The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-22 00:00:00

thus described the conditions to which the properly was sub-
ject:—" There is, sisalAmtreessement, a covenant which re-
I 'grains the possessor of the fee-simple from building on thin
grand and unrivalled open space. An act of parliament,
however, might remedy the difficulty; and it will perhaps be
dilleult for an enterprising character to withstand the
gegticin; but the leading feature is the certainty that in
binenee improvements which are in full progress this
square must necessarily be required ; or, failing to make
suitable terms with the possessor of this valuable land, an
extinguisher must of course be at once placed upon the
ground plan which is now upon the point of adoption—vis.,
to communicate Covent-garden with Piccadilly, thus opening
:Lrrand thoroughfare to the City of London, and giving her
jesty a decent and proper line of road when she honours
our national theatres with a visit." The covenant referred te
was to keep the incloaure and the iron railings round it in
repair ; to keep the inclosure uncovered with any buildings
not to permit the equestrian statue to be taken down ; and
to allow the inhabitants to have access to and use the square,
at a reasonable rent. The vendor required the purchuer to
enter into • covenant to this effect ; to which the latter
jetted, on the ground that the particulars of sale did not sti-
pulate that the purchaser should execute any such covenant,
but merely stated the property to be subject to the restric-
tion. At the hearing of the cause it was referred to the
master to approve of a proper conveyance; and the con•
veyasce having been settled without the introduction of the
covenant required by the defendant, he now excepted to the
report —Mr, Wigram and Mr. Miller supported the excep-
tions, and Mr. Russell. and Mr. R. Palmer appeared for
the plaintiff —The Vice• Chancellor said that the difficulty
might be got rid of by the plaintiff entering into a properly
framed covenant to indemnify the vendor in respect of the
covenant into which the latter had himself entered ; and a
clause for this purpose was accordingly proposed.
ATTOIVIZT•OINEHAL v. OARDNER.—SCOTCH KIRI.—
The \'ice-Chancellor gave judgment on the preliminary ob-
jections in this case, for want of parties, and as to the legality
of the conveyance of the land in dispute to charitable uses,
having regard to the circumstance of the original convey-
ance not having been enrolled according to the Mortmain
Act. His Honour decided against the former objection,
and, as to the latter, said he could not take upon himself to
decide upon the legal validity of the conveyance, without
its being established at law, for which purpose the relators
might bring an action, on terms to be arranged. On the
relators declining to avail themselves et this suggestion the
cause was ordered to stand over till next term, on the ques-
tion of costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nut Parrs, Oeuxinux--nefore Lord Denman and a Spacial Jury.
TRIKIN v. LORD CURZON —RAILWAY LIABILITIES.—
Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Fettradorff, and Mr. Hance
appeared for the plaintiff, who sought to recover the
sum of 1,5001., being the balance, after giving credit
for 8001. already paid, of a sum of 2,3001., which
he claimed for work and labour as a surveyor,
in preparing the maps, plans, and sections of the Oxford,
Theme, High Wycombe, and Uxbridge Junction Railway
Company. The evidence showed that the plaintiff had been
appointed surveyor at a meeting of the provisional committee,
held on the Bth of October, 1845, and the minutes of which
were afterwards confirmed at a meeting of the 20th of
October, et which the defendant wan present, this being the
only meeting of the committee at which the defendant ever
was present. That the defendant then concurred in the
appointment of certain persons as a managing committee, of
whom three were to be a quorum ; and that this committee
added to its numbers, without obtaining the unction of the
defendant, snd also, without his sanction, extended the pro-
pout line from Uxbridge to West Drayton, and altered the
proposed capital by adding 100,0001. to the amount originally
agreed on. It was further shown that the plaintiff, when
actually ordered to do the work, had agreed to accept such
remuneration as the managing committee so altered as
above stated should award him, and that the managing
committee had refused to give him more than the sum 0(8001
for which credit was given in the particulars of demand,
and which was in fact part of a larger sum of 1,0001. rained
for the current expenses of the company by the defendant.
—The Attorney-General, with whom were Mr. Watson,
Q.C., and Mr. Keane, for the defendant, contended that the
contract had not been mode by persons authorised by the
defendant to bind him, nor for a line which the defendant
had sanctioned, nor for a company having that capital which
the defendant had authorised to be mind ; that the plaintiff
was bound to be content with the sum awarded and paid to
him by the committee ; and that the sum of 8001. was
enough for the work done.— Lord Denman reserved the
question ef law, and left it to the jury to say whether there
had been any contract by the defendant or his agent' to em-
poy the plaintiff, and if so, whether the plaintiff had re-
ceived as much as he was entitled to.—The jury, atter brief
deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendant.
BUNK o. LlND.—This cause was called on at half-past two
o'clock. Seven only of the special jurors summoned were in
attendance. Sir F. Kelly for the plaintiff declined to pray
a tales. The cause therefore stands over to the sittings
after next term.

COMMISSION OP LUNACY.