The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-24 00:00:00

Raw Intelligence.

EQUITY COURTB.—YESTERDAY.
Berme nu LOAD CRAINALIANt.
CORPORATION OF ROCHESTER O. LER.—.RIORT TO TOLI.B.
TITLI OP PLAINTIFFS.

The Lord Chancellor gave judgment in this ease, which
came before him in January last upon appeals against an
order and a decree of Vice-Chancellor lintAht Blue, who
by the order refused a new trial of an Weise, and by the
decree (made on further directione) dismissed the bill. The
hill had been filed by the mu or and corporation of Roches-
ter, for an accents of tolls for coals:brought up the liver to
Lee's-wharf. Oa au issue, directed ley the Visx-Chancellor,
verdict was Lund against the claim of the corporation.
His lordship said that, by th.t orders appeal, d from, the bill
was dismiss,d, without r, rving to the plaintiffs any power
to establish their claim. The effect of the dismissal of the
bill was, that it operated as a bar against any future suit by
the plaintiffs in retard to the same mate r. It became re-
esesary tor the court, ba swe c ming 'o such a result, to see
el, arty that the opinion it had formed against the plaintiffs'
right was • correct one. All danger might be avoided by
the courts attending to the practice established by
former judges of this court in requiring a party
to establish his legal title b,foro coming to any
opinion on the right. Had the Vice-Chancellor
adhered to his first opinion of leaving the plain-
tiffs to bring an action, no aanger of any mistake in th,s
cleft would have arisen. As the ease stood before his lord-
ship on the notes et the Lord Chart; 1S iron, who presided
at the trid, it appeared to him doubtful whether the parties
might riot still be able to establish their right. His lordship
read sever 1 paselges from the C:det summing up,
and said he hid so fully entered into the consileration of the
matter. not from any doubt of weal ought to be done, but
because the evidence addueed, and references by the lets net
judge to evidence that was o uitted, but which may he pro-
duced, showed that it was nut impossible the pkintiffe might
yet better their case if an:opportunity were 'Sordid. what
he would do, there`ore, was to vary the Vice Chancellor's
decree by retaining the plainiffs bill for twelve months,
with lib. rty to them to bring in the mean time such ac ion
as they may be advised. The matter appeared to him too
doubtful to deprive the plaintiffs, by disci sing the bill, of
any furt er opportunity of establi.hing their tile. He
thought it bett r to have them to their action then to direct
a new trial of the issue. The order of dismiss- l wet then
rcvere,...l, the bill to be retained ter a year, and all costs re-
served.

IN Itlt DWI SOMBRE, A LVNATlC.—Puncaesa or RAIL-

WAYS.LPAIIISMT OP CALLS.

Mr. &then_ rail this was a petition presented by :elrs.
Dyce Sombre, the committee of the le Teen of the luratic,
raying that certain payments made by her on cal!' on rail-
way snares, which had been purchased.by the lunatic and the
trustees of the marriage settlement before the lunacy, might
be repaid to her out or the lunwie's estate. tine had nothing
to do w.th the purchase, nor were the trustees tk,blemee, as
the investment io railway share s up to the year IS-14 was
deemed generally an eagible investment, and productive of
more income to the lunatic than an ieverment el a 1:1t1 sum

in prvernment or other s • cusitire. The cabs were made
afterwards, and tho petitioner paid them es her than have
the shares forfeited, which would be the consequence of non-
piyment. It would have been consinly better if she had first
obtained the sanction of him lordship, but so continuous were
the proceedings Ir fora the court for supergiding the
commission, Oat parties were prevented from attending
to this matter. The purchase of the shams by the
trustees was indireely sanctioned by an order of Lord Chan-
cellor Lindhurst. It turned out ultimately ,o to an un-
fortunate ins., rtment, but toe questrou for the petitioner
was, whether she was to ti fuse to pay the calls, end by re-
fusal abandon the property altogether, or to advance tho
money.
The Lord Chancellor—lt was an unfortunate purchase,
but being made, au application ought to have been made to
the court for a reference to the master, to inqu;re whether
it was for the benefit of the lunatic a trate that the calls
should be paid. lin lordship atkad if there wtre any mom
cells to be made ?
Mr. ll their said he believed none, but he would have

inquiry made as to that, and an afli Iv it made of the fact
to a day or two. The matter was °aired to :it ad over.
IN BE TIIE CORONER OP SALOP.—WRIT OF ELECTION..
Mr. C ioper said a writ for the electir a of a coroner of the
county of Salop was issued, end the election wee flied fur
Monday. Ths justices, suheequently to the lune of the
writ, proprseil to call a meeting for the purpose of dividing
the county into two dicisioos, and having a coroner for
each. Toia apolicatiou was to supersede or postpone the
retorts of the wri'.
The Lord Chancellor did not see how he could do either.
He hal no jurisdiction atter the writ issued.
Mr. Karlake said he al p ',aced to entreat to the ap;
lica-
tion, if hi, lordship thought he bad jurisdiction to great it.
He referred to analogous oases—" Leans of L 4wlor v. Mur-
ray " ('2 Schwales and Lefroy), and anorq m ,u. (2 Atkifts,
2;7)--t.) the effect, dist aft, r a writ had once batted It was
de officio, and ti is court had Lothing to do with it, and could
not supersede it, tr• less it appeared that fraudulent use was
made of it.
Mr. Cooper asked that hie mutim might stand over for a
day or two, -n order to have further information trout the
country, wLich could be had by means cf the Cectric

erg •
The Lord Chancellor said he had uo authority in the
matter.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.--YEsTERDAT.
-BROQOH V. RIBINIIERO —NOTION TO SET ASIDE A DlB-

TRINGAS TO COMPEL AN APPEARANCE.

In the course of lee term a rule had been obtained, calling
on the plaintiff to show cause why a writ of distringas, to-
gether with all suttee quent proceedings, sheuld not be set
aside. It appeared that Mr. Eisenberg (a well.known chi-
ropodist), in the year 1547 carried on business in Corkspur-
wniewreasonganeaagneignd bany
LeManr.
advance
aDnimi
inottodzayanarila
street, and lived at Gerdonikuute, Islewottli, where he tad
a large establishment, and his house was superbly furnished.
certain bilis of exchange. The present plaintiff advanced
iliniathietc;arisriheaastitsl
3,6001.npen bills amounting to about 8,0001., and some j .wel-
levy was deoasited with him as a collateral a curly.
On 29.1 BeptemMr in that year Mr. Eisenberg was ah.ut to
proceed to the continent, as was his custom every year, and
the plaintiff was aware of it, as he dine I with him on the
day ?revisal' t, t hi. departure. During his abs-nee. which
continued till the 2nd of June, a writ was issued against htm
be the plaintiff (on the 12th December), and • dirtiness
obtained in the usual way, judgau nt was entered up, a:cau-
tion issued, and property, which it we. alleged . a worth
21,0001., was sold for about 4,0001 It war s'ol d, also,
that Mr. Eisenberg was presented by Wars from returning
to England be'ore the period of his actual airival.
The case new came before the court on cause being shown
against the rule The question turned, In the tint
place, on the point whether to a dietringrt to compel an ap-
pursuer, the practice of tree courts not to grant them wnen
the parties wire out of the jarinlictlon, that is to say,
abroad, was intended by dr statute en which tiny were
founded ; an', sirindly, whether Mr. Eire nbcrg bad net had
sufficient .Ini to return to England after hi, knowledge of
the proceeding, being c oneneneed, so 'hat if there was say
irregulanty by his own " Inches," he had waived it. The
afflaavita were very ensotradistory with regard to Mr. Eisen-
berg's movements on b's return ro and it was
alleged that he was unwilling to return as woe as he might,
on account et his enesarressed circumstances. •
The Attorney-General, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Lush ap-
peared to show cause sgainatthe rule, and