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

Belore the Mesta a the Rolls..

Cox v. Wnrrituw.—PuoDucriots or Dorm's/rm.—A
solicitor, of the name of Hooper, being engaged to marry
the daughter of Mr. Free, =other iolicitor,negotiationstaort7
place respecting the settlement of Hooper's property, in
which the latter was represented by a firm of solicitors called
Tugwell and Co., and the lady and her father by a Mr.
Bulby. The property was ultimately settled, subject to a
charge to Tugwell and Co. After the marriage, disputes
arose respecting the amount of Tugwell and Co.'s charge, in
which Bolby, who was also a trustee of the settlement, acted
as solicitor of Mews. Hooper and Free, and a suit was ulti-
mately instituted against Tugwell and Co. by Hooper, and
a cross bill was filed against him and Bolby by Tugwell and
Co. insisting that Bolby was a trustee for them as to their
charge, and in this suit Mr. Free acted es Bolby's solicitor. A
motion was now made in the crom suit for the production of
fpers in Bolby's powasion,.which he claimed to be privi-
t44 from producing as haring come into his poweaton as
solicitor and not as trustee. The papers were oommumat-
nuns between Dolby and Free before the marriage, between
Hooper and Bolby after marriage, and between Bolby and
Free after the institution of the aces mit.—The Master of
the Rolls being of opinim that upon the answer it was not
sufficiently denied that Bolby had the papers as a trustee,
ordered the production of the documents.

Bebre the VieeClumeellor of Enema&
HUNGIMPOILD MARLar COMPANY O. CM,

BRIDGE COMPANT.-811/1.11-10AT PASSENOERB.—INJUNC-
not' RITE/AlD.—This suit was instituted under the follow-
ing circumstances : It appeared that when the C
Bridge (formerly called the Hungerford Buspensiohin=
was fin* projected, it was found necessary to have mime to
the bridge through the Hungerford market, and
en arrangement was made between the HungerTrerg=
and the Bridge Company, which terminated in a
ism granted by the Market Company to the Bridge
Compeay, lose;itiring to the Bridge Company free acmes he
•the market at anominal rent ; the Bridge
Msapin7 entering at the same time into certain cove-
nants; one of which was, that the Market Com-
pany was to be allowed a free passage over the bridge la
far a the mrth pier for all persons going to and from the
lost, to be erected for the use of steamboat' on the river.
Upon the completion of the bridge the Bridge Company re-
fused to allow the steamboat pamengen to pas unless the
market company found some means for distinguishing the
persons going to the float from those passing over the bridge.
The Market Company, on the other hand, claimed the benefit
of the covenant, and called upon the Bridge Company to rail
off a pasags 6 feet wide for the steamboat passengers, and
eehtaed to none tickets at the toll-gate or adopt any method
that would hare the effect of ins ing the free access of the
public te the boats. It a also that when the bridge
wag first commenced the ateemboet pamengers did not
weed 2000 per mama, but the number had, during
the last ye .r amounted to no lea than two millions, fi
MI therefore become the more difficult for the Bridge
Company to give the Market Company the benefit of the
emenant. The applioatioa now made was for an injuries
tion to minis the Bridge Company from erecting Daniels
at the staircase in the north pier, or from doing anything
which would prevent the Market Company from having
the beemfit of the covenant. Mr. Bethel and Mr. Ciliffsrd
appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Stuart and Mr. Bigg
he the dehmlents.
The Yierchemellor said it was not the duty of the court

to interpret the legal rights of the parties: if there had been
a long use of the right it might be different in this case,
however, he thought there should be no injunction at pre-
sent, but the plaintiffs might bring such action at law as
they should think fit to est►blish their right.

Won rioe-Clisoodor Prora
Crayon or. Itwrosarso.—ice SOINIET.-BAvntoo
sacs.—biruse.- —Mc am& ma 16. ve
for - 114.1!".

moved= a spedsi S„
members of a eoeiety, called the " Highland Laddie Lodge,
esteblished neer , from obtaining from the saving, bank,
where the funds of the society were invested, the sum of LW,
and applying the mete to certain purpows which were objected
to by the plaintiff. The bill was filed on behalf of the *ln-
tiff, and all other the members of the society,except the deft&
oats, and the defendants consisted, in part, of the directors.
The plaintiffs were admitted to be in the minority in point
ef wastben, but it was alleged that the threatened applies.
ilea et heeds was at variance with the objects and rules of
the moiety. The society was not within the Friendly Society
Amt.
HY Ileeettr greeted an interim order, until after Monday,
is reetesia the proposed apolination of the funds.