The Express.
London, England, 1864-07-04 00:00:00

LAW INTBLLIGENOE.

aurraorounar COIJJITY COURT&
178 auled is the present week
arywread.—Tnasday, July 6: Wanes.
day. 6; helve&
DOMSOLLl4ilflloll.—Tusedsy, July ; Wednes-
day, 6 ; Friday, &
611LOMOCH, Oldetwart,read.—Tuarladily 8 ; Thursday. 7.
Bow, Bow-road.-. Monday, July 4 ; , &
VilifillefatArkl, Great PTIICOW•trOOL-• OdDeadaL July 6:
Thursday, 7.
13001BWAIIK. Bwan-atrestowthuzaday, July 7 ; Friday, &
Lunn'', Camberwell New road—Tuesday, July 6.
GIiELNWICI4. ednesday. July &
Woomnon.—Thursday, July 7.
WAILIXWU/321, Southwtreet.—Thuraday, July 7.
CITY Of Losses, Oull.lhall.lnuldlusp.—fueeday, July 6;
Wednesday, 6. Thursday, T.
luau Nayoas Court —Tuesday, July 6; Wednesday, 6;
Tkuiroday, 7.

ZQUITY COURTS.—JuIT 2.
(Wore the Lord Chancellor.)
IN as TRURTON.— Bermiurivi.

- -
rid' was ao appeal from the amity court judge at Staf-
ford sitting in baakruptey, wbo bad refused to adjudicate
one Tburtoe a bankrupt. Vaiioua charge, bad bee. made
against this peisoo, such ma not diackerag the real mature of
his property, omitting property from hi. balsam sheet, rash
speculations, betting transactioas, cad incurring debts with-
out reasonable expectatioo of paying them. The ground
taken by the judge was that Morton had already been be-
fore a commusiouer of bankrupts who had adjudicated in
the nutter. _ _

Mr. Maroc and Mr. DeGoa on &dormer eoemaion appeared
for a creditor to object to the <eider of the commissioner.
The matter had beep referred back by hie lordship to the
court below.
Mr. Karalake, for the bankrupt, now urged that the de-
cision of the county court judge wee correct.
The Lord Chancellor mid that the ardor of this court
ought to have been followed. There must be a palpable.
meet of the matter until the grounds on which the county
court judge acted were fairly stated.
Several other cases in bankruptcy wife heard, bat they
were of ►o public importance, and some others were referred
beck to the courts below.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—Jux 1.
After Tenn Sittings at Nisi Prins at Guildhall.—(Before
Lord Mel Justice Cockburn sad a Special Jury.)
DLIIBDAL/t V. CLINTON AND OTHERS.

This was e• action for • breech of *patriot relative to •
•umber of Russian Five per Cent. Ifonamisaiou Booda.
The defendants pleaded • number of pleas, .od arpooist
others that the committee of the Stook I.:change had ass-
milted into the matter and made a• award.

Mr. fierjeent Simon, Mr. T. Jame, and Mr. R. G. WE-
limns were mensal for the plaintiff ; Mr. Zovill, Q.C., Mr.
Hansen, mg Mr. Clark were counsel for the defendants.
It appeared that whim the Emperor of Russia mann-
mitted the serfs of that country, the mode of payment was
by the issue of a certain number of bonds or government
securities, payable and exchangeable at the end of the fifth
year, the last the fifteenth year after their issue. The
plaintiff had summed is obtaining a concession for a rail-
way is Russia, which was afterwards take. up in London,
and us the course of that transaction he was asked on be-
half of the Russian government agent in St. Petersburg,.
if he could bring the bonds into the Loudon market.li
undertook to make the attempt, end as the hoods were un-
known in Loaders, he consulted several frimds
with reference to them. Tho hoods were for 3,000
silver roubles each. Eventually the defendants metered
into a contract ea the 73rd July, 1863, to tthe
six of them bonds at 4101, each. On the 29th of July they
purchased another lot, to the value of 37.000 roubles. OW
the 30th of July a third lot, to the value of 107,000 roubles ;
and a fourth lot on the 31st of July, amounting to 12,000
roubles--giving • total of English money of 24,4421. All
the entracte were made at the same pries. After the
purchase the defoodante wished to have the hoods trans-
ferred in blank, and an application was made to that effect
to the Russian government, but after some delay it was
declined, and that was the came of the delay in their
delivery, which the defendants, it was alleged,
now sought to avail themselves of, in order to
repudiate their liabilittyy. Afterwards the defendants
said they could have purckaad them at • lower rate in St.
Petersburg, and that the porch/me had been made by the '
mistake of a clerk of their Amsterdam meet, the bonds
being required for that market. The bonds, however, were
tendered to the defendants, but they refined to take them.
Another objection was taken by the defesdants that they
had purchased them in mateke for bank-note bonds. It
was. stated by the plaintiff that there were no such things
as Russian bank-note hoods, but there were bank billet
bowls, and every fifth year the manurnimioa hoods were
presented, and the government gave them oesfifth
of their value in the latter, and a new maanmiii-
aim hood for the baleen, the beak billet bonds fetching a
price Dearly at per and by purchasing the bonds at 4101. it
wee said the defendants would be able to put a profit of 10
per met, into their pockets. With regard to the defendants
not knowing what they were baying, it was stated on behalf
of the plaintiff that in each of the coatrecte the bonds were
described se 5 per cent. Russian manumission hoods. The
plaintiff afterwards sold the hoods for 38.51., incurring
a lose of 2,0401. which he now sought to mover from
the defendants. The defendant. had also pleaded
that the plaintiff bad submitted the matter to
the Committee of the Stock Exchange, and also
fraud. The fraud was that the translation of the document
into
_English, which wee shown to the defendants, only
contained a portion of the bond, and that was 00 ; but the
only portioo that was omitted was that part of the ukase
which referred to the Mate of the bonds, and had nothing
to do with the description and character al the bonds. With
regard to the award of the Stock Exchange committee, the
plaintiff declined to be bound by it. Mr. Thompson, •
member of the Stock Exchange, by whom the hoods were
brought out, called a meeting of the committee of the
Stock Exchange, and submitted the dispute to them, sod
they made an award. The plaintiff, however, for a long time
would not attend the meeting. lie, however, woe &her-
wards persuaded to do so, but under protest
with regard to his legal rights,, which he intended to en.
form. They passed a reselutoe, which the defendants
celled an award, but which the plaintiff did not put in
evidence.

Mr. Thompson, a member of the Stock Exchange, through
whom the hoods were sold, said the plaintiff and defendant.
were stock jobbers, and he described the manumission bond
as a ears aria in London at that time. Buu'oess, he said,
wee sot transacted with the same punctuality in Ennuis as
it was at the Bank of England, sad he bad bees waiting for
the last six months to have kis hoods registered in Bona.
The defendants said the mistake arose from the
elm* of their Amsterdam agent Dot understanding
the English language, sod thereby one commodity wee
bought instead of another. He afterwards appealed to the
Stock Exchange, which he said " Y our highest court of ap-
peal—our Lords Juatiora." (Laughter.) The committee
eat two day. and a half investigating the matter, and he
assured the court it wan well ventilated there. (Laughter.)
lieafterwards took from the plaintiff the 18000 roubles
—the smuont of the first contest—et 3961. the 6,000
roubles, on the understanding that he should be relieved
by the plaintiff from any liability to the remaioiog 32,0004
That was dose by letter which he produced, having taken
the promotion to have It stamped. He took the booths!
or 6 per asst. above their value, In order to keep it out
of this mart. The hoods were unknown in London, and
he got no offer for them from anyone but the defendant&
He sold them to the defendant. for 41W.
The witness was cross-examined with reference to the
translation. The hoods ware Wood in the names of the
original holders, but in the translation they were Ia Reek.
The ukase was printed at the bath of the hoods, and it set
forth upon what terms they were issued. There wee not a
manumitted bond is England, that be was aware et
A bond wee banded to by the defendant, sod also a trans-
lation of the ukase printed at the back. It stated that the
certificate would only be given in certain names, and that
they could only be transferred to other pelvises in the way
prescribed for the transfer of immoveable property in
Hume& but without the payment of a tax.
Withers said he did not think it would take six months to
transfer the hoods. He should say it would take a fort-
night. Many foreign bonds were Mad in blank and pared
from Mod to baud, and some Ronsthe Mods were lamed in
that inseam. The manumiseicelboods were not so valuable
es they otherwise would have been if they had passed from
head to hand. They would have been worth eight per
cent mom if they had been tramterable from hand to hand.
The committee of the Stock Exchange came to an uoani-
roous decision that the omission of the translation of the
ukase wee calculated to mislead the buyer, and that the
bargain could not be enforced. He quite concurred in the
decision of the committee, and he found then that he was sell-
ing bonds at ten per mot above their value. The defendente
gave 91 end • fruition for them bonds, when they might
have purchased them in Petersburg for 81i. He considered
they ware sold above their value in consequence of the coo-
dailies of the ukase being omitted. The usual commission
on bends was per cent. He mimed with the plaintiff for
1 per cent, which he wee teatime at plaietirs request with
the gentleman who introduced him to the plaintiff. He
knew nothing of the ukase being printed at the back of the
bonds until the matter went before the Stock &climes
committee. Plaintiff carried on business in King Henry's-
road, Ball'opood.
Ultimately the plaintiff was normiteil on his own evi-
dence, with leave to move, the Lord Chief Justice ruling
that the contract was vitiated because the ukase was not
made known to the defeedaets.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor sad • Comoros Jury.)
LZVY r. DI 1111.1111.—DIULACE Or 11/.01113L

Mr. by Seymour, 40., sod Mr. Gibbous were compel
for the Oalatiff ; Mr. Hawkins, aod Yr. Peane were
counsel for the &feudist.

The parties in this sotMn are members of the Hebrew
pOISCISMOS. The plaintiff's mother keeps • cigar shop
in Whitechspel, and the defendant is a cattle dealer.
The plaintiff was sersatem years of age, and re-
sided with her mother. The defendant represented him-
self its a Mr. De Young, • own dealer, but it turned out his
reel nacos Ina De Vries, and that be was • cattle dealer.
The plaintiff's mother was called, and slis gars the follow-
ing canons account of the courtship and promo* to marry.
Shedepowal that she kept &shop in Scaseesetetrmt,
chaps:. DoVrles called one day sad bought a 4 , and again
called shout • fortnight aftarwardased visited her daughter
from that time about twice • weak. He asked her
daughter if abet would like to be, married, the embed she was
agile young enough to hem* a bride, Wm being caly 17 years