The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-19 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Vice-Cluorßor of Eithiand.

LUDLOW 1). GUILLEBAUD.—CONSTRUCTION OP A WILL.
—WHETHER AN ABSOLUTE INTERP.ST OR A LIFE hit--
RUT WAS OFFEN TO CHILDREN.—A question was raised in
this ease upon the construction of the will of Anne Guille-
baud, who gave the whole of her real and personal estate
to
trustees, upon trust, to receive the interest, dividends,
and annual produce thereof, and pay the same to her
daughter Elizabeth, to her separate use for life, and in case
the husband of her daughter shouli survive her, then to
pay the proceeds to him forj life, or during his widowhood
only, with remainder, on his death or marriage, to the chil-
dren of her said daughter, upon their attaining 21, with cer-
tain residuary bequests over. The testatrix's daughter died
in 1834, leaving five children, and her husband married
again in 1842. It was now contended that the children
teak as absolute interest in the propetty upon the second
mosiege of their father. The residuary legatees contended
*A the dividends only were given to the children for their
Ike" and that ou their death the residuary bequests would
lie effect.
he. Stuart, Mr. Llod, Mr. Stinton, Mr. Fisher, and
Briggs, appeared for different parties.
The Vice-Chancellor said he was clearly of opinion that
the children would take, under these words, the whole in-
terest in the property as tenants in common, and that the
residuary legatees had no interest whatever in it.
DINGWALL O. HEMMING.—QUESTION OP PRACTICE.-
125 Ta ORDER OF MAT, 1845, JIB TO THE COSTA OP A BILL
OF DISCOVERY.—The plaintiff in this case was a builder,
who bad done certain work for a gentleman who died and
left the defendants his executors. The plaintiff commenced
an action for the recovery of his Dill against the executors,
who filed a bill in this court for an account and Sir an in-
junction to restrain the action at law. The ininnetion was
granted, but was afterwards dissolved. Subsequastlye the
plaintiff filed a cross bill against the ezecuton for Manwry.
It turned out that the cross bill was useless, since ft P
no relief, and was consequently dismissed. The execateee=
obtained an order, of course, for th, payment of the mob of
the cross bill. The plaintiff refused to pay them, and use
committed into custody. The present application was Ike
the discharge of the order on she ground that, under*.
125th order of May, 1845, it was directed that thumb ef a
bill for discovery, filed by the defendant to a bill fie rend,
were to be costs in the cause, unless the meet thiuM Wm-
wise direct.—Mr. Stuart and Mr. Soatboileeposeeed ter
the plaintiff, and Mr. Bethel' and Mr. WilloorAlor the ex-
ecuton.
The Vice-Chancellor said this was a point upon which he
should have liked to consult the other judges, bat as the
plaintiff was now in custody he would decide it at mos. It
appeared to his Honour that although the 41st order of 11161
was not actually repealed by the orders of 1846 in shiet
terms, still it was virtually within the clause by which dew
of those orders were repealed. The bill of el/Rooney bed
been filed in this case respecting the matters at Wee, end It
was expressly directed by. the 125th order that In Niel area
the onto should be ante in the cause. It appeared to him
that this question WWI clearly met by that eel& of 181 d. He
should, therefore, grant the application for dischasge of the
seem with oats.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sonnesu.. Before lord Denman end Comm Juries.
KIDSDON O. WHAOO.--COLLISION.—Mr. *Miami nee
and Mr. Bramwell appeared for the plaintiff in this me,
who sought to recover compensation for the injuries done to
himself and his cart by the defendant having driven up
against it, and so caused it to overturn. From the evidence
it appeared that both parties were returning from Epsom
on one of the race days. The defendant, who was
driving e four-horse coWok sad on which was a party of
young geatlemen, overhe plaintiff, who, with his son,
wu in a chaise cart, at Clapham Rise. There wu a throng
of vehicles, and-when he attempted to pass, the son of the
plaintiffjamped from the cart, seined the leaders by the
reins, and backed them, sou to place them behind the art.
Shortly afterwards the defendant again attempted to pass
the wheel of the coach became locked with that of the
chaise out; the two vehicles were dragged on so locked to-
gether for some yards, until they were released by the chaise
cart being overturned. Mr. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr.
Charnock, for the defendant, called winsome, who attri-
bated the aecideat to the fact that the near leader had be-
anie violent when it we seised, unnecessarily as they
thought, by the plaintiffs eon, so that subsequently there
wu a difficulty in restraining it. They also said that some
one in the shale cart had struck at the leaden and
frightened them; and that the defendant had
not been guilty of any negligees* or carelseeme.
Lord Denman leaving summed up, the jury retired
for a short time, and then returned into court with a verdict

fur the plain!iff, damages 731., being SOl. beyond the amount
of the bills for medical attendance and the repair of the'

chaise-cart.
JACKSON T. BIS AN.—PROMISSORT NOTE, WITH ex-
ALTERNATIVE MODE or PA V3IIINT.—MT. Q. C.,.
and Mr. Ogle, appeared fur the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant,
Shee, Mr. Edwin James, and Mr. Peacoeg, for the defend-
ant. The action VAIS brought by the brother and adminia-,
trator of a lady named Jackson, who committed suicide in'
the month of August, 1844, to recover the amount of a pro-'
misery note, made hr the def-ndant, dated the oth of June,
1843, and thus word d: " I premise to pay MOSS Jackson,
ur Sir Gregory Lewin, upon her account, 0001. one month.
after date, with interest at the rate of six per cent., value re-
ceived." Sir Gregory Lewin died in the year 1845, and thss.
note was found among his patters; but, although originly
named as an executor by .liss Jackson, an appointment
which had only been informally revoked, Sir Gregory
Lewin bad renounced the executorship. For the defence; It
was contended that the note was in law bad for informality,
the mode of payment being in the alternative ; and th.st It
had been, in fact, paid to Sir Gregory Lewin. Its evidence
of the latter statement it was shown that Sir Gregory
Lewin died so embarrassed that &creditor, and not a member
of his family, had administered to his estate, and that the
defendant h^d paid to him 340/. in a cheque, and had also
I paid to him a promissory note for 3401. To account for the
note sued on, and also a policy of insurance to secure it, re-
maining in the hands of Sir Gregory Lewin, the absence or
the defendant from England and of Sir Gregory Lewin from
London at certain times was alleged. In reply, it was con-
tended that the defsndant had not paid Sir Gregory Lewin,'
and that if he had, that payment was no satisfaction, because
Sir Gregory Lewin was not tho executor of Miss Jackson,
and his agency had expired with her life.
After Lord Denman had commenced summing up it was
inttneted that the counsel, in deference to a previous sug-
gestion of the judge had settled the ewe by agreeing that
the parties should 'dish!, the loss occasioned by the non-
payment to the plaintiff of the 800/. and interest, and that
each of them should pay his own cosu.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,
pmt Parrs.—Before Sir P. Pollack WO a London (batmen Jury.
PALL o. JoNr.s.—RsiLweva.—Mr. Q.O , and
Mr. Mellor. conducted the plaintiff's case; Mr. Serjeant
Allen and Mr. Gray for the defendant. This was an action
to mover damages for the non-performance of a contract to
transfer a certain interest or shares in the Leicester and
Bradford Railway Company, which was formed in 154.5,
and was since abandoned. After having passed a committee
of the House of Commons, it was defeated in the Lords. It
appeared that the defendant, who was an attorney in Lon-
don, obtained an allotment of forty shares in this under-
taking, through the instrumentality of Mr. George Pell, the
solicitor of the company. When the time arrived for the
payment of the deposits, the defendant stated his inability to
take the shares, and the result was that Mr. G. Pell ad-
leveed the necessary sum, and got the defendant's accept-
ance on the 13th July, 1845, as a security for the repayment
of it. The defendant, who was then going to France,
directed Mr. Pell to sell the shares " whenever they would
realise 201. or 301." Accordingly, upon the 19th of Jul, the
plaintiff, who is uncle to Mr. George Pell, purchased the
shares at 11. pm. from a Mr. Stiller, manager of the North-
ampton Bank, where the letter of allotment and banker's
receipt had been lodged for the purpose of effecting a sale of
the defendant's interest. Upon the 28th of July (the shares
basing risen in the interval to 41. er dl. premium)
the defendant was apprised of the sale of his in-
terest in the scheme. He said it way a pity
the shares had not been hi ld over a little longer,
but expressed himself perfectly satisfied, and promised
to attend next morning at the offices of the company
to execute the deeds, hand over the scrip, and close
the transaction. Next day, however, ho refused to give the
scrip, and altogether repudiated the authority to sell he had
given Mr. George Pell, upon the ground that it 101 not in
writing. The present action was commenced in June, 1846,
and it was now contended, on behalf of the plaintiff, that he
was entitled to recover the highest price the shares bed sold
for at any time etir their sale and before the action was
brought. For the defendant it was insisted on that he could
not transfer his interest to the plaintiff. At most the alleged
contract only amounted to a verbal sale of something that
had no existence—there were no shares issued, And even if
there were, by the 8 & 0 Vic., c. 16, the interest
in them was confined to the subscribers "exclusively," and
could not be transferred until after the act of parliament
incorporating the company had passed. There could be no
" shares " issued until after the act bad passed.—Tbe Lord
Chief Baron reserved the points, and left the question of
damages to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages 50/.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Ilr.Commissioner Fonbtfuu
Ris RIMEL—The insolvent Rymer, an author,came up for
his final order. He was supported by Mr. Lucas, and op-
posed by Mr. Sawed, on the ground that the insolvent,
within two months of filing his petition in this court, as-
signed all his interest in certain leasehold property to Mr.
Bowles, a builder, in consideration of a debt due to him to
the extent of about 7001.
Evidence was taken to prove that the debt due to the op-
posing creditors arose out of a discount transaction, in the
course of which had been received never less than 60 per
cent. for several renewals ; and after having paid 41. when a
bill became due, he (the insolvent) was sued upon it. His
Honour was of opinion that this was a case in which the
final order ought to be granted.