The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-05 00:00:00

Zan) fntellsatilcc.

EQUITY COUR TS.— :F.,•TEht).ty„
Bross visa lows Cusses, lea.
31causr r. Jawr.u..
A :notion for the app otnonent rceciv.r in this e-se
was opeord on Saturdsy, and wss now further heard up to
one o'clock, when the Lord Chancellor ruse, and the fur-
ther hearing was postponed. We reserve our report till
further progrt i. ruadt ru the argument,.
Et r coo C. BILIU/IT, AND.811.1..H1 T. 11UTTON.—AYVCALA

uu rem Wistource Acts.
'Mr Lon' eli4neellor said be wadi boor the .c appeals in
the House of Lore ant Wedsisday at am o'clock.

Booms ems Urania or TUN Irsu.
et.coarar r. TIAINTIN—REVOCATION or Davis'.
li. Master of the Redly gave judgment in this cow, in
who li the question related to the construction of the will of
Thomas A. Beckett Turner, who devised his real t states to
the use of his brother William Beckett fur life, with re.
'winder to the use of William Beckett in tail male with
remainder over. Anal the testator gave his residuary ;ter-
minal estate amongst all his nephews and nieces. By a
codicil to his will in which he expressed his intention to
revokc hi. sill, .o fa: only as it WA. altered by codicil, he
charged his real estates. with certain annuities, and he gave
to his nephews sod nieces then living, except his brother
William bee-kelt'. children, who were not intended to take
my beneficial interest looter his will or codicil, WNW.
apiece, which he charged on his real estate. The question
was whether the words "eseept my brother William
Beckett's children, who are not intended to tale soy hese-
Beast interest under oily sill or codicil," amounted to a revues,
two of the delve* is the will of the testator's real estates to hi.
brother Wm. Beckett's children in strict settlement. Ili.
Harmer wee of opiates that the words is suestiutt did not
show a dear islesties to revoke the devise in the will, and
lit &sided that t►eee was me we► ItToestioll.

&FMK Vics-Ca s•rasaa• Zsramer ems.
et VITT • K A'Sb Witot bluta Dacus AND 11111-

MINUILIIIII J1:311:7151X RAILWAY C•11,1P1N1r . .
• •

14r. Jame, Parker and Xt. Lewin, for the plaintiff,
montd far an injeaction to restrain the defendants, their
agents, and workmen from taking :my proccethign against
tht plaintiff tinder several iodicoa m. utioned in the bill of
the.r intention to take the plaintiff's land, or from taking ur
ronfioning in the of any part of the plaintiff'.
land not included 111 any purchase by the defendant• from
the plaintiff, or (tam otherwi* disturbing the plaintiff in
the l'amment of any part of the laud not oi included.
Veins the• affidavit. in support of the motion it appeared
that the plaintiff wa, in loft: the °NWT of iome ground at
Isloaoni intended to he covered with building., and that
1* for, the art pa•o d, incorporating the defendant., ogre*.
moot. leer. • uttred into lattween him and them, in pur-
&emit, of which he fighort to impale the paoting of the act.
tfadtr the provi.nma art the deft udants purchased
from the plaintiff a portion of the land in lineation, which
by CORTI yell to them in June, IVIO. 11. It4l the emu.
poly, osautlcriug that they should not require all the land
so convey...l t• tin in, surged to Ti cone.) a portion to the
plaintiff. vain h ti. y accordingly did by it deed lof the
7th of April, h. 41. 5111.4 openly the defendant, tOund that
in order to support the railway unit n oiler it pert. etly:safe,
they would naptire ran of the laud which they had reetni-
'eyed to the piaisotiii, and they served him with notice.
under Its, eontpulnory elate.es of the Lands Claw*. Conso-
lidation Act of their intention to take it, as well as other
land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended, an to the
laud renettcyed to him, that after eonftlitut the land to
him the company (*old alt their power. am-vim!
time. 1101 &omen from chair own grant by eat renting the
tonspnlotr) p owe:., so as to disturb the night enjoyment,
for which their eonu'yonc •inounted to a covenant. A. to
the other land coin/imamd in the notice., be contended that
the defendant. w. ,e precluded from taking it by the agree.
mrnts eaten d into .. Alt ti,, m.

Mr. ltor•iii, Mr. Dankll, and Mr. Itni!well Pa* the com-
pany, arsued that the agreene ot. did not prerlii,lr thy
rail-taw by the der, 'Want,. of their parliamentary power. ;
and that ow to the land reel/10,1,1A it was no thirogation
(Ma the etwantryance, or uuy covenant implied or con-
tained in it, to corrOw the power, wish is the law gate, and
for the rarreiw of which it priori& d full tonna motion.
Psi y dM, laid that it hurl lure ois .thee t.eirti had that by
one raertiw. of the compulsory peWerl the. power% Were
not elhateded. . . _

The Vice•thancollor said that he did not consider the
agreements interrer, ol with the a sereis.• of the parliamo n-
troy powers, but that as to the piece of Loral whirl, had
reesurreeyed, his inipfrod 00l as to the prohallility of the
plaintiff rstodolishing a e .Ise at law was so strong, that hr
thought all injuut flout must be granted un the plaiuliff un-
dertaking to be nnswrrable in &maw s, and not to take
adrablage of the lapse of time pending the proceedings.
On thew. terms the question must be tried at law and the
injunrtion issue in the meantime.
111 flour la WE SA Lisisustir r. GUY ST N.,lll.llEkNi ItAiLN AT
Mr Mains and Mr. Slopton, on In half of the plaintiff,
mused to restrain the defendant from interfering with
Ines, of Land ul the plaintiff's, Bear Ilattis Id. The ground
on which the injunction wan .utlot w. that the time for
the esemise of the compulsory powers of the company had
esiort d.
The Vire-Chancellor said that the question most he de-
rided in a ease to be wilt to a court of Law if the defendants
required. and that the only question WAS as to what wan to
he done on the meantime.

Mr. Morr.off and Mr. Denison, for the defendants, after
some disrossioo, offered to sulmiit to the injunction, if the
plaintiff would awl. mike to be asiswetable in damages if
the Inman' Imi law was decided against ham. The company
Ti pored the kind for the purpose of getting gravel ; and, if
the) mould not hare it, they would incur unary thousand
pounds eatra expense. But they would be quite satisfied
wdh ha the pntift's undertaking to be moat. rabic in such
man the court should think tit.

_ .... _ .
Th.- required undertaking ski. n, and injunction
aecoclongly granted.
IN KM 1 RINI', ItrAUINn, AN I. 11%,IMPITUNV R rlE.rrar
Irtmet%T, k>< l'Altrt 11111 AND EVEILILL—WisjoiNu-
r :• Avr,.

Mr. ti•lwyn noel that the dreivion of the Master dis-
allowing the Chilli of the. gentlema-n Mtpihlll the company
night he reversed, and that they might be at liberty to
prove their debt before the Master notwithstanding the ad-
judication by the eommiseioner in bankruptcy rejecting the
proof tendered to low.
Mr. Roxburgh, for the official manager, opposed the up-
pheat Oll OW ground that under the NI !alibis% of the
IVisioling, op Ai to the proicedings iu liankruptey were con-
clusive, and could not be re•njn•tltd.
Ills Honour gore leave to Messrs. Hal mul Everill to go
in bailie the Master and make sueh proof us they could
establish The order to he drawn up in the twitter of the
lieolvroptcy and of the Winding-up Arts. Tke official
manager to like his coats of the application out of the
ca at.

Itar.a. Vim Calmrosine mt.)
IT. DM /11R %V.. 1 (.11F.IFII, AND BID.
D JUNCTION R ILWAT COIIII.‘NY. Ex 1.%11T1R
1101.110,0 --UoN rut ov Toll\ .—LEATE To ArrEtt. rw..x
71011 I/D.17,10N.

This alai= application an behalf of Mr. Holroyd fur
Maw t appal from the decision of the Master, whereby
his now hind "ern placed ou the list of tuutributuries to
Os done oatap.uly.
lb. Malt and Mr. Selwyn, in support of the application,
said the eireanistaners in this ease were the same a. those
Oarsaiehael'i rive. decided by this court in November
bat. Mr. liolroyd had been placed on the list of cuntribia
taring out the ground that be had been a provisional com-
mitteeman nod that 25 shares had been allotted to him.
These share., however, were never accepted by Mr. Ilulroyd.
Ile had paid 120/. towards the expenses, hut it was upon
the undendeniling that he would not be called upon for any
further babditer. The blasts r was now about to include
Mr itulroyd in another call, for the Walk.. of raising
15,0011/ . but he had stated that he would not rake a pe-
remptory order upon Mr. Holroyd, and those situated in a
mmdar powtot, until the lth of this month. to give time
tor appealing to the court. The Master had placed Mr.
illolroyd upon the list a year ago, at a time when it was
thought that every provisional iv immitteenam must be a con-
tributory Sine, this view of the ease, however, bad been
reeuuudered, and the principle altered, it was cliar that Mr.
ilolroyd, not hating accepted any shares iu thr company.
could bid be made liable m a contributory.
Mr Itethell and Mr. Roxburgh opposed the applie.rtion
oat What' of the official manager, on the ground that Mr.
Ilulthyd had accepts d shares, and that it was now too Lite
for hint to appeal against the decision of the Master. Ile
had been made a contributory a year ago, and the CU(' of
Carmichael, which was said to resemble this. had been de-
cided a November. since which thin eight months had
pasiest without any prod riling. being taken.
Lord Cranworth said there were two points em which he
must be satisfied, the first was whether there were rea-
sonable rounds for making tbe appeal; and, secondly,
whether there had been any unreaoathlt delay on the part
of Mr. Ilulroyd incoming to the court. Mu lurdshi”.
gYllt lat'Ogittlitio reason. bblll6fthew
or Ptn'tg to nt',
the opinion
lie
should abstain
he hadfrog
noon upon the first point, bat as to the delay he thought
Mr. 1101thyd hail cunsidered,';when be paid the 1-111/., that
there would have been an end to his liability, on this ground
be hail delayed coming to the court. Ile should, therefore,
give leave to sppeal, but Mr. llolroyd mutt undertake not
Ipi asy= for obtaining repayment of the
Ilsa
In as iiloll.l

INVTORY.

no grits se ibis two were similar to the preceding. and
wa wag was wade to the same effect. It was stated that a
great masher of other peruses 111 hu had been made contri-
butories to this roaapaay woald likussise appeal.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YESTYADAY.
bass son I sakiir Omnenoionsa.
. IR as Tmomas CASTI I.

This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Cooke on the part of
Sir Jelin Conroy, Bart., aad supported by Mr. Dow... The
insolvent had been a livery stable• keeper and commi.vion
bane dealer at Reeding. Sir John Conroy advanced '
M. to parchaae three hones for him. Three horses wen
purchased, seat to lir John's seat. mar Reading, and re-
target An *shoe was broaght by Sir John Conroy to
mom the sairant to which he pleaded, and the coats
were _ _ _

....-
The Chief Counistieser adjudged the insolvent to eight
_e the' hapriesseteat from the remiss order at the suit
of Sir Jahn Oseroy, for the velatioua defence to the
action _ _

loess Pia. 01•MMISIMIII POPLAR
as Jvuos 0 • Barium.
_ .

imoi;;DZI t«;her vu was
aerdsiag I. Ow lase sarias of the *Wad Qiid Oasts
es a &raw harery, Ins bawl wise Pwskatlaw
Asa Ms. Meisel' 11011(r. Pandlapposi, Osaka.
*s. Dow% oda& &wpm auppeassi.

On the part of a Mr. Mookelow Raise complained that the
insolrent hall got some pianofortrs which he pledged on the
same &iv. la conjuaetion with Mr. Hodges two were uti.
tained, :old two afterward, by him,elf, which h.: pawned.
Mr. Commissioner l'hidips said it WIN a clear case of
getting the pianofortes in an improper manner, and refused
to n •• a flay far the dna order.
The insolsent &parted wdltuut protection, and was
arrested outside the court.

ihbolinnwilienie