The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-22 00:00:00

NAVAL.

ADMIRALTY, DEC. 21.—AIVOINTMENTS.—Lieute-
mute 11. E. Burnish (1853), to the Excellent, gunnery ship
at Portsmouth; IL A. Clavering (1847), to the Ragas, 60,
screw steam guard-ship, of 450-hone power, at Devomport ;
and N. E. B. Turnout (1847), A. V. Varlo, and L. 11.
Versturme (1853), to the Cressy, 80, screw steam ship, at
Ch►tham.
Masten R. Studwell (1810), to the Cressy ; and li. A.
Mersin, to the Rosamond, 6, paddle-wheel MAIM sloop, of
280-hone power, at Woolwich.
Clerk li. M. Moore (1W), to the Centaur, 6, paddle-
wheel steam frigate, of 540-horse power, at the Siuth Ann-
clean station.

Second Muter. R. Smith (1846), to the Cyclops, 6, pad-
dle-wheel steam frgate, of 320-Cures powtr, at Sheerness;
S. Winnicott (1850), to the Liatrd, iron paddle-wheel
steam 'mad, of 1.50 horse power, m Sheerne.s; and R. E.
Jones (1852), to the Borcaucn, 70, guard ship of ordinary,
at Chatham. . .

blaster'aMaistanta J. Corvey, to the Saracen, brig, at
Devonport ; and H. Sutton, to the Sidon, 22, paddle wheel
steam frigate, of 360-horse power, at Portsmouth.
Boatswain J. Poole to the Cressy.
.... .

Goaner H. Williams to the ereiay.

Carpenter J. Harvey to the Cressy.
DEvu:senia, DEC. 21.—The Hecla, Dutch steamer,
arrived ,in the Sound yesterday auesaay), from Batavia,
bound to Holland. She has carried away her starboard
paddle-box in the gale, and has other detects. The Royal
George, 120, screw line-of-bsctle ship, Captain Codrington,
arrived in the Sound yesterday, from Sheerness, accompa-
nied by the Sidon, steam frigate. She has been brought round
to this port to complete her fitting. The Pike, steam tug,
at this port, on account of the inclemency of the weather,
took the liberty men belonging to the Hogue out to the
Sound on Monday.
PLYMOUTH, DEC. 21.—The Peninsula, one of the
Lisbon and Vigo Company's vessels, put into this port
yesterday afternoon with her bilge pipes choked. She has
been taken into Catwater for repairs. Yesterday a screw
mem. r arrived here with coals from Cardiff, consigned to
Mr. J. Sinters James, being the fir*t occasion of a screw
collier coming to this port.

THE RUSSI&N SQUADRON IN TILE CHINA SEAs.
—The Hamburg News, under date of St. Petersburg, 9th,
says Acc9unts from the Russian squadron in the
China Seas state that on the Gth of Almost all the vessels
of which it is cemposel (the Pallas Innate, Oliwaza cor-
vette, \Vostok schooner, and the Prince de Blenchikolf,
belonging to the Itukso-Acterican Company) assembled in
the port of Loid, and sided on the 16th of August for
Nanyasaki. On the '.22nd they anchored there, and the
crews were received by the Japanese with cordiality. Oa
the Ist, the commanding trficer of the squadron sent the
Prince de Mencbikoff to Shanghai, to obtain information
as to the state of atfAire in Chinn. She arrived there on the
Bth September, the day after the place had been taken by
the rebels. On the 15th, the Menchikolf sailed to rejain the
squadron at Nangazaki."

!LAW iintellteence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YEsTERDAY.

lIPOEE lil LO4ll

The court was occupied the whoM day with a part heard
case of Ridgway c. Wharton, the arguments in which were
net concluded, and as the c ise w ill probably be finished this
day we rescue s report.

lIA MEV V. TINDAL.-SCCCESSION DUTIES ACT.

This case, which is the first that hss arisen under tiro
Succession Duties Act,:came before the court some days
ago, and the proceedings which then took place were re-
ported in the Daily News of the :19th instant. The facto
then stated are brit fly as follows, A father was
entitled as tenant for life to the dividends of a sum of
stock in court, and at his death his son was en-
titled absolutely to the principal. The father,:being
desirous to advance his son, won willing to relinquiskto the
son his life interest in the stock, and accordingly the father
and sou petitioned the court that the fund might be paid
to them. In order, however, to provide for the payment
of the succession duty upon toe death of the tenant for life,
the petitioners proposed to have in court a sum calculated
at the rate of 1/. 10e. per cent. upon the fund, the duty
itself being only I/. per cent., in order to provide for the
contingency of a change in the price of the funds at the time
of the death of the tenant for life. Upon this footing the
Vice-Chancellor's order was made. Since the making of
that order it had bet n intimated to the parties that his
Honour wished to speak again upon the matter, and in con-
sequence
Mr. Simpson now spin art don behalf of the parties.
The Vice-Chancellor said that as he understood this
matter it was thus. A was entitled to the fund for life, and
subject to the life estate, B was entitled ahoolu'ely. The
parties were both adults and eui juris, soil were therefore
clearly entitled to have the fund paid to them. But then cams
the Succession l)utyAct which said,where there was an accele-
ration of a reversionary interest, the duty should he payable
only at the time at which it would have been payable if
,such acceleration had not taken place. In another part of
the act the Court of Chancery was, with regard to funds
under its control, to provide for the payment of the duty
when it became payable. Under these clauses he had
ordered that a certain sum should be retained in court to
satisfy the duty in the present instance. But the art of
parliament also contained erne il,iollB authorising the Com-
missioners of Inland Revenue to compound for the duty,
and this had beet' represented on the part of the authori-
ties. They represented, and on apparently good grounds,
that if so small a sum ea 100/. or 1.501. were set apart to
answer the future payment of duty, it would not impro-
bably be lost sight of. The crown would not get it ; the
parties would not get it ; in feet, it would be lost—would
sink into the suitors' fund and be absorbed. It was, there-
fore, suggested whether it would not be better, both for the
crown and for the parties themselves, that they should avail
themselves of the clauses which authorise the comeounding
of the duty. The court thought that this suggestion was a
very proper one, and had therefore directed the registrar to
abstain from drawing up the order until the subject was
mentioned to the parties. Counsel would, therefore, he so
good as to communicate with their clients, after which the
case could be mentioned ..gain.
Mr. Simpson said that he would communicate with his
cheat. Ile believed, however, that the parties would prefer
that the duty should not be compounded.
The Vice-Chancellor—Of course the court cannot compel
the parties to compound ; but if they do not do so it will
have some difficulty in persuading itself that they arc taking
a rational s iew of the twitter.

His Honour sat this morning, and disposed of three peti-
tions and other matters remaining %indisposed of yesterday,
and rose at twelve o'clock for the Christmas holidays.

IMRE vieIIAWANCLI4OII 515 W. rote WOOD.
IINENNAX V. PILESTON. •
His Honour gave judgment in this case, which has been
already many times before the court in different west., and
said the main point in this ease, and indeed almost the
whole question in dispute between the parties, depends on
the conduct of Watson with reference to a transaction by
• professing to act as ship's husband, agent, and broker,
on behalf of the other part owners, under an agreeuient by
which it was stipulated that himself and Preston, who
appears, however, to have taken no part in these proceed-
ings, should be irrevocably ship's husbands, agents, and
brokers, the agreement also containing a clause that if the
part owners should discover that any act of fraud woe com-
mitted by them in their position, then, on notice signed by
three-fourths of the part owners, that appointment
should cease. The questions therefore arc, whether
or not, under the circumstances in which the ship
Flambe was placed, and with reference to a charter
entered into with Messrs. Burns and M'lsor, the
coaduct of Watson, by which a commission of 4/. per
week was obtained by him, and which confessedly was
not communicated to the owner at the time, must be token
to be such conduct as to justify giving a notice by which
they were displaced; and if that notice was not a valid
notice, then whether there has been such fraud as to justify
their removal by this court. The facts up to May, 18.33,
are not disputed. The question is what conclusion is to be
drawn from them ? I have considered the case wholly
irrespective of the plaintiffs' evidence, and entirely on that
of Watson himself. It is admitted that the defendants
had gat a valuable appointment, and intended to get, and
were eutitled to get, all the profit that could be got from
their position ; and, being entitled, they applied to Burns
sad M'lvor to charter the vessel, and on the oth Septem-
ber, 1852, several letters pass between the parties. Wat-
er= asked what appeared to Burns and M'lvor as an ex-
orbitant sum ; and it is not unworthy of remark that in
the first proposal—whether suggested by Watson or by
Barns and M'lvor, is not very clear and not very import-
ant—Watson did stipulate that besides the weekly sum to
he ,paid for freight, they should pay all excesses. No
dinner being then effected further letters pass, the result
of which is tans, according to Watson's version, Burns and
)[-Ivor distinctly refuse to pay more than 1301. per week as
freight, the only other thing important being that during
part of that day Watson was in communication with
Brennan, who was taking an active part en behalf of the
owners, and that he says he mentioned to him that he was
engaged in this treaty. What takes place in Barns and
111.1vor's office, according to Watson's evidence, is that,
finding them positive in their determination not to give
more than 130/. per week, he explained the position in
which he stood with his co-owners, and that he Was entitled
to commission on gross freight, and should, therefore,' be a
loser by taking a charter in the unusual form in which it
was proposed to make this, and therefore that they ought to
allow him a commission. I do not see what reason that
could be to induce Barns and M'lvor to give him a sum as
commission which they would not put into the shape of
freight. Watson then seems to say that be made out a cal-
culation of what he should have got as commission, and
put it down at 51. per week; that M'lvor said that
was too much, and that he should only give 4/.
I am bound in justice to Watson to say that
M'lvor, though he puts a different colouring upon the
whole case, does to some extent corroborate the evidence
here given by Watson, inasmuch as he says that Watson
did say something about being a loser, and that his state-
ment of expenses is such as to tally in some degree with
Watson',. calculations. Watson's evidence then goes on to
say that he agreed that they should give 41. per week.
And then a draft charter-party is signed for that sum, and
also another instrument, under which Watson is to have 4/.
per week. A morn forms' charter-party is drawn tot on
the 11th of September, and signed by Watson, end after-
wards by Brennan. Watson unquestionably dues not men-
tion this separate agreement at the time, and t'.ings re-
main is that state till the May following. Therefore,
looking to the agreement between Watson and his co-
owners, the question is whether this arrangement is such an
one as Watson could be justified in making in any way ;
and if he could, whether it ought not to have been com-
municated at once to his co-owners. Therefore, the brit
question is that which Mr. Holt said was the whole tues-
tion—what was Watson entitled to under this agreement ?
I am not, however, sure that it is the whole question, and
that if that we'd determined in Watson's favour that it would
he sufficient, because supposing he was entitled to charge
them on " gross freight," it must be remembered that that
was a thing to be charged in account. And it would be
important for them to know that part ..f this had been paid
by another party. Oa the other hand, it must be a matter
of indetlerence to the charterers whether they paid this
sum as freight or commission. His Honour then read the
clause of the agreement, which was, in effect, as follows—
" that the defendants should be ship's husbands,agents, and
brokers at a remuneration of 301. per annum for keeping
the ship's books, d per cent, on all charters effected or fur
loading the ship on the berth, 2i per cent. on all inward
freight;" and a proviso was added that whenever Ira ight
was mentioned in the agreement it was to be taken
to mean "gross freight and passage money." There-
fore the charter having been effected in this unusual
Corm, by winch the charterers undertake to pay 1301. per
week, and to bear all the expenses usually paid by the
owners, it can be considered that all that the charterers
are to pay may be considered as " gro-s freight," and
therefore as the sum on which Watson would he entitled to
charge commission. But the difficulty I feel is that
the charter party reserves nothing to which the term " gross
freight" can apply. For the purpose of explaining this I
am referred to the witnesses that have been examined.
Now these witnesses say that if there is no agreement, and
the charterer pays a large sum either nee ton, or per
month, or per year, although all that sum does not go into
the bands of the owner, because they would be bound to
find many things for the use of the shia, yet tke broker is
allowed to charge his commission on the total auto so al-
lowed by the charterers. That seem to me to be after all
very much beside the question here in dispute. It was at-
tempted to make out a one exceptional cases applicable to
the present, hut they all result in this, that certein sums
come to the hands of the owners of the vessel
beiges that which is strictly freight and tileir
commission is charged on them : hut here the
sum never does and never can coins to the hands of the
owner. There is no arrangement by which 3.1.1v0r is to
st :te his expenses, and he rs tuses to do So, And saga that
nothing sh .11 ',raw them out of him. Next it was argued
that as this custom of charging on gross tr. ight exits, it
would be sufficient to show that Watson thought I.e was
entitled to this sum, and if so, that it wou d exempt hint
from the charge of fraud. But, in fact, I think Watson
,celliS so have bets thoroughly aware fiOm first to last that ,
i he was Dingo entitled, and therefore he determined to get
• the ft.ine advantage in another way. Mr. 11,lt contended
that by putting that construction you would be putting the
interest Aljtat u, conffiet . t
That is an argument that never weighs much with th:i
court. The met tuat such may lieu ut.s be the cam., umle:

, were agreements b the MONS why the tease elan) a retrains
lie usu.: implicit eanilidence aid openness between principal
rod Agri tiu all their doing.. 11. s (%Vstsou's) dog if he
fill this cio Mc' woul•I have he o to pi• to his 'o ust.tr.,
and state the .1.111-u tc he w And ask then. n hut their
vow Woe, sod ~,,,•• ih it he ri ~•t mit Le a t • tr by use
t,rm of tilt ch irter ; that h« gtt hi• comiciedua
from Balms and !Wirer it he could but it nos, the
owners must allow him. But instead of that, he rts the
et per week ant says nothing atsiut it. After that it is idle
I' refer to the letters saying that Burns and 1111.1vor refused to
pay more, because, in fact, they were payiag more, and the
torus of the transaction must be iramiterial to thkui. So
for I have relied entirely on Watson's own evidince ; but
the evidence ut 11'lsor and of M'Aliater, c caries
the case further, f MAIM*, says that when the Para
ea* being drawn up, Watson said s. Everybody tied not
know this." An attempt was. made to gist a d trerent
colouring to Ibis; but tee imoression on mind,
lodging by what afterwards takes place, cltariy must nave
been that it referred to Wa•son's position with his ise•
owners. s • matters stood up to Ilsy, 1352, at which time
it is said that Brennan had notice of all the rats. This
brings OS to the third ground of defence, aaraelr, that
there was no eoneei.lment. The evidence as to Brennan%
knowledge it not satisfactory. (His Hearer then stated the
',Wanes on this point, Aid euntintied)-11 Watson did maker
the MAW f to brei.uan, which he be did, it
not each a fall and tree • ri writ

ought to make to !is principal ; the newt that can he said is
that it might hive nut ilrennsn ea hie guild. (His liesour
then referred to other parts of the evidence, which he said
only lett the ease in mist, haze, and uncertainty, sad conti-
nued.) Tian I come to the time of semen the notice to
discontinue IVitson and Preston in their office. All that
takes lace 'Per that puts the matter in the clearest pos.
able light. WA,ister communicates that the charterers
are paying sot 130.'. per week but 1341., upon which the
notice is served, • twice of a most °Missive character,
charging the defendants with fraud; whereupon Watson
writes the letter which has been much commented on, end
which was written after consulting his solicitors, and the
eaplasation he gives for so doing is not a little eingul.r—he
says he dwe not think they know more about :Le matter,
but that in any dispute they would know much better hew
to deed with it, bat that he has since found that Smniedal
sense would have bees much better than a legal swim
It is a pity he did not find that out two years ego, it would
have saved him much trouble. (His Honour then read the
lean.) That letter is • total abandonment of any claim
ander the sgrestoset, and is iscoosistent with every sumer
toe now mad,, by Ws taos, and with the view that I have
felt bored to take of the case without that letter.
Its. Honour thin commented in strung terms on the isa-
propriry of the letter written by the atteroey of the
plaintiff in amerce to that letter, stating that it was so
part of the duty ul any profees.onal man to heap insult on
the adverse party, and to add fuel to the flame which was
already horsing ; het at the same time he did not go to
the heath of the L welt Justices with reference to that
letter, when the case was before them in • previous stage;
tor he could not cell the letter to which it wee an mower a
letter of race. The only other question raised was one of a
statistical natant P. anise epos the position of one of the
go-owners and co plaintiff., Denny. This was put oa two
grounds • first, that he abandons the whole ease, and says
be 'onside,. there was no fraud, sad if he had knows all
the (sets at first, he would set have signed the notice ; and,
secondly, that the sigsatare of the notice by him was in-
valid, as hie shuts were partnership property, and that he
signed not in the name of the firm, but simply with his
own name. With respect to the latter point, he thought
the sigasture sufficient : it was a matter within the part-
nership business, and it was admitted that he was
the partner who had acted throughout. With respect to
the first point, he said he was not satisfied with the
confect et pertees on either side, and commented in strong
terms on the wry its which Watson had deslt with the evi.
deuce, hat he doubted whether Denny, after having signed
the aohe which pledged the parties signing it to take
Preston and W ate ma's shares, had a right to withdraw; but
at all molds La thought it would not prevent the other
plaintiffs k.:en going on. But even supposing the active
had not bean properly signed, ho thought there was alma.
dant ground tom the interference of the court. He am.
eidered the subsequent oimeluct of the defendant Walesa ha
have been oppressive, improper, and almost lo
traed ; he alluded to his detention of the insoldiami
ship, his Winging action., arresting the captain. she 111116.
triaturiag evidence, and he should snake him pay the
of the mast and of all the odious. With respect to the redo
moss whittle had been presented against Brozman, his Humour
said that be had already said there were many things in
his conduct which he should wish to have been different;
bet with respect to the complaints there made about the em-
ployment of his eons, end the free passage of his
daughter, although he thought it would have been more
delicate mot to have so meted, still, no harm had resulted.
Brumes must, of course, account for any profits made since
he had been in
.pstosession, and he should give no costs of
that petition Is either side. The decree wauld he that the
SI rewired by Watson under the agreement in the plead-
tags Mreilightil might to be considered as received on no-
coast Of elm Miffs; that the receipt of that sum without
etommunissibig the feet of such agreement was fraudulent,
and entitled Or owners of three-fourths of the shares to
give sisehie M determine the agency of Watson; sad that
it was dolennhinl by the notice which had been served ;
perpetual Inlnesalea to restrain Watson from aslant la
abip's bestial. nolosat of the sums received, sad itinerant
that defewilaste pay the Nets of the actions at law, arifithaw,
if the dofeadante acquiesce in the sale of their s
quiry as to the value of those shares, and direct
by plaintiffs at that sae. If they decline to sell, then ND
order on that poiat. Liberty to all parties to apply.
A dismission then ensued as to what was to be doe* ID tito
pest to the undertakings given that the ship, as well as the
plaintiffs pereocally, should be answerable for the share of
the defendants in the vessel, she having been taken out of
the jurisdiction, arid being now in the Black Sea ; which
malted in the undertaking ot the plaintiffs being continued
but that of their solicitor withdrawn.

Tilt Al

ILIIRRAL T. SLAYER.

Mr. Craig (wit► when was Mr. Cain's), reamed his
argaintrats to this saw, sod soatiaued till four o'clock, what
the wort tele, the Vie► Chancellor statist: that he was
obliged to amid aspeeial neetiag of the Chancery Commis-
sioaers, sod that he would hear the remainder of the ease
at chambers this day.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.-YurruDAT.
nmw aT VW 'WA AT WILASUUJ.--1100M1 MAD CUIPISLLAND
A APICAL MAT.