The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-04 00:00:00

ILab3 intelligence.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
ant : The Lord auntiellor and other Peers ; and alto the Judges
of the Coannon Law Courts, rig., luaticra rattrap:l, Coleridge, Colt-
nut?, Cracrwell, Wightnalui, Moult, kirle, and Willa:rust, and Baron

Atderse
Theteawe a CHAELAN.—SNIP IMO:RANCE ON FREIGHT
—ABANDONMENT—TOTAL LOBB.—Tbis was a writ of error
on a judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, reversing a
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, in an action on a
policy of insurance. The plaintiff effected in 1839 the in-
surance with the Neptune Marine Insurance Company, of
which the defendant was the chairman, upou the ship
bird Cochrane, from Pernambuco to Liverpool. The in-
surance was confined to the freight, which wss valued at
2,0001. It appeased, from the pleadings, that the ship re-
ceived goods at Pernambuco on freight for Liverpool. The
ship, while coming out of the harbour of Pernambucsur-
o,
struck on a rock, and she was put back for repairs. The
veys and examination of the ship, end the repairs
made in her, took six months; that is, from tho 29th
of June. 1839, to the 4th of Jenuary, 1840; and
the whole expenses were 7,1301., which sum was
advanced by the firm of M'Calmont mad Co., at Pernambuco,
upon a bottomry bond, which the master of the ship exe-
cuted, pledging the ship and freight and cargo for that sum
and the bottom, premium. The plaintiff having received
information of the damage and probable costs of repairs, &c „
is November, 1839, gave notice to the defendant's company I
and to other underwriters with whom the ship was insured
that he abandoned shi,s and freight to them respectively.
II
The ship sailed from Pernambuco the 6th of January, 1840,
and arrived in Liverpool with her whale cargo, of
the sable of 19,0001., the 19th of March, 1840.
The obligees in the bottomry bond, not being able to
obtain payment from the owners of the shi, or from the
underwriters, had the ship sold for 1,6701., ai,d collected the
freight from the consignees of the cargo. The amount of the
proportion of the 7,1301., which ought to be borne on account
of the freight, was calculated at 5691., and the question in the
cause and now upon the writ of error was whether the plain-
tiff was entitled to recover the same from the defendant's
company. The courts below held that there was a total loss
of freight at the time of the damage, and plaintiff was en-
titled to recover for a total loss from the defendant.—The
arguments were nut concluded at tie rising of the House
at four.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Viee-Cherseeilor ot England.
BURLEY v. HVELYN.—CONSTRUCTION OF A WILL.—A
question was raised in this cage as to the construction of a
clause in the will of General William Evelyn, dated in 1781,
by which a sum of 5,0001. was invested in trustees who were
to pay the interest to the testator's nephew, Sir John Evelyn,
for life, and after his death to the first sou of Sir John, fur
life, and afterwards to the child or children of such first eon
is equal shares, and in default of such issue to the second
and other sous of Sir John Evelyn, and to their issue; and
in default of issue male of Sir John, upon trust to pay the
interest to the testator's nephew, Charles, with similar re-
mainders to his issue, and iu default of such issue upon the
like trusts for the benefit of the testator's nephew, Sir Huth
Evelyn, and his issue. Sir J•ln Evelyn died in 1633, a lu-
natic, and unmarried. Sir Hugh Evelyn received the dividends
until he bicamo a bankrupt, when an order was made
for the payment of the dividends to his assignee. This bill
was filed on behalf of the heir at law of the testator, and the
question argued was whether the lintitations in the will atter
tne death of Sir John Evelyn were void for remoteness.—
The Vice Chancellor considered that the words "default of
male issue " of Sir John were not applicable to the event ot
his having no eon, but that they were intended to apply to
the failure of remainders. He should therefore declare that
the dividends received since the present claim, and also the
principal fund, belonged to the plaintiffs, and all parties
were to have their coats, except Mr. Barton, the assignee.

STAMPS O. THE BIRMINGHAM, WoLYERHAMPToN, AND
STUCK VALLEY RAILWAY CoMPANY.—INJ CNLTION.—
The facts of this case, which have already been mentioned
in this journal, were shortly as follow: The defendants
having Purchased and paid for the subsoil under the
plaintiff's house, pursuant to a notice given to him for that
purpose, on proceeding to bore a tunnel found it necessary
to remove some socks by blasting. The plaintiff thereupon
obtained an injunction, restraining them from so doing, on
the ground that the foundation of his house would he
thereby injured. The defendants for some time submitted
to the injunction, but finding it impossible to proceed with
their works without blasting the rock, they aervel a
second notice upon the plaintiff, requiring the surface
as well as the subsoil for their undertaking; and
at they required immediate possession of the premises, tt ey
proceeded at once under the 4th and sth section of the Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act, to obtain the appointment of a
surveyor to value the land. The valuation having been
made, the defendants, under the provisions of the act, exe-
cuted the necessary bond, and paid the amount into court.
This, however, was done before the sward was signed. The
defendants then moved to dissolve the injunction. At the
hearing of the motion on the 28th ultimo, Mr. Rolt and Mr.
Terrell for the plaintiff, objected that the defendants had no
right to give • second notice requiring additional land, but
had exhausted their legal power by the first notice; and se
condly, that although the award ascertaining the value of
the land might have been made before payment of
the money into court, it had not been signed
till afterwards, and that that mode of proceeding
was not within the terms of the act.—The Solicitor-
General and Mr. Speed appeared for the defendants. At the
conclusion of the regument, his Honour expressed an opi•
nion favourable to thepower of the company to give a second
notice where additional land was found absolutely necessary
to enable them to proceed with their works, but reserved his
judgment upon the second point, upon which the case was
now set down for judgment. His Honour said he was at
hilt inclined to take the same view upon the question as the
plaintiff, and to hold the valuation bad; but he had since al.
,ered that opinion, as the consequence of holding it
to be so in every case, might be attended with
serious effects. A valuation might be formally made,
and drawn up ready for signature, and the monies
paid by the officer of the company, and by accident merely
the award might not be signed till the day after. There was
nothing, he thought, in the act requiring the court to hold,
under such circumstances, that the money would not have
been properly paid in. The case was one in which tt e
Pendants should have an opportunity of explaining whether
the delay in signing the award wait merely accidental. His
Honour then directed that the motion should stand over for
the production of affidavits in explanation by the defendants.
PINK. V. INSALL.—POSTNUFTIAL SETTLEMENT IN PPR,
SCANCE OF ARTICLES ON MARRIAGE OF INFANT HEIRESS-
AT-LAW NOT GOOD AGAINST CREDITORa OF ANCESTOR.—
The Solicitor-General and Mr. De Gel appeared for the
plaintiff in this case, which now came on for the minutes to
be finally disposed of, and which involves a question of some
interest in the administration of assets. The suit was in-
stituted by the creditor of an intestate, who died leaving in-
sufficient personal estate to pay his debts, and leaving an la-
tent daughter his heiress-at-law. 'the daughter married
during her minority, and previously to the marriage she and
her intended husband executed articles whereby they cove-
nanted to settle the descended estates to certain specified
uses, for the benefit of themselves and the children of the
marriage, with a proviso, enabling them under certain
circumstances to insert in the settlement a power
of revocation and new appointment. After the wife
attained her majority a settlement was executed with a power
of revocation, and on a subsequent day the uses were re-
voked' in exercise :of this power and new ones declared,
providing for payment of the ancestor's debts. This revo-
cation having been declared in another suit to be invalid, the
circumstances not being held to have arisen authorising the
insertion of the power of revocation in the settlement, and
the trustees of the settlement having been held to be seised
to the uses declared by the articles, the question now in die.
pule was, whether the articles so confirmed would prevei
against the intestate's creditor,.—The Vice-Chancellor de-
cided that the estates were still liable to the ancestor's debts.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nun Puce.—Before Lord Denman and a Special Jury.
ENGLISH V. HALEIB.—Thu wu an action against the
deputy serjeant of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports at
Harwich, for hating seized and sold a vessel called the Ash-
ler, which had been wrecked off that port and brought into
harbour by some men, owners of smacks. The plaintiff
alleged that the deputy-terjeant of the Lord Warden had no
authority to take possession of the vessel, and also that the
defendant had sacrificed part of the cargo, acme tares, which
be bad sold at 4d. a bushel, when, had be kept them until
they bad become dry from the effects of the sea water, they
might have been disposed of at a profit. The plaintiff
wu the owner of the cargo of the Ashley. For the defence it
was contended that the defendant as deputy-setjaant of the
Lord. Warden of the Cinque Ports had a right to seize the
ship and cargo, and that he sold the tares u the agent of the
emacksmen who had brought the vessel lath part, and whe
bad a claim for salvage ; and, moreover, that had the de-
fendant kept the tarts, they were so damaged by the sea•
water that they would have become utterly valueless. The
sum realised by defendant for the tares was 421., which he
contended was as much as they were worth.—Lord Denman
having_summed up, the jury returned with a verdict for the
plaintiff ; damages, 2001., being the amount that it was
alleged the tares would have fetched had the defendant kept
Wm and sold them dry.