The Express.
London, England, 1865-04-24 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS I MONDAY EVANING, AP= 24, 1865:

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

METROPOLTTAN COUNT! COVETS.
Mainly days appointed for the present weeL)
Irismniena, Si. llsella'riaa4-11444442, Apra 94 ; Tuesday,
22 ; Wednesday, W.
Kan Maoris, llarytaboos4e4o.—Mondsy, Apra 24 ; Tues-
y, 26.
atomics, Whaehead'agrem—Wedneaday, Apra 12; FTI-
ddatiLizum.
Dancau4sersos.—Tseaday. April 15 : Wednes-
day, 18 ; Friday, W.
Isompirrew, Oldetreet,road.—Taraday, Apra 25 Thursday, 27.
Bow, Dowased.—YridaL Ap
WunsowArla. Oral 7101MeIT ;n4lNMS.—Toesday, Apra 9b
Wednesday, 1111; Thursday Friday , 28.
BOVISIVARI. 8 —Wimim4442, April 98: Thursday,
27 : Friday, 111.
Lawnrll, Carabenrsawewurad. —Tuesday, Apra 15.
6rUmuWloB.—Fredoesd4, Apra W.
WoO9wica.—Thursday, April 27.
Car OP Loa nos. Oulldha/thalldings.-11onday, Apra 26 ;
Tuesday, 95: Thursday, rr Friday, 28..

EQUITY °WILTS.—Aram 22.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
lIPARTZ CBAVABB3.-12 OILIZZBROOL
This wee an apal which was argued some time sines,
from an order of Ilir.,Commtedour Perry, at the Liver-
pool Court of Bankruptcy, distnissieg a petition which
claimed • share in the proms& of a joint adventure between
• petitioner and a bankrupt, the parties not being partnere,
but the dam being made on behalf of the estate of Mr.
Chaveses, at Liverpool, against the elide of Mr. Graze
brook, at Birmingham. These gentlemen bad agreed to
run a number of rifles, swords, and other munitions of war
to the Confederate States of America, end to employ the
in the perched of echos. A vessel which bad
=ohd:rimed for the purpose was wrecked, but a portion
of the cargo was saved and sold, and the proceeds invested
in 'cotton, which was brought to Liverpool, and it was •
share of this which was sought to be obtaieed for the benefit
of the estate of amuse). The commissioner held that
the transaction was a breach of international law, and
therefore could not be upheld, and dismissed the
against which the present appeal was brought.
The Lord Chancellor, in now giving judgment, said that
the question Umpired wee one which wed to the right of
neutrals under international law to send goods to bellige-
rent ports. By. international law generally commerce was
fres and unrestricted, and the subjects of each tuition bad a
right to the interchange of products with each other. If
hostilities arose between certain nations, neither belligerent
had a right to impose, or to require • neutral govern-
ment to impose, restrictions on GOODDWOL A belligerent
power byinternationallaw acquired aortae righte,one of whioh
wee that of capturing on the high sem munitions of war
about to be transferred by • neutral ship to the enemy of
that power, bat that did no/invalidate the act of transport
as °outdating • payout offside against that belligerent.
or give him ground of complaint against the neutral stets
or its sub. The power was limited to the seizure of
the contra article, and there was no power to inflict
punishment on those who carried on the trade in neutral
ehips beyond the seizure, and there was so cause of corn-
phuot spinal the government of the country, to which the
neutral trader belonged. In a certain seem, therefore, the
act was a lawful one ; while the ad of the belligerent in
seizing contraband of war was equally lawful,
and the rights were co-existent. Some writers
had, in his opinion, erroneously treated such a trading as
unlawful in a commercial point of view; but the highest
authorities bad laid down that all that was done by inter-
national law was to subject a neutral carrying contraband
of war to one belligerent to the risk of seizure by the other,
although the act in itself was perfectly innocent. This was
the doctrine of Vattel and Wheaton, and it was acceded to
Iby an American authority, Chancellor Kent. In 1798 the
re Fnch nation endeavoured to establish the role that neutral
powers were bound to restrain their subjects from exporting
munitions of war to belligerent countries ; but it
I was held, and the doctrine practically carried out
by the United States, that neutrals might lawfully carry
and sell contraband of we, subject only to the right of
seizure in transitu, and Dahlia' party Gould charge the
other with an offence wind, international law. If a British
shipbuilder constructed a vessel of war bona fide as met-
chandiae, that is, with • general view to sell it, without
reference to any special agreement for the purchase with
anyT belligerent power, a might be lawfully sold to any
t power without may violation of international law.
The 18th and 17th Via., e. 107, gave power to the Queen
in council to prohibit the exportation of arms, gunpowder,
to., but no proclamation or order to that effect had ever
been made under that statute, and that was admitted in the
present case. It was, however, contended that such • ease
as this came within the meaning of the Queen's proclaina-
tics of 13th May., 188 L But that proclamatioo was directed
only to the provoke, of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and
although it warned the subjects of those realms that
they would incur the risk of the seizureof °entre-
bud stores mad munitions which might be exported to
either of the belligerent stet's. sad dated that there was
aoutsi•ed no
;Lint= otri*yasernePposuch
tar seizure,
te
cello?) was thereforeap
of opinion that the adventure in
which the parties before him bad engaged was the subject
of a valid contract, and that all the rights of property re-
sulting from it were intact; and consequently the goods
which were the proceeds of the adventure belonged to the
estate of the bankrupt. The case must be remitted to the
oommissioner with a declaration that there was a partner.
ship in the adventure, and that an account must be taken.
MAHON O. WOOD.
This was also &bankruptcy appeal, argued some little time
ago, and twice reported in this journal. The court below
had refused a petition promoted by the joint creditors of
a firm of Wood and Greenwood, which having become em-
barramed, Greenwood executed a deed, assigning the pro-
perty of the firm to Wood, on the latter undertaking to
pay the debts of the partnership. The question was whe-
ther it was competent to Greenwood to assign, and Wood
to take such an assignment.
The Lord Chancellor said that it wee clear from the
evidence that at the time of the assignment the firm, and
both the partners individually, were insolvent, and the case
was therefore one which came within the principle of the
13th of Elizabeth and the 49th section of the Bankrupt
Act 1849. The transaction was fraudulent and void, the
attempted conversion had failed, mid the property remained
to be administered and distributed under the bankruptcy.
He therefore differed from the opinion of the court below,
and mug reverse the order which had been made.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—APRIL 22.
Sittings in Banoo.—(Bsfore Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
end Justices Blackburn, Mellor, red Shoe.)
JORILAND V. TRIG GIZA? WESTIRN RAILWAY COMPANY.