The Express.
London, England, 1852-03-08 00:00:00

Katy intelligence.
EQUITY COURTI3.--BArtriwAT.
Banes m Loam JUIITIVIS or Arnim.
WOBB v. Tv* plitilT LONDON AND I'ONTS

RAILWAY CUMPSOIT.

This was ea appeal from a deems fur specific perform-
ance said. opoo a claim by Vise-Chancellor Turner. It
eppeared that in 184.5 the defendants, the promoters of the
company, were oppueml in their endeavours to obtain an
act of imempientim by the pninti., who was the Midiftr
of Imo 11 which the seaway wee hesemM hi be
carried. liiftefly en agreemens weehtreal fig the
plaiatiL awl Imo of the premien ea be fof Se nem
psay, wow 4 the company earinaelid to paean, S por-
tion of the palatal'. land not esessithai Mahn glelno
M M
the memo ref their undertaking. and he gag tee Me
togethermith comequentMl damage t• ISt eseedimml
the ether brie of the plaintiff by the works of the sow
Mlh• nun of 4..i001., in consideration of which the
woe to withdraw hie opposition in parliammL
menedingly did, and the company, after
their an, entercill upon the land but for the "WWI
enreiryies and taking levels only. Owing to difMlMss
which eishegaently arose, the making of the minted was
abandoned, and the land was, therefore, not ye-
%sired * the company. Thu claim was filed for
• 'peals perfornitnee of the contract, by which it was
insisted the company, notwithstanding the abandoment of
their undertaking, had become bound to take the land.
The appeal was from the whole decree of the court below.
Sir W. I'. Wood and Mr. blown fur the plaintiff, con-
tended that the company having received the benefit fur
which they stipulated, sic, the withdrawal of the plaintiff's
Eusition, were bound to carry out the agreement. The
ntiff having precluded himself Irons dealing with his
for any other purpose, could not now be reinstated in
his former position.
Mr.Malins, and Mr. Bevil', for the defendants,
contended that the agreement was inertly conditional upon
the company requiring the land for their undertaking.
As the case stood it would he open to the plaintiff to refuse
to let the company have the land, inasmuch as it could not
now be required for the purposes of the railway, i. e., he
might refuse a specific pertormance on his part. Was it.
then, to be contended that the company were to be bound
when the plaintiff w 1114 not bound?
Lord Justice Knight Bruce suggested that a compromise
should be come to. it appeared that a fair compensation
for the tying up of the plaintiff's land, and fur the expense
that he had been put to in opposing the company in parlia-
ment would in substance weft the question in dispute.
What offer would the company make ?
Mr. Malian, on behalf of the company, offered 5001. fur
compensation in respi et of the land, and 1301. in respect of
the costa in parliament and the costs of the suit.
The case was then ordered to stand over to give the plain-
tiff au opportunity of ctoPtitlering the offer.

Sorrows of Lineoues Ira.—Baroat Two LORD Cm/ammo&

IN II COPPETY.-APPLICATION TOR MADRAS COYPUS.

Mn. Cobbett renewed her application for a habeas corpus
to bring up her husband tram the Queen's Prison.
The Lord Chancellor, after looking at the affidavits, de-
clined to grant the writ, as Mr. Cobbett was imprisoned for
the non-payment of costs.

•
BRYAN C. MANritON.-ntStILVATION 01 RII.IIITS Or
PARTIEL—APPIAL.
Mr. J. Russell, who appeared for the appellant in this
ease, said, when it 11,0 mentioned on Tuesday last, he un-
derstood that his lordship was inclined to dismiss the ap-
peal, on the ground that no decree had been made declaring
the rights of tne patties.
The Lord Chancellor said it was the case of • bill filed by
persons claiming an interest in a firm, and a decree was
made bringing that fund into court. It therefore became
necessary to see who were entitled to that fund But by
this appeal the plaintiffs' right was now disputed. lie
never heard of etch a case.

Mr. Russell contended that the right of the plaintiffs bad
been affirmed by the decree. 'fhe plaintiffs, as children of
George Bryan, claimed a reversionary interest in the sum
of 29,00 W.. on the failure of i..uc of Lady Doyle, formerly
the wife of the appellant.
The Lord Chancellor said this was a new mode of getting
at the opinion of the court. lie never heard of such a
thing in the course of his practice. When the ease came on
fur further direction, there would be no difficulty in dispos-
ing of the action on the merits.
Mr. Ruh and the position of parties had been somewhat
altered since the decree. Sir John Met ey Doyle, the appel-
lant, was tenant for life in right of his wife, who subae-
quently, on divorce, became Madame Mansion. Since the
decree was made, Madame Mansion had died, and thearipel-
lent contended that the plaintiff" had no interest in the
fund, but that the remainder was to him.

Th'o Lord Chancellor thought, under the circumstances,
the beg plan would be to allow the appeal to stand over,
giving the putiea leave, iu the meantime, to apply to the
court below.

BUsiINFJOI OF TOR COVIIT.
The Lord Chancellor, on the neat CAM' being called on,
remarked that u it w.is a long one, and he had to attend
elsewhere on public basilicas, it would, perhaps, be better
not to enter on the cix,e now.

Mr. Bethel' said it was so unusual a thing in that court
to get through so many eases in one day, and reach the
fourth can in an appeal paper, that ho mu►t confeu he
was oot so well prepared as he 11 Lolled to be with the ease,
and therefore felt much obliged for hi► lordship's suggestion.
Mr. James asked his lordship to bear a cross motion in
the ease of Moockton ♦. the Attorney-General on the next
petition day—on Friday.
The Lord Chancellor said he would not sit in this court
on Fridays daring the session of parliament. lie would
that afternoon communicate with the registrar of the court,
with the view to make the necessary arrangements as to the
business of the court, and amongst other things arrange
whether be would take appeal motions in this court.
_ Lo ao TILURO.B AIMEAR OP JUDGMENTA.

Mr. Schoniburg applied to have the appeal of Ward v.
Martin, by the question arguid before Lord Truro in the
early part of this year, placed on the paper fur the purpose
of being re-argued.
The Lord Chancellor expressed his surprise to hear such
an application. Lord Truro had intimated from this court
before he retired from office that in all themes argued
before him he was ready to give judgment. lithe parties
would not consent to take the judgments, then he (the Lord
Chancellor) should most certainly not advance them, but
they must go to the bottom of the paper. It was right that
it should be known that all the judgments were ready in
the cases which Lord Truro had heard, but in which for
the reasons stated he hail been unable to give judgment be-
fore resigning the seals.
Mr, Sehoniburg—This, my lord, is a case of equity
pleading
The
Lord Chancellor—l cannot listen to that.