Seymour QA)., Mr. Pearce, andlir.
Butler Rigby were counial for the defendants.
The plaintiffs were iromoongen at Chelmsford, and the
defendants area company known or called by the name of
the Trade Protection Company, carrying on business in
London, and the action was for damages sustained in cons,-
cosmos of the defendants' alleged neglect in fulfilling a duty
they had undertaken ix reference to the bounds of the socie:y.
The defendants, in their prospectus, state that " subscribers
areenti tled to obtain privateand coo fidential information with
reference to the respectability acid standing of parties before
they supply them with goods; inquiriesare made through pri-
vate and legal correspondents ; mod efficient mousers used,
and information may be relied upon with great certainty."
The plaintiffs were subscribed to the society, and shortly
before April 23, IfBl, they bad reoeirad a letter signed
" S. Hughes, builder, Edmonton," ordering a quantity of
goods. Plaintiffs enclosed the letter to the defendants, and
receiving no answer, wrote to them again. To that they
received a leper staling " that on the 3rd inst. we wrote to
you that S. Hughes is considered a respectable man, and we
should think worthy of reasonable bum= credit." The
plaintiffs upon that supplied Hughes with goods, and
receiving no reply to their applications for payment, one
of the plaintiffs went to Edmonton and found that a
house had been taken io the name of Hughes, but that
it had been kept closed, and the postman had been ordered
to put all letters under the door. The 'bits conductor told
him that " many were werry anxious about Hughes." and
the young lady at the poet-office, and others, brought their
friends to the door to see the man who had been victimised
by Hughes. (Laughter.) Plaintiff went to the defendants,
who said there must be some mistake, and they would be
ready to pay a small sum rather than be exposed, and they
caked for time. It was contended that the defendants bad
reoeievcd the plaintiffs' subscription to perform certain
duties, but that they bad neglected to do so. Letters bad
been addressed to S. Hughes, china merchant, wine mer-
chant, builder, hop merchant ; and wine, beer, grates, and
other things were received by the railway company for
Hughes. No one answered the bell or knocker at the
house, and the matter was the general talk of the neighbour-
hood.

For the defence, it was contended that the defendants
only undertook to give information of all pansies who had
given bills of sale, &c., from the public records, and to give
that information once a fortnight to the subscribers, as well
as any information that might come to their knowledge.
The defendsote bad 20,000 subscribers, and this was the
first action that had been brought against them. The de-
fondants in this case made the necessary and proper in-
quiries, but did not hold themselves responsible for any use
the subscribers might make of the information. The minety
consisted of three brothers lamed Wood. It appeared they
kept copies of the register of all judgments, bills of sale,
fr.c., and not finding Hughes's name there, they sent aW-
OOD to Edmonton, who obtaired certain information, which
was communicated to the plaintiffs, that Hughes was con-
sidered a respectable man end worthy of reasonable braises@
credit.

learned judge summed up, observing thattbe question
was whether the defendants had dooe what they had un-
dertaken to du. The man who made the inquiries wu not
called.

The jury returned a verdict for the plai
314 5e., the amount of the goods supplied.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-JULY 9.
(Before Mr. Commisiooar Goolima.)
LN RE PAITRIDOR AND EDWARD&

The hankrupta, who were solicitors in extensive practice
at King's Lynn, Norfolk, obtained their order of discharge
some tune ago Questions have store arisen whether their
separate estates, which are solvent, could be male liable
to the proof of creditors wbo had deposited money with
Mr. Williams, the Loudon partner of the house (since ab-
sconded), for the purpose of Investment, and which monies
he had invested on worthless securities. The question was
recently argued by Mr. Sargood, for the &mignon', and Mr.
Kimber, for the Messrs. Bellamy, of Wandsworth, who
claimed to prove for 50(1/., money deposited with Williams.
His Honour now gave judgment at some length, and
jested the proof as against the separate iodates.