The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-27 00:00:00

MILITARY.

Tea Sler (Warr Mminamm) Reannorr or Foor.—An investiga-
tion has lately been made, by orders of the military authorities,
respecting the conduct of certain officers connected with this
regiment and the commander of the ship Mary Anne, which Lately
conveyed it from India. The Court of Inquiry, with Major-General
Pitt, Inspecting Field-officer and Superintendent of the Reeruiting-
Department, at its head, has rat several days at the office of
the Clothing Board, Whitehall, and revers' witnewes have been
nesmined, but their statements have of course been taken in private.
The following additional Staff appointments have transpired :
Major.Oen. Sir T. 11. Reptant, K.O H., to be Lieut.-Governor at Jer-
sey. is the room of Lieut.-Gen. Sir E. Gibbs, promoted ; Major-Gen.
L. P. Ffisclarenne to the command at Portsmouth and of the south-
western divtrkt of England, vice Lieut-Gen. Sir H. Pakenbam ;
Colonel Cochrane to be deputy-adjutant-general at Dublin, in the
room of Maj.-Gen. T. E. Rapier, promoted. Colonel Sir Richard
Eohert-, to be insdecting f eld officer ant superintendent of the re-
ci tabs t department in London, In the room of Major-General Pitt,
N.H., promoted.

SPORTING.
TAITERSALVS.—TRCRISDAY.
Boldness was on a amall scale, and with little or no Influence on the
pricer as quoted on Monday. Not a bet, we believe, was made against
either of the leading favorites, and an outlay of about 1501. on the sister
to Cobweh colt, left him at the same figure as on Monday-28 to 1
offered ; 1,500 to 50 was laid against Lunedale, the name odds to 1031.
sgainst Glentilt ; 100 to 25 three times spinet Johnny Armstrong,
and once o:whale:aid Conyttgbant and Lord Exeter's lot, and two or
three other bets in smaller amounts. We are also enabled to make
• short quotation on the two steeple chases to amen off next week at
Lesmington.— Latest prices:
LEAMINGTON MILITARY STEEPLE CHASE.
100 to 25 against Lord Strathmore's Switcher, taken; 100 even on
the field against Switcher, Peter Simple, Rod Lancer and Marengo.
Mr. Rowland has purchased Red Lancer.
LEAMINGTON OPEN STEEPLE CHASE.
Bto 1 agst Peter Simple (t) ; '45 even on the field agst Facrieoe,
Calve/theme, and Discount.
THE DERBY.
7to 1 offered on the fled. 40 to I apt Tantivy.
28 to I sgst Sis. teCobwebeelt (t. I 40 1 Wanota.
and afterwards off.) 40 I Conyngham.
110 I Glentilt (1.) 40 I Jy.Allllllt/0111 (t.)
JO 1 Lunedale
ter(t. and at- 40 I LOTd Eleteei 10t.
wards off.) 40 —1 Sir 0. Ileathcote's
83 —1 Alltrtonian (t. andLOOS to 15.)
terwaids off.) 1000 —lO Wild Boy ft.)
88 —1 -- Old Pert.

tato intelltgenct.
LAW NOTICES.—This DAT.
Corny or Qvga.st's BENCH. Westminster, at half-past nine.—Middle-
sea common juries—lles v. Evington; Mountain v. ;
Howard and another T. Davies mad another ; Orrell v. Tait ; Brandon
v. Rolla; Kerwood v. Morse; Webb v. Sylvester and another; 80-
=1
0104 es ; Irving v. Baker; and live =defended causes: the last
canoe is No. 35 on the list.
COVIIT or Coleco"' Pinar, Westminster, at half-past nine.—Middle-
sea common juries.—Edwards v. Hodges ,• Goddard v. Hope and
another ; Doc dem Miller v. Claridge; Bush v. Markham; Doe dem
Pitcher v. Loweth; Woolley v. Williams • Varney v. Hickman;
Walker v. Silvers ; Hodgson v. Coekerell, undefended. The last de-
fended mune is No. 26 on the list.
Cot sr or Excitaarma. Westminster, at half-past nine.—Middlesex
common juries.—Morris"'. Cook; Weeks v. Argent; De Bernardey
v. Deli ; Hutchinson v. Black ; Knipe v. Morse ; Ward v. Audland;
Bowditch v. buyer ; Kerr .. Dobson; }Akins v. Walton ; Paddock v.
Fitzgerald; Bradley v. Burton ; Stork v. Aback, =defended. The
last defended cause is No. 33 on the list.

EQUITY COURT.—YESTERDAT.
Before Viee-Cbaneettor Knifht Uruee.
WSIOUOTITOX V. COLQUHOUN.— CONSTRIXTION OP A
WILL.—ANNVITT CHAROED UPON CAPITAL AS WELL A 8
Incone.—Licut.-Col Williamson, by his will, after direct-
ing payment of hie funeral and all other just expenses, be-
queathed and devised all his property as follows: all his
goods and chattels to be sold to the best advantage, and con-
verted into money. He bequeathed the suns of 2601. ster-
ling per annum to Mrs. Charlotte Clarke (his housekeeper
during his illness), during the term of her life, and the re-
maining interest of his money he gave to Captain R.
Weoeghtoo, or, in the event of his demise, to Mrs. S.
Wroeghton, his wife, and in the event of the death of one of
these parties, the principal to go to their children, or in the
event of their having no children, to some charitable insti-
tution, as his executors might select. The question was,
whether, in the event of the interest of the preperty
being insufficient to pay the annuity, the annuitant,
Mrs. Clarke, was entitled to receive the difference out
of the capital.—Mr. Wigram and Mr. Bitten appeared on
behalf of the annuitant.—Mr. Cooper, Mr. Russell, Mr.
Malin*, Mr. Toiler, Mr. Briggs, and Mr. Wilford appeared
for the other parties.
Amongst other cases, that of " Foster e. Smith" was men-
tioned, which was somewhat similar to the present, and in
which Lord Lyndhurst had reversed his Honour's decision.
His Honour : The decision of Lord Lyndhurst in the ease
of " Foster v. Smith," upon the appeal from my own judg-
ment, proceeded upon a different will from the present. But
if it had appeared to me that a decision of that noble and
learned lord had proceeded upon a principle involving a de-
cision against this will, I should not hesitate in following his
opinion in preference to my own ; although I must say, with
great deference and respect for his lordship's decision, that my
own .opinion, pronounced in " Faster e. Smith," remains as
it wee. I need not say that his lordship's conclusion is more
likely babe correct than my own. Bat I think that the decision
of Lord Lyndhurst in "Foster e. Smith" did not proceed
upon any principle, an adherence to which requires an ad-
judication in the present ease against the annuitant. It
seems to be agreed in the first place, that, to restrict the an-
nuitant I. the income during her life would involve the post-
ponement, to a certain extent, of the bequest to her, to the
other legatees, for which I do not see say sufficient ground.
In the next place, the annuity is given to the annuitant clear
and in distinct words, to which, if nothing were added, it is
plain that she would have a charge upon the capital of the
estate, as well as upon the income. The intention, so very
clearly expressed, ought, ha order to be displaced, to be suet
by an indication ota different intention equally unambiguous.
I am of opinion that the language from which a different
intention is sought to be implied, does not, unamliguonsly,
if at all, exhibit that intention. In my opinion the just in-
terpretation of the will requires that the annuitant shall be
held to have a charge in respect of her annuity upon the
eepital of the estate, and not merely upon the income. It
must therefore be declared that the court (at the request of
all parties to the record, that the construction should be
made at this stage of the cause) declares this to be the true
construction of the will.

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nlai Irr ius.—Before Lord Denman and Common Juries.
WILLIAItb V. SIR W. W. WYNNE, BA RT.—Bt LL TOR SAD-
IMILT.—Thia action was brought to recover a sum of 601., the
balance of a bill for tadlery supplied to the defendant, whose
answer was, that the bill had been paid in full. A receipt
in full was produced for the defendant, in support of his
plea. The plaintiff however, replied, that the receipt in
full had been given to one White, a servant of the defen-
dant, by whom the greater portion of the bill had been paid,
and who, not having money enough when he called
on the plaintiff for the purpose of paying the bill,
said that if the plaintiff would sign the receipt, he would
get the money from the defendant's steward, and bring
it the next day. The reply to this explanation was that the

whole money had been paid by White, and that the plaintiff
had then lent White 501. for his accommodation. Mr.
Crowder, Q.C., and Mr. Bovill, appeared for the plaintiff.
and Mr. Martin, Q.C. and Mr. J. Henderson, were counsel
for the defendant. LOrd Denman having left the caae to tho
jury, they retired for about an hour, and then returned a
verdict for the defendant.
EVANS V. FLETCRER.—PLEA Or COVERTERE.--Mi.
Pearson appeared for the plaintiff in this case, and Mr. Sere
jaunt Wilkins and Mr. Pigott for the defendant. The adios
was brought to recover the balance of a bill fie
upholstery supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that she was a married woman
at the time, and in support of the plea, evidence,
was given which showed that she was married some
time hack at the collegiate church at Manchester, and that
her husband was still alive, though she had been living
separate from him for some time. To this it was answered
that the defendant had obtained credit by representing her-
self as a widow. Lord Denman told the jury that the only
question was, whether the defendant was a married woman ;
if sheed a verd we', thericte
for t was an
def end to the action. The jury re-
turnhe endant.
Summates V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY
COMPANY —This was an action against the Eastern Countiti
Company, to recover damages for the injures
wititc7taLe plaintiff sustained by reason of an accident wi.sich
occurred on the Eastern Counties Railway on the 18th Oct.,
1846, through the negligence of the servants of the coriipany.
The defendant pleaded the payment of 751. into co urt, and
denied that the plaintiff had sustained damages to a greater
amount. It appeared that on the day in question ,an engine
and tender ran into the train in which Mr. Shislibeer was ;
a violent collision took place; and Mr. Shill'ibeec received
injuries of the most serious character—a co-acussion of the
Dwain, distortion of the teeth, fracture and d'slocation of the
jaw, inflammation of the facial nerves, and injuries to the
pidisa, which have produced diseased action still going o
ars
sat yet brought to a crisis, and, possibly, necemitating an
apseation. He was, of course, for some time prevented from
astronntending his business, which is that of furnishing
haerale and funeral carriages ; his memory is still impaired,
Ed Mrs time of his nerves has not yet been restored. A cer-
Vista elf the state in which Mr. Skillibeer had been thrown
by the asident was furnished to the directors by Mr. Han-
corne, a medical gentleman, who frequently attends the ser-
vants of the company, before the plea was put in. That
gentlenma has already been paid 251. ; the sum still due to
him eseeeds that amount ; and the plaintiff was obliged to
leave town two or three times. The management of his
business has in consequence been partly deputed to his
daughter. This case having been opened by Mr. Parry,
with whom was Mr. Wise, was supported by the evidence
of two persons who, at the time of the accident, were ser-
vants of the company engaged on the line, one of whom
proved that if a signal had been put up, as was done the
next night, the accident could not have happened; by Mr. A.
Key, Mr.Calloway, and Mr. liancorne, the surgeons who had
attended the plaintiff ;Rind by a gentleman related to him, who
spoke to his general health and energy before the accident
and since. Mr. Serjeant Shee, for the defendant, suggested
that the directors of the company were bound to Misr such
compensation only as appeared reasonable to them under the
circumstances brought to their knowledge, and could not,
though deploring the accident deeply bare awarded to him
a sum larger than their duty to the shareholders warranted ;
that a most unreasonable demand had in the first instance
been made on them by the plaintiff; and that the, jury ou2ht
not, by giving heavy damages, to punish the defendants for
an accident the blame of which had not and could not be
imputed to them. Lord Denman having summed up, the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 5001., the
sum of 761. paid into court being included therein.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—WESTIIINISTER.
Sittings at Nbd Prius before the Lord Chief Justice Wilde and •

ED-mnOn Jury.
NICHOLLS O. AMISEL—CLAM FOE DAMAGE SAID TO
HAVE BEEN OCCASIONED BY A PUBLIC CAB BEING LEFT
UNATTENDED:IN THE STEZET.—MT. SETA,. Chadwick Jones
and Mr. Charnock for the plaintiff; Mr. erjt. Chaunell and
Mr. Wordsworth for the defendant. This was an action
brought by the plaintiff, a cabinet-maker, residing at Brook-
hill, Clerkenwell, against the defendant, who is a cab-pro-
prietor, at Doughty-mews, Gray's-inn-lane, to recover
damages for an injury alleged to have been sustained through
the negligence of the defendant's servant. It appeared that
on the 13th April last the plaintiff went out fur a ride on
a horse which he valued at 50 guineas, and that he desired
his man servant to meet him at a public-house, in the
neighbourhood of his residence, between 11 and 12 o'clock
at night. The plaintiff arrived there a few minutes before
12 o'clock, and was in the act of dismounting, whilst his
servant held the horse's head, when they observed a vehicle
coming at a rapid pace towards them. Before they had
time to get out of the way the plaintiff and his man were
knocked down, and the horse was considerably injured.
The vehicle proved to be a street cab belonging to the
defendant, and the horse was without a driver. The
consequences of the collision were, that Johnson, the
plaintiff's servant, received very severe injuries, and
was taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. The plaintiff
himself was alto much damaged, and the horse was greatly
reduced in value. The servant was confined in the hospital
for six weeks ; the plaintiff was unable to attend to his ordi-
nary avocations for several days, and the horse wasultimately
sold at Aldridge's Horse Repository for 27 guineas. It fur-
ther appeared from the plaintiff's evidence that on the even-
ing in question the cab had been entrusted to a man named
Bowler, and that he had left the vehicle in the street whilst
he went into a public-house to drink with sonic "ladies."
The claim sought to be established by the plaintiff was for
the difference between the estimated value of the horse pre-
vious to the accident, and the amount for which it was after-
wards sold ; and there was also a further demand for the
expenses consequent upon the personal injuries which the
plaintiff had received.
On the part of the defendant witnesses were called to prove
that the cab in question, though proceeding at a furious
rate, and without a driver, did not come in contact with the
plaintiff's horse, hut that, on the contrary, it struck against •
lamp-post, and that one of the legs of the defendant's horse
was broken by the concussion. It was further proved that
the accident which happened to the plaintiff was caused by
his own horse rearing and plunging at the time the cab
was passing; and as to the damage done to the horse, two
or three witnesses alleged that the animal was only." slightly
grazed," and that its value was in no way diminished by
what had occurred.—The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff. Damages, 301.

SHERIFF'S COURT, RED LioN•scw.utz.
Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BurchelL

HAWKINS V. JACKMAN.—INOKATITUDE.—Tho plaintiff
in this ease is a surgeon residing in Hatton-garden, end the
defendant, formerly a lawyer's clerk, has recently become
possessed of 10,0001. The action was brought to recover 101.,
money lent. In 1841, the defendant came to the plaintiff
in most distressed circumstances, almost naked and ill.
About June of that year, he asked the plaintiff to lend him
101. to replace a similar sum which he had been robbed of,
and which belonged to his employer, Mr. Beechy, a solicitor
in the City. The plaintiff lent him the money, which he
promised to repay at 11. per week.—A letter was produced
from plaintiff to defendant, in which he modestly congratu-
lated him upon his good fortune, and excused himself for
reminding him of the 101. duo on Mr. Betchy's account.
The letter concluded by trusting that, now he was pros-
perous, and he (plaintiff) oppressed by misfortune, the
money would be paid.—Tiie jury, without troubling the
Under-Sheriff to sum up, returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for the 101.

CITY SHERIFF'S COURT.
Before Mr. Commissioner Bullock.

HEALY O. BIDEL.—THE SMALL DBMS ACT.—In this
case, a brief notice of which appeared on Friday last, a ques-
tion of some importance aro'.e, with reference to the power
of the court having a person re-summoned for the non-pay-
ment of certain instalments, and re-committed to prison after
he had already been incarcerated forty days, for neglecting
to pay one instalment. The learned judge not being suffi-
ciently acquainted with the proper way to decide such a case,
allowed it to stand over to this day.--.4r. Buchanan, plain-
tiff's solicitor, said he had made inquiries as to the mode of
proceeding under such circumstances in other courts, and
had found that they
.invariably re-summoned the party on
being released front prison, and if the defendant had means,
the court made a fresh order upon him, to pay by instal-
ments, which, if neglected, he was again committed for forty
days, for contempt. In the present case, therefore, he
would ask the court to examine the defendant as to
what means he had of payment. The defendant,
a poor emaciated-looking man, said he had no em-
ployment at the present time. liii was a very hard case ;
he had not been out of prison ten minutes, before he was
served with a summons to come before the court. In conse li
-
quence of his imprisonment, he had lost his employment as
a journeyman brass-founder, and had a wife and five children
depending upon him for support. The trade was so bad,
that he did not expect to get any work at present. Whilst
in prison an offer was made to settle the debt for 101., and in
order to settle, he parted with everything he had in the
world; but the offer was rejected. The man who had
brought the action against him had had in addition nearly
the whole of the goods returned to him again.—Mr. Bu-
chanan said it was net so. The 101. was offered for the bill
of exchange to be given up. The holder of the bill of
exchange was quite a different person from the person who
supplied t:te furniture. lie thought, however, under all the
circumstances, the summons had better be dismissed. This
was accordingly done, but with the understanding that the
defendant would be re-summoned when he had means to
pay the debt, or obtained employment.