The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-23 00:00:00

SPORTING.

BETTING AT MAICIIESTER--FamAy.
000DwuoD STAKES.
10 to 1 apt Maid of Madam (t 13 to 1 apt Ilornpipe
freely) 16 to 1 Syrup
11 to 1 Collingwood 16 to 1 St. Antonio
100 to Maki of Lyme 20 W 1 Remembrance
15 to 1 Plaudit 20 to 1 Tophana
15 to 1 Pernhill
Maid of Lyme and Maid of askant alone in force.
GOODWOOD MP.
Sto 1 eget The Hero 14. to 1 apt Tadmor
ST.
3to 1 Canerou 20 to 1 Black Eagle
'ER.
5t04 on Flying Dutchman 110 to 1 apt Loupgarou
10 to 1 apt Lady Superior 20 to — Chatterer (t)
10 to 1 Uriel 24 to
1 Volcano (t)

WENLOCK RACES.—FRIDAY.
VIENLOCIL Strain of 10 nova. each, and 50 added. Twice
round and a distance. (10 subs., 6 of whom paid 3 son.
each.)
Mr Minor's Mies Bonney, yrs, Est 121 b
idekerl Evans 12
Mr. Gtiee's Garr Green, aged, Met 91b
Mr. llughees itebeces, 4 yrs, Bet 91b ( srlow 3
The favourite won by bait a length.
ABBEY STAMM of 5 son. each, and 30 added. One mile
and a bat
Mr. Wsdlow's Grist, 4 yrs (Taster) 1 1
Sir W. W. Wynne's ad The Wind, 3 yrs (Sharpe) 2 2
The first heat was won by half a length, and the second

LORD Et:MINTON END THE GOODWOOD
Sunday paper states that Lord Eglinton created some soma-
lion at Liverpool by scratching his Goodwood Cup hmses in
a very summary manner. this operation was highly credit-
able to his lordship, and quite in keeping with the upright
and honourable character which he has always maintained
upon the turf. Certain achemers having bought over two
lads in the stable, received " the office" to back Solon and
Belus far the Goodwood Cup. This was accordingly done to
• large amount, and to the no small astonishment of their
owner. On inquiry, he traced the whole thing to its true
source, and having discharged the culprits, scratched his
horses for the sole purpose of punishing thou who hail
suborned the boss to sell their master's secrets, (or of course
they will loos their bets. Finally, Van Tromp was with-
drawn, lest his remaining in, taken in conjunction with
the striking out of the others, should lead to an erroneous
belief that he would represent the stable on superior merit.

JAW Intelligence.

EQUITY COURTB.—EATURDAY.
DEPOSE Tot VICY.COANCELLOI ee ENGLAND.
MORNINOTON V. MORNINOTON.—Rto HT OF LADY MORN-
INOTON TO AN ANNUITY OF 1,0001. OUT OF THE ESTATES OF
LORD MoRNINOTON.
The Vice-Chancellor delivered judgment in this case,
which was before the court in argument for several days lut
week. The original suit was instituted in 1839 by Lady
Mernington against Lord Mornington, for the purpose of
having it declared that she was entitled to here as annuity
of 1,0001. per annum secured to her out of her husband's
estate. The bill was demurred to for want of parties; the
demurrer was allowed, and a supplemental bill bad since
been filed, bringing before the court Lord Wellesley and
several incumbrancers upon the estate. The supplemental
bill now came on for hearing, Lady Momingtm wing as a
pauper, and the facts were these :—Cpon the occasion of a
separation taking place hearten Lord and Lady Mornington
in June D 034, certain articles of separation were executed, by
which Lord Mornington covenanted that he would, within one
year, secure to Lidy Mornisgton an annuity of 1,0001., by
charge on freehold estates in England or Wales, or by an in-
vestment of an adequate sum of money, or by the best means
which might then be in his power. In December, 1834, a deed
was executed between Lord Mornington and his son Lord
Wellesley, by which the family estates were conveyed to
trustees, to raise the sum of 462,0001. for the payment of
certain charges affecting the estates, and subject thereto to
secure an annuity to Lord Wellesley during the life of his
father, and after satisfaction of such charges the estates
were limited to such uses as Lord Mornington and Lord
Wellesley should jointly appoint, and in default of such
joint appointment to Lord Mornington fur life. and after-
wards to his son absolutely, in cue he should survive his
father, but if not then in trust for Lord Mornineton in tail
male; and the deed contained also a power for Lord Mora-
lagton to jointure his then present, or any future wife, to
the extent of 1,500/. per annum.
Mr. Holt, Mr. Willoock, and Mr. Freeliog, appeared for
Lady Mornington, and contended that all the estates of Lord
Mornington were subject to the claim of the plaintiff for an
annuity of 1,0001., and that she was entited to have that sum
raised upon the estates; that Lord ?dornington had the
power to raise that sum under the clause in the last deed for
jointuring any wile ; that such power was given him for the
express purpose et satisfying the plaintiff's claim; and that
she was entitled to her annuity befits any of the charges
upon the estate were raised.
Mr. Bothell, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Helder, appeared for
Lord Wellesley, and contended that he was not bound by the
articles upon the separation between Lord and Lady Morning-
ton, of which he had had no notice at the time of executing the
subsequent deed of Dec. 1834 ; and that Lord Isloenington
had no power, under that deed, to grant any present join-
turs, but only to make a charge to commence after his death,
which was the strict meaning of the term jointure. It was
also contended that Lord Wellesley was improperly made a
party to this suit. He had been a party to the original bill,
and had been dismissed by the plaintiff herself; he could
not, therefore, be now brought before the court by supple.
mental bill.
Mr. Melina and Mr. Baggallay appeared for Lord Morn-
ington, and submitted to azt as the court should direct.
Mr. Cooper, Mr. Bidebottom, Mr. Chandlesa, Mr. Cooke,
and Mr. Schombirg appeared for the incumbrancers upon
the estate. and contended that they were entitled to priority
over any claims which might be substantiated by the plaintiff.
The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, said the decision
which he had come to in theme of" Wellesley v. Wellesley"
(reported in 9 Simmons), which was afterwards confirmed
by the Lord Chancellor (reported in 4 Myl. and Cr.), must
govern this case. With respect to.the present Lord Wellesley
an objection bad been rained that he was not a proper party
to the suit, having been dismissed by the plaintiff from the
original bill. He did not think this objection
hal any weight, and there was no reason why
the court should not make a decree against him.
The next question to be considered was, whether the power
which was given to Lord Mornington to make a jointure
was given to him ander such circumstances that it ought to
bind Lord Wellesley, and that would depend upon the qua-
don whether Lord Wellesley could be said to have had no-
ties of the articles of separation of June, 1834. On looking
into the evidence, it appeared to him, that although Lord
We
had to a certain extent denied notice, yet there
was sufficient proof of notice to enable the Court to act
against him, for it was clear that Mr. Pyne, the solicitor,
had acted tbrougaout that year as solicitor for Lord Morn-
ington as well as hie son (Lord Wellesley). He thought,
therfore, that Lord Welles:ay had sufficient notice of the
articles. As to the other objections they must be disposed
of :on the general rule, that as regards equitable estates
thou who were first in time were first in right.
It was true, that so far as any creditors might
have got the execution in their favour of the joint power
of appointmeas by Lord Mornington and Lord Wellesley,
they might avail themselves of such power, but it would be-
come aquestion whether that was not necessarily rubj act to the
single power of appointment in Lord Mornington to jointure.
Or. the best consideration he could give the ease hie opinion
was that there mut be a dames in the terms asked, which
was a declaration that, ander the circumstances of the ease,
Lady Mornington had acquired a right to have all the means
put into Lord Mornington's power by the deed of December,
1834, acted upon by Lord Wellesley, so as to tarry into effect,
as far se poseible, the agreement in the adobe of Jane, 1834,
and there must tbs a reference tower Mona to mettle such
convey pees and assurances as be amerary to affect
that object.

_.....
area vie.. The of nperrisoi of metals, a mai COURT OF BA.
drogue, Is to be &MUM& It was only " misted" about limas Ms. Cosonagoxza FAIL
two years dam 111U0VS•L TO EXTITTAIN • BARRISTIIOI PiTMON.
Faun Mosaw.—Nolim Is given la last Friday's °mats Mr. Lewis pressated a petition, under Lord Brougham's
that ea mond to goat to b• salsibitod Is the registry of Amalgams% Ad, as behalf ol a barrister, whom Rams WA

NitRUPTCY.—SATuaDAy.