The Express.
London, England, 1852-05-28 00:00:00

visitation vequlred the gravest conaideration, and he
therefor* moved the postposement of the cam sine dic.
The sotios was agreed to, and the further hearing ad-
journed accordingly.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
Baron' ma fad= JAMBS of APTRAL.
LITTLE IL TKO NUMMI; AMINDIVI/4NY, ADD Ilex-
ItaILWAIT Q

Kr. Motis7,l(With them were Mr:lictierson and Mr.
Stevens) appeared la support of a motion to discharge an
eider elfies-Chemedhaft torkenreetraining the defendants
hem nessaaaMiai Week saillread in dm imandlete vicinity
it the *Wire sesailembeme by mesas et ea open cot-
ttsithee cm la any Mks cosy atp by a tunnel passing under
the .It appsored tha at the time the defendant' bill
Iva pidhsweit its pawing wee opposed by the
plaintiff mdm proprietor of land over which it would be
carried. The contest was ultimately settled by agreement,
by which it Ives stipulated that the company should con-
struct *lst put. L.." their line immediately adjacent
to the plaintiff's mansion,and what by the
plans and sections deposited in ?Uneaten; Wal
represented as intended to pain thrones and Leh:toning to
the plaintiff, by means of a tunnel under the soil. The
plaintiff in compliance with this agreement withdrew his
opposition to the bill, sad the company ultimately obtained
their act. The company afterwards abandoned the inten-
tion of argils; the rine actually through the plaintifrs
land ; but, the limit of their deviation allowing it, proposed
to construct the line by means of en open cutting imme-
diately adjoining the plaintiff's land. The Vice.Cluutoellor
had restrained the company from constructing their pro-
posed line otherwise than by a tunnel, on the ground that
the consideration of their agreement with the plaintiff was,
that it should not be so constructed as tolbc an eyesore to the
plaintiff's manioc, and that this stipulation was in
substance violated by them, notwithstanding that the pro-
posed line was not intended to pass actually through land of
the plaintiff's. It wes contended by counsel for the de-
fendants, the appellants, that the agreement entered into
with the plaintiff applied only to the ease of their construct-
ing the line over the land of the plaintiff, and not to that of
their constructing it elsewhere within the limits of the de-
viation allowed to the company by their act.
Mr. Melina and Mr. Shoe, contra, for tho plaintiffs, who
were appellants, contended that the spirit of the contract—
'timely, that the line should net be constructed so es to
be an eyesore to the mansion house of the plaintiff, was vio-
lated by the mode of construction proposed to be adopted by
the defendants.
Their lordships refused to diseharge, the order for an in-
junction, observing that, whatever sight be the result of
the suit at the hearing, the present state of the evidence did
not +errant any interference with the order made by the

Harm Tuft Mama as nut Roma.
PROSSER E. NOURISOX.—INPRINOZMENT OP PATENT.—
INJUNCTION.
In this ease • motion was made es parte on the first day
of term for an injunction to restrain the defendants, Messrs.
Mambos, Dillon, and Co., of Fore-street, from infringing
plaintiff s patent for manufacturing buttons from a
Ilkosakol substance which, when baked, resembled fine
agate. His Honour then refused to grant an injunction,
bet gave leave to give that notice of motion in accordance
with which the case now came on. It appeared that de-
fendants had before infringed the patent, and on proceed-
ings being taken against them had submitted to a judge's
order admitting the validity of the patent until it was inva-
lidated by further proceedings. These proceedings, how-
ever, had not taken place, and plaintiff had discovered that
defendants had been importing buttons of a similar kind
(rem Paris, and selling them for export to Jamaica, and the
present motion was for an injunction to restrain defendants
from thus infringing the patent, which extends to tho co-
lonies.
After tho case had been before the court some time, •
compromise was come to by which defendants under-
took not to infringe the patent, and to pay • portion of the
costs, and a decree was made for an account, and restrain-
ing defendants from selling in this country, or exporting
therefrom, or otherwise dealing with any buttons manufac-
tured according to plaintiff's patent, defendants paying tho
costs us to and inclusive of the 25th of May.
THE Doss OF v. CONNELL AND °PIERRE.
This was an application made on the part of the Duke of
Buckingham, the Marquis of Chandos, and others, for the
appointment of a receiver with the usual directions of the
estate of the late Lord Nugent. At the time of the death
of the late Duke of Buckingham, Lord Nugent was in-
debted to him in the sum of 6,6211. 15e. Ild. The present
duke brought an action for this sum, and a judge's
order was obtained by consent that final judgment should
he entered up, Lord Nugent In the meanwhile paying four
per cent. on the debt. In 1650 Lord Nugent was desirous
of borrowing money on his estate, and to do this it was ne-
cessary ts get rid of the judgment. He entered into com-
munication with the Marquis of Chandos, and an arrange-
ment wax made that satisfaction should be entered up on
the existing judgment, and that another judgment should
be obtained, and that tho estates should be equitably
charged with the debt and costs. Satisfaction of the judg-
ment was accordingly entered up, and an action was
brought, and a judge's order obtained on the 2nd of Nov.,
1860, to enter up final judgment ; but an agree-
ment was made that execution should not issue
until after the death of Lord Nugent, except interest
at 4 per cent. was not paid within twenty-one days after it
became due. A deed was also executed on the 20th Nov.,
1650, by which Lord Nugent covenanted with the Marquis
of Chandos that he would pay interest on the amount due
from him at 4 per cent. Lord Nugent died on the 26th
Nov., and there fs now on arrest of two years' Interest.
The defendants, who had entered into possession of the
estates, had refused to pay the interest, and hence the pre-
sent application.
The Master of the Bolls said the application for • re-
ceiver must be granted as • matter of course, but without
• to any prior mortgage, if any.

DOOM VIMCNANCTLIOR &a Oman. Trees.
Tax Dunn or Nonroxt e. Tatenster.
Sir William Page Wood and Mr. Ellison, on behalf of
the plaintiff, moved for en injunction to re train the de-
fendant from proceeding to arbitration for the purpose of
obtaining compensation under the Lands Cleo( s Consolida-
tion Act, for damage alleged to have been done to his
brewery by the building of the Sheffield market, of which
the plaintiff wee the proprietor. The damage complained
of arose from the exclusion of the light end air. It ap-
peared that DOM time ago the defendant had given smother
notice, claiming compensation for damage done by the
building of the market—first, in respect of the temporary
obstruction in the road leading to his premises while the
building was in progress; secondly, in respect of the per-
manent narrowing of the road ; and, thirdly, in respect of
the obstruction to the light and air caused by the height of
the building. An injunction had been granted reetraiaing
the defendant from proceeding under this notice, on the
ground that he had already aecepted compensation
in respect of the two first heads of claim, and
that as the notice could not be severed, he could
not proceed under it for the third head of damage.
In consequent* of that decision, the present notice had bete
given, by which the defendant claimed 14,0001. as compen-
sation. It wee new contended on behalf of the plaintiff
that it was not competent for the defendant to give a fresh
notice ; that the compensation already received by the de-
fendant
was intended to cover all damage of every descrip-
tion,
and was so accepted by him ; and that, if not, he had
stood by, knowing what was going to be done, and could
not now complain.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Speed eppeared for the defendant.
The VioeChancellor said he thought the injunction
should not be granted. The question was one of contract
between the parties, which must be determined at the hear-
ing of the cause. That the proper course would be for the
defendant to undertake, in the event of his proceeding
with the arbitration, not to proceed upon the award made,
without the leave of the court, the plaintiff undertaking to
bring into court the amount awarded (if anything), by the
arbitrator, within a week after the award was mWe.
This course wee acceded to by both sides.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YesTERDAy. ,
thermos ur Basco.—Barone Caw Items June, Ha. Junes
Marl; Ma. ROUX OillaMitt.L. AND Ma. Amines taLromana.
DAIRY V. THE INDIA AND LONDON INSURANCE COMPANY.
—IMPOUTANT QUESTION OP Levi ASSURANCE.
This was an action on a polity of assurance for 1,0001.
effected with the defendants upon the life of the late Duke
of Cambridge, and at the trial before Mr. Justice Creswell
in Middlesex during the sittings after last Michaelmas term,
a verdict was entered for the plaintiff bat leave was given to
move fora nonsuit or a verdict for the defendant. In the
coarse of Hilary term a role was obtained pursuant to this
leave, and the cue now came before the court upon CSR'S
being shown against this rule beiir! made absolute.
The case was one of considerable importance to persons
interested in life assurance, and it arose out of the follow-
ing circumstances. In the year 11143, the Her. Mr. Wright
effected policies to the amount of 8.0001. in the Anchor
office upon the life of the Duke of Cambridge. The prac-
tice of insurance offices is not to incur too large a risk upon
any one life, and in accordance with this principle, the
plaintiff; as secretary to the Anchor office, effected the policy
sued upon, in order to lencil the liability of his own com-
pany. In 1848, the Rev. Mr. Wright surrendered his
policies in the Anchor as part of the consideration for an
annuity during the lives of himself and hie wife ; but not-
withstanding the surrender of Mr. Wright's policies,
the Anchor Company continued their policy in the
defendants' company until the death of the Duke
of Cambridge, when they claimed the amount of it.
The defendants, however, objected to pay it, upon the
ground that the Anchor Company having received the sur-
render of the policies upon which they were liable, had no
insurable interest in the duke's life, and were not entitled
to recover the amount of the policy in the defend'ants' com-
pany. The 14th George 111 , cap. 48, prok,bited the
effecting of insurances upon lives in which the parties in-
suring had so "i tile interest," on the ground that
such a practice led to nsiwhievous gaming, end under this
set the question now arose. Theiwineipel point, however,
was the declaim which had been vets is the case of tt God-
sell v. Bolden)" (2 Rmith's Leading Cases). In that rase
the plaintiff insured tho life of the Right Hon. Wm. Pitt,
who owed him 8001. Shortly after Mr. Pitt's death, the
Earl of Chatham and the Bishop of Lincoln, his executors,
paid the debt, and Mr. Godson also claimed the amount 01
his policy from the ins aaaa re office, but as this claim ass
resisted an action was brought. The court held then, that
a policy of insurance was simply a " contract of indemnity,"
and that Mr. Godull having n eeived the plaintiff's debt,
on account of which he had elf( cted the policy, had no lose
to be indemnified for, end mild not recover.
The court in the tonne of the argument suggested that,
as the amp at " Godson v. lkildero" hurl been acted upon as
good law for many year., it was not that they
should be called ulna to rescind it, and it timated that it
was advisable that do present came should go at once to
tbs Cleat et lam

In eimardasoi with this evocation the comma agreed
that a speeial verdict should be framed, in order to take the
opinion of a higher tribunal upon the subject, and defini-
tively settle the question of what the law ie.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—YEBTERDAL
Deem= Ma. W. BVICHILL, Diem U.Dga-Mole.
Two GUARDIANS OP TN! RUIMiII) UNION V. BIADLI.

This was a writ of inquiry to asses the demises in an
action brought to recover 1,0111.65. ltd., the amount et
certain defalcations. Judgment had been allowed to go by
default.
The defendant was a collector of poor rates for the Rom-
ford Union, and was a defaulter to the amount of
1,0491. 19e. 6d. ills goods were seised and sold for up
wards of 681., end the present proceedings were to recover
tho Wane*.
The jury mamma the damages at 1,0111. tis. 11d.