The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-22 00:00:00

XILITART._

IV comma, JAM. 10.1371171D1T1C and Edward Sellers, et 9th
bettaka Oval vie drama eat of the reabetat en
me the snare of. paler earl
set to ttd"teiara the bees mg awls bet
- Ihrbelad hero vied seed time lighbayealither
amis. The pa tenth of Mess missy le yeashase hie
• ibibtree, which the selbentbe Jebel le Fab ; Mb abgesed
s eel be mat est dada lie Mire he beam beeliesseme,
ellat the oYw, it is sod now aledmera
• tape seitemeadlera. blobs ieseasa le by spent
J. ikeet Vestal& Weer Ibis boa beeasht beam lb. Main
Weft lest imp* iillh Mem NA Ohs seellsbele Malt veil
: *ft the slamen bre by be Ila pat,
pee et plan braid ea of the ..lee, eel apereM bb Misr-
• mbeeleet ft eesellzte • Jury envy astir irensit bellise him
• wpm slum . further add that V the Mos Imp
NAM • law sense! it would be the reams yerhap et drift
be nabs. harei.asb le be mast any regolettles any awn am,
elated by .jury tonei from tbententoe with drawn.
•
el lIPORTUIG.
TATIVISALIA.—Tameas.
abase Co —The mamba el Se besillemp hes note ere given
asi toopdoe to opoemy MIA to the bay pet et be eller.
0. the ...ass semi islib eagle Set of the wet
set
hods. len adored la leas Tabby bebeeimait ma".
at MO 69 * in 661691.661, ellining sag% dm. 'seem
bean Wan amessealal as la new straw las. sad estlelely
.:low repelled tot! thsbenden mai bomb, were ell
• laniabblessa The beer. dial le be • pia ow sad
• to soma UM there vet be et less limirsd
to be hal 61 61/116111 ban bee Om* boson
L Rise Andre, ere lida.gebresh ;
• ahem of the fret tweore add, balsa leis the malt of
• segemeed Able to bit the% sal eat of Deed sabey. Oas bet of
ei- Valle 10 sot Brlbbabsals vas 9211awat by three at tar sat 1,000
sr. ft SI; MINI le le via Mg salt lubliesta. 1.91111 b Mg
• Ure nen anaterit, Las a 40 eget errifti,swieril
lila _old. lAN two or three time opt liinktpent,
lad • eater bob la mei sateents. The priers, et the are
'S et • doll Mamba. erne as vista :—lLvn on the field opt 10 ;
30 to 1 11,4 Ore .sate; le to i met Antler !lAD to 10
token) , aJ to 1 end arb.vehiegh ; 10 to I . °path
Pettey. Newoent ; 40 to 1 egg Nth. Omahas's llseeeert;
40 to I ourt The ; So to I bet Cam Ola. (ere);
VS tot ass.. Pet (taken); 30 to 1 Rea Bootee (tole); 10

to 1 apt Puneh Alien); SO to 1 apt Jinglepot (taken'. SO to
1 apt Bedlam (taken and aft. offend); 50 to 1 apt
Bey: (takes and aft. offend) ; e 6 to 1 apt 31migrant (taken) ; 06 to 1
apt Inheritress .taken) SOO to 6 apt Widen Bee (taken) , 100 to 1
apt Sir Talton Sykes (takes).
Mirrworouras IiANDICAP.—The only het laid to our knewledp was
33 to 1 to a very mall mon apt the Marquis of Conynghain.
DEMIT..-11 to vd John Soon's let; Bto 1 apt Van Trump (off.)
1,000 to 105Eprote (t.) ; 1,000 to 30 apt Allot tonian (t.) ; 1,030
to 23 apt 4le (t.); 1,000 to 20 apt Literatar (t.) ; 1,000 to 15
ant War (0.). The above were all the beta that nose to our
knowledge. me batten of Ephote, Allertonian, The laberator, and
War Eagle would have game on.
The Lunotorox Sum.' Cuaans are potpourri until Wednesday
or Thursday neat.

lab) intelligence.
EQUITY COURT—Y6STERDIT.
Before the Muter of the Ulla.

' TOZSDALI V. 5W124171.LL. —I;7UNCTION. RAISINO
Moser lIT GIANT OF ANNUITIES.—The plaintiff, Major
Teesdale, an officer in the 00911111, in 1812 borrowel
of which 1,1001. belonged to the defendant Swindell, who
was in the habit of purchasing annuities, and for that par
pose employed a aolicitor of the name of Columbine, and the
rest of the money belonged to other parties, and the plaintiff
gran•ed an annuity of 2361., which WI. divided into four parts
for the benefit of the several persons advancing the money.
The plaintiff was unable to pay the annuity, and be borrowed
on every occasion of its becoming due money by acceptances
of bills drawn by Columbine, the agent of all parties, on the
terms of paying interest at the rate sometimes of 120 per
cent. In June 184-i, in consequence of an application made
by • friend of the plaintiff, Columbine made proposals of
arrangement and compromise, whereby demands on the
plaintiff to the extent of 14,0001. and upwards, including the
above annuity, were to be settled on payment of 9,8501.
These terms were not immediately agreed to, and in July the
plaintiff was arrested at the instance of Columbine, and on
the same day he agreed to a compromise on the terms that
9,840/. should be paid to Columbine for the parties entitled,
and that releases should be executed by them. In Septem-
ber the plaintiff wait ready to perform his part of the compro-
mise, but Columbine had not then possessed himself of all
the securities which were to be delivered up, and the arrange-
ment was temporarily delayed. But on 4th October the
parties met to complete the transaction, and the securities
were delivered up to the plaintiff, and he paid the 9,8501. to
Columbine, without first having releases signed by the par-
ties, and without provision being made for immediately
entering up satisfaction on a judgment which was held to
secure the annuity, and releases were never obtained, nor
was satisfaction entered up. Swindell, it appeared, had kept
the documents relating to the grant of the annuity in his
possession till about the time of the above compromise
being arranged, when he delivered them up to Columbine :
and he knew, in October, 1848, of the transaction relating
to the compr anise, and that the securities had been delivered
up to the plaintiff. But he took no steps to dispute the va-
lidity of the compromise till May, 1846, when, having
changed his solicitor, he directed him to write to the plain-
tiff, demanding payment of the arrears of the annuity, as if
no compromise had been entered into. And an action was
comm. need against the plaintiff for such arrears, upon which
he filed this bill to restrain it, and obtained an injunction for
that purpose. And the answer to the bill having been filed,
motion was now made to dissolve the injunction. Messrs.
Turner and Gifford showed cause against dissolving the
injunction, on merits disclosed by the answer. The prinei-
* point was, whether Columbine was authorised by
Swindall to enter int, the compromlise in question This
was strongly denied by the answer, and the plaintiff asked
leave to bring an action to try that question. Messrs. Kin.
dersley and Bastsbawe appeared for Swindall.
The Master of the Itolls commented in strong terms
on the mode of raring money adopted in this case. It
surprised him that the money should have been paid
by the plaintiff before the releases were obtained, and
that Swindell should have waited from October to
May before he took any steps, though he knew
in October that he had parted with his securities, and that
the compromise bad been entered into. It was not satisfac-
torily explained how he came to deliver up the securities
which he had carefully kept in his own possession, if it were
not for the purpose of the compromise. The defendant, how-
ever, denied in his answer the authority of Columbine ; he
denied also the allegation that a fraud um practised on the
plaintiff to extort money front him ; and, according to the
practice of the court, unless there were en :vicious circum-
stances in tile case, a defendant who so swore would for a
time defend himself from an injunction. But if there were
such eireumstanees, the defendant would not have the whole

benefit of his denial; and there might be circumstances
which might make it proper to order payment of the money
into court. In this caw the circumstanccs were such that

he should continue the injunction, on the plaintiff paying
the arrears of the annuity into court. And as he thought
the question of authority might be better investigated in a
court of law, he should give leave to the plaintiff to bring an
action to try it, and both parties must undertake to be bound
by the verdict.

Before the Vlee-Chateellor of England.
MOOGERIDON a. THON.OI.---INJUNCTION.—ARTIPICIAL
TELTII.—Mr. C. P. Cooper and Mr. Bilton moved for an
injunction to restrain the defendant,who is a surgeon-dentist,
from continuing to advertise that he was selPug artificial
teeth made on the same principle as that for which the plain-
tiff had obtained a patent, and called the "pneumatic prin-
ciple."
The Vice-Chancellor said he could not grant an injunction
in this form, but the plaintiff might have an injunction in
the usual form to restrain the defendant from infringing the
plaintiffs patent.

Before the Vlos-anacellor Knight Bruce.
SHIELDS v. BOUCHER.— QUESTION or PEDTOREE.—
ETIDENcE.—MOTION FOR A New TRIAL—The bill well
filed by J. Shields and Hester, his wife, as entitled in
right of the wife to the personal: property of her mother
Elizabeth Allen, against William Boucher, who was the
administrator of Richard Hollins, of Wolverley, in the county
of Worcester, praying for an account of Richard Hollins 's
personal estate, and for payment of the surplus thereof,
eller payment of his debts, to the plaintiffs. The bill pro-
ceeded on the ground that Mrs. Shields' mother, Elizabeth
Allen, was first cousin of the intestate, Richard Hollins, and
his only neat of kin, under the statute of distributions,
living at his death. The defendant had procured letters of
administration of the intestate's effects as being sole next of
kin and a cousin of the intestate, and ke denied by his
answer that until within a few months he was aware of the
existence of the plaintiffs, or of any of the circumstances re-
lating to Elizabeth Allen. According to the plaintiff.' case
the defendant, though a cousin, was only a cousin once re-
moved of the intestate, being a nephew of Elizabeth Allen;
and with respect to Elizabeth Allen, their representation
was, that she was one of the children of John Hollins, of
Kaiser, in Warwickshire (which is near Wolverley). That
she left Kniver very early in life, that in July
1769, she married, at St. George's, Bloomsbury, one Samuel
Allen, a jeweller, who was beucath her own station of life,
that she had Revere children, all of whom died early except
the plaintiff, Mrs. Shields ; that at the death of the intestate,
who died in June 1840, she had survived all her brothers
and sisters, and was the intestate's only cousin in the first
degree, and that she died in August 1840, aged 92, and was
buried at Elim Chapel, Fetter-lane. Upon the mum coming
on for hearing in January last before Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce, his Honour directed the following issues to be tried.
Ist. Whether the plaintiff, Hester Shields, is the daughter
of Elizabeth Allen, late of Aldenham.etreet, Somers'-town,
in the parish of St. Pancras, In the county of Middlesex,
widow, deceased. 2ndly. Whether the said Elizabeth
Allen was the daughter of John Hollins, the paternal
uncle of Richard Hollins, late of the parish of Wolverley,
in the county of Worcester, deceased. And 3rdly. Whether
the add Elizabeth Alkn survived the said Richard
Hollins. The issues were tried before Lord Chief Justine
Wilde and a special jury, when the jury found a verdict for
the plaintiffs on the first issue ; but upon the second they
found that Elizabeth Allen was the daughter of one John
Hollim, but that there was no evidence to show of what
John Hollins. A motion was now made on the part of the
plaintiffs for a new trial, on the ground of improper re-
jection of evidence by the learned judge; on the ground
also, of his misdirection of the jury, and some other lees
material grounds. Al to the rejection of evidence, it ap-
peared that the following circumstances took place at the
trial : —On the part of the plaintiffs a witness wee asked—Have
you heard Elizabeth Allen say what was her maiden name?
Question objected to, and objection overruled—Answer : She
said her maiden name was Hollins—Question : Did you ever
heather say where her family came from ? Objected to, end ob-
jet-ilea allowed. —Question : Have you heard her say where she
was married? Objected to, and objection allowed.—Question
Have you heard her say what her father's name was ? Not
objected o.—Answer: She said her father was John Hol-
lins,—Question Of what place ? Objected to, and objection
allowed.—Question Have you heard her say whether father
wiz? Not objected to.—Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, Mr.
Wigram, and Mr. Stevens appeared in support of the motion,
and contended that the questions which had been ruled to be
improper, were equally admissible to prove the identity of
the party, as thews which had been allowed. The result of
the evidence was that the plaintiff had been allowed to prove
the maiden name of Elizabeth Allen, and the name of her
father, but not the came of the place where they lived. Was
not the name of the place almost as necessary for the descrip-
tion of the person as the name of the person ? It certainly
would be so in the case of a person named Smith, or in the
ere of • Welsh pedigree: and where are you to draw the
Vas ? Besides, the plaintiffs were allowed to ask the men.
portion of the father, and why not, then, hie place of abode ?
The learned council, after citing various authorities on this
part of the case, proceeded to address the court on the
question of misdirection, observing that hie lordship had
dealt too harshly before tlae jury, with the son of Mrs. Shields,
who was a witness in the cause ,and who deposed to hav ins taken
ajOurney to Wolverlev, to see the intestate, and mentioned
a conversation with him respecting the relationship of the
parties—The Attorney-General, with whom are Mr. Pea-
cock and Mr. Stintoo, rose to address the court for the de-
fendants, hut the hour being late, it was arranged that the
motion should be proceeded with on Tuesday next.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THR QUEEN V. CHER/La.—APPLICATION PDX LEAP, TO
compiler TRH RETURN TO A WRIT OP MANDAMUS BY A
THIRD PARTY INTERESTED IN THE RESULT. —A rule has
been obtained that called en the prosecutor of a writ of man-
damus, which had issued to compel two magistrates to grant
a warrant for levying a certain poor-rate in part of the
borough of Evesham, and also on those magistrates, to show
cause why a gentleman, named Griffiths, against whom the
warrant was prayed, should not be permitted to conduct the
return to the writ. The affidavits on which the rule had been
granted, suggested several objections to the ?steers technical
nature, which might h►ve been made the grounds of an
appeal. but did not impugn the rate as excesaive, nnr touch
the .lability of Mr. (iiiffiths to be rated generally to the re-
lief of the po .r. Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. (Innen for the
prosecutor*, now 'hewed CAUSE., and contended that on this ap-
plication was made under the 1 W. 4, e. 21, with which were

i.