The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-11 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 11, 1848.

the Ziam.l.

STRAND.—A very laughable farce has been pro-
duced at this theatre, which bids fair, as indeed it deserves,
to maintain possession of the hoards. The title is ' The
Queen's Bench,' and the i'cldente illustrate the various
10111101 commonly attendant upon the career of a man upon
town—for such is the characteristic of Skyrocket Ned, as the
hero of the piece is styled. Mr. Conway, who played this
part. is an actor of considerable merit, sod the manner in
which he contrives to raise a laugh at the rap nee of the
myrmidons of the law, is alike creditable to his comic powers
and to the author's invention. Notwithstanding the triteness
amens of this situations and the absurdity of other portions
of the farm, a good deal of amusement was created by Mr.
Conway's style of sating, wLich will no doubt recommend
him to a post of honour on the London stage. With two
effective pieces such as this and " Jeannette and Jeannot,"
the management, it is to be hoped, will have no causeto re.
grit the speculation of opening this little theatre.

UNIVERSITY AND CLERICAL.
UNlTzasivr COLLEGE, LONDON —The profoseorship of
Ezell& language and literature in this colh ge, lately vacated by Mr.
To Taylor. has been filled up by the appointment of Mr. A. J. e;clt,
M.A., d(Anon, to that post. The ntrike prior of 401. for
prnideney in medieine end surgery, bus teen conferred on
C 1
.614. Bayldon, of Royston, Cambridgeshire. There is no rapine",
in the geekeeorship of
_German ; that chair is still held by Dr. Ber-
man. Dr. MilloNotaky's dike I. that of examiner in Daman in
Leedom

the

PursamosTs.--Rev. B. A. Took?, to St. Werloaroh C.,
rlitlL—Pow. J. L C. Valpy, 8.A., to Mid Churth, Cheltenham.
Vocoitcr.—All Saints,
the dio. G. sod B.; 1601.
ot., Dow sad Campor . Ito, itagero, dee

NAVAL.
Lola or TIM ItionsaaA Falange* correspondent
writes The Laser baring got:on share at Par to Grande (Cape de
erde), an amount of the disaster reached Ms Pautsloon, who salted
to the rescue, bot war only in time to whams the compete wreck al
that resseL"
PIUS MONIT,—Tus ALBATIOB AND viii BRILLIANT.
—UM higher °merle eascaseas that somata of prize money due to
those mewls kr llscure abbe slavers Atheism and Nora Athens:4
will brthwith be td Is Me Oran of Admiralty.
DITONPOST Nov.OT 9.—The Admiralty board of Revision
herbs toil, duties et Mks port, to* their departure, wa-
terier, ler is the Black Paste thsamer.—Peoguta,C, Lieut.
CECIL W. Untie, red front Falmouth yemerday, sod came into
WNW to reet.—lierner, et., Mr. Martin, master arrived bit wra-
th, from Pembroke and Ireland, and btoagkt the Caledonia, 124, Into
harbour MY stegramm.—thedelos, It, Wabash dashed to make good
defects, mid be Mod as an advanced attly.—lieraim, COIL Edmunds,
soma late lierterar this afternoon to be paid at —The meter rope.
Esher ef this deskyard Y ardsved to be Is Chatham on Monday ram,
IS MDR the wain of Portsmouth and Liwithma sad prepare a report
of the e=r of meaufeeturing cordage by steam machinery sad
mama
WooLWICN, Nov. 10. Medina. et..v. Litut
.Coil.
Darby, wm talisa out of the basin today, sad ;ate this ere
or tomorrow snorning for Portsmouth and the Mediterranean.—
Math Prim, 72,1 s ordetud to be brought round from the Medway,
wham the la lybig in ordinary, to thin porigtitit s fitted as • convict
ship, Wised at the Benbow, which waa y ordered for that
Ms Math Priam was built at W with Is
Isrittamrar, Nov. 10.—APrOlfrrellUrre.—Aetion ?ne-
wt 0. IL Serpa, to Plowiper.—Naval Web-actor :T. It. Wane, to
Du has.—Mbialigelen : C. R. Scott, to Plumper ; W. 11. Arniesley,
to Marinas.

MILITARY.
entalvher.—The mead hat yearly pita enainatioa
et Or eine En fir. man enala titeumVitltarr
OeHeatemn=L: Wank& , the 704
en, wee at Inn • eakehhe WEI. At the of the
eiNall peonaloil with the moat
eirdiesmirelt,Wwilawams—Xal. W. F. Heap Nth Feet; Capt. W.
E. F. Moe" MI 111141 UM. A. 11l sant; Linet.W.
0. Kerplloll4 Wirth That. k...pn.e se is relieney or Capt.
Jelwra, ma We sawn Ida s ••• andrammem dlspiared
U. Itathenni is We Wend bramble 1 welholAtbal eelanee,
hasarea nee was le Weir mann ; and the
ai NaViraly sad Cop.
W=1:88m aim pmwv wedeed. the Ibltowlag
=MI" veto led aemplehed their quallheatiaos womb-
easeompellod Is Ibsen, ths aussiabder•hhehiet har op.
polvamelo walgsalao Or withest purehace :O. 11. Nor-
m% P. Pillpet, T. Itcolvehlte, IL H. EagM, C. itiss. A. B. White,
O. V. Truk lowletod. A. Illshotowlea, W. EacwW*. .D. latent,
V. Mechem H. O. 5. C. varsern, G. T. Brim A. E. R.
Ara, H. C. MIXT .d A. B. Weals. lly the matt al the meat.
oiler stoat Cy east yein golima were declared to have node
wrier Amp de gaolers themwdese hr commissions in those
Inarams et the may nal we malleable to military par.
nen pme•mmat sal WI fartilmen• an the attack and defence
of Wrenn is wed sward liewy, an to the modem ten.
j Ins hal sin the hall-yeer, acoapteted the
ROM at peadlnolowd eimseds• werala, mad tnente.sta
to the Moil emaereadala at Ind or he the held and

Kato iinteutunue.
EQUITY COUILTB--Yerrnsuuir.
Wore the Lord Chanottior.
BIRDERT AND ANOTHES v. Moßales.—CriSTlON WHE-
THER THIS COSTS ALLOWED TO • PAL east LITIGANT
SHOULD BB Perenz on Divas Cosra.—The plaintiffs in
this ease filed their bill in 1843 for the purpose of restraining
the defendants from infringing a patent of which the plain-
tiffs are the usignue. A motion made by them for an in-
' junction for that purpose was refuted by the Vice-Chancellor
of England with liberty to bring an action at law. The
plaintiffs, finding that the defendant obtained an order to
defend in formh pauperis, brought no action, but took en ex
gaits order in 1844 to dismiss their bill s. with pauper costs,"
to be paid to the defendant. Nothing was done in that
order untillB4B,when the defendant applied by his counsel to
the Vice-Chancellor to correct the order by leaving out the
word " pauper." His Honour refused to do that, but he
modified the order to the effect that in the taxation of tho
costs the muter should have regard to the fact that the de-
fendant had obtained an order to defend in forma pauperis,
the mussel for both parties consenting to that ft rm of order,
with the view of ascertaining the practice of taxation in such
cams. The taxing-nester, under that order, certified the
defendant's costs at 71. 9s. 6d., which was just the sum he
was out of pocket, without say allowance of fees to the coun
eel or solicitors who had been usigned to him. The de-
fendant presented a petition to the Vice-Chancellor for leave
to except to the certificate, which his H too r thereupon re-
fined back to the taxing-master to review, and to tax the
defendant his oats as " dives" costs.
Mr. M. James now appeared for the plaintiffs in support
of a petition of appeal against the Vice•Chaucallor's said
order, and contended that the true principle of taxing coda
for a defendant in forma pooped' was to allow Hen the costs
out of pocket only. By an order of Lord Cluendon (Beams'
orders in Chancery, 215), no ft* or reward shall be taken by
counsel or solicitor Inn a person admitted to sue i.l Soma
pauperis for the despatch of his business, while he continues
in that form. The dismissal of the bill 'did not take the de-
fendant out of the
• uper. He relied on the
eau of " Dame rßussell" ci pa Dickens), as • cue gaits
in point with the present, and cited some *ben.
Mr. Rolt, for the defendant, contended that the Vice-
Chancellor's order reterrin4 back the taxing-master's certifi-
cate for the purpoie of giving the defendant " dives" COKE,
was right
The Lord Chancellor said, that there might be a gon-
dola as to the practice in taxation of costs, if the order

diamissing the bill mentioned a &aimed " with costs" gem-
rally bat*. order had the speed direction, to " have re •
Narita the feet that the defendant was admitted to defend
illegromPolL" 'rh• gra aphid the order to [KIWI
the.neset meet be allowed.
Mr lelt then wed (upon notice),
that the Vice-Chan-
math Mews/ ardor, indseting those word. of direction to
the tetharemehr, to have regard to the fact that the
diandeat wee admitted to defend in facet pauperis, be
Amid, by Whit( out these words. lie questioned the me-
nders of Dirkeees report of " Dense e. Ramtll," and
deed a ems of " Wallop a. Warburton" (2 Cox., 410), in
which the wets of • peeper defendant were taxed as " dives"
=Nundir a ewes ordering geserilly the coots of all
10 be taxed. Th• reams of the rate was, that though
smog 6•1 solicitor give their aselstanes to • pauper to do-
ting himself, they did not give their labour end time gratui-
tously to his antagonist, but he is obliged to pay full costs to
the emeesestul pauper, who recovers costs against him. Be
cited " Karam ir. Chore " (6 Vet., 233), and other cases
there mentioned. The Mader of the an
decided dif-
ferently in " Stafford v. Higginbotham" (2 Kees, 147), but
said also that the authorities on the question could not be re
candled, and weed with Lard Eldon that the court had a
discretion in tech case. In "Roberts o. Lloyd" (2 Britten
376), the Mader of the Rolla gave a pauper succeeding in the;
suit the ordinary outs. It is of great importance to lay down
• rule for the guidance of parties in this matter of uneerteia
practice.
The Lord Chancellor said he could well understand how a
plaintiff succeeding in his mum should have "dies" coed, for
by succeeding he was no loager is the condition in which be
was when he obtained the order to sue in fermi paaperis,
that is, that he was not worth 51. The Vice-Chancellor, in
sending the certificate in this CYO back to the taxing master,
without tayint anything ot the order for taxation, which he
himself had made, must have been of opinion that that order

wax right.
Mr. James contended that that order was right ; it was
made alter full argument oa behalf of the defendant. The
practice of taxing to a pauper defendant in equity, such costs
only as he paid out of pocket, wee founded ea the right prin-
ciple as laid down in' Deane o. Russell." The rule was so
stated in Smith's practice.
The Lord Chancellor.—lf a pauper is entitled under the
general order, to pauper costs only, why did you get the
special order to have regard to his being a pauper ?
Mr. Jetsam—The order was so drawn up by the officer
who put in those words, and it is said to be the usual form
at the Rolls.
The Lord Chancellor sold that he agreed in the position
that the counsel and solicitor assigned to a pauper gave
their counsel and aid to the pauper, and not to the opposite
party, who is not entitled to an exemption from payment for
those services. Although he concurred in that principle,
still if the practice was the other way it ought not to be
overruled without inquiry, which he would direct to be
made.
At the riga, of the court ids lordship said be had just
received the unanimous opinion of the taxing-marten, to
the effect that the practice was to tax pauper costs only to a
pauper defendant.
The court was occupied the greeter part of the day in
hearing counsel in an appeal of " Stiles e. Guy," an old
cam relating to the liability of trainees for the default of a
co trustee—transferred from the Bachequer in equity to
these courts under the act for abolishing the former court.—
The arguments were not concluded.
IN as B•08TBR, • LI:NATIC.—Mr. Wood supported a
petition of Mrs. Waddell, the mother and committee of the
person of the lunatic, for confirmation of the master's report,
made in pursuance of an order to inquire into the debts and
liabilities incurred to tradespeople and servants on account
of the lunatic.—Mr. J. l'arker opposed the petition on
behalf of the committee of the estate, on the ground that
some items of debt were admitted without proof, and some
just demands were excluded.—Mr. Craig also, on behalf of
Miss Hopwood, objected to the report on the ground that she,
who is the governess and companion of Miss Bageter, the
lunatic, was put on the footing of a servant, and allowed a
salary at the rate of 30f. a year only, instead of 1001., to
which she was entitled.—Mr. Rolt aLo orpoaed it on behalf
of Mr. Vial (as we understood) who had some time
ago presented a petition complaining of the treat-
ment of the lunatic by the committee of the pm-
son.—lt appeared from the discussion between the
counsel that an allowance of 1,0001. a year was granted by
an order of the Lord Chancellor for the maintenance of the
lunatic; that her mother,with whom as committee of the m-
y= she resides, has been under embarrassments, on account of
the debts of Mr. Waddell, her present husband, who resides
abroad, and that it would seem u if the pressing demands
of these creditors got precedence over the debts inconied
on account of the lunatic. The Lord Chancellor,
after adverting to the circumstance that notwithstanding
the large allowance of 1,0001. a year for the maintenance of
the lunatic, complaints should be so frequently made that
tradespeople and other creditors were not paid, said exp.'s=
Lions were necessary, and he would appoint a day next week
to sea Miss Bagster ; and the petitions now before the
court, and any others that were to be presented, might be
brought in next Friday.

Before the Master of the Rolla
Kato HT O. MARJORIRANKS.-8111T TO SST *SIDI DEEDS
ON UROVND OP Fuvu DISMISSED WITH COIITS.—The
Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment in this case, which
was bend at great length before the long vacation, stated
that the plaintiff Henna Lautour, by a teed dated ler Nov.
1825 entered into a partnership with certain other parties for
the cultivation of large tracts of land in New South Wales
and Van Diemen's Land, which had been originally granted
by the crown to one Thomas, who was one of the partners in
the coucere, the ether veneers 'Miele General lauteur. Col.
Elphinstone, It. bane, ter Z. anus, ann ev. nenizaw.
The object of the partnership was the establishment of repo-
sitories for the beeeding_and sale of all kinds of tattle and
growing various crops. The parties were to be Interested as
tenants in common. Soon after the execution of the deed,
Thomas was sent out to the colony to manage the property,
and Messrs. Marjeribanks and Co. were employed as the
agents in London, to send out stock, he. Thomas did net
give satisfactisn, and in June, 1827, a deed was ex
dissolving the partnership as to Thome', and the power
attorney given him to carry on the concern in the many
was revoked, and other ag at were employed. Heedlaw
afterwards assigned his share to Archibald Majoribenksoilie
thereupon became a partner, and he dying, his share beams
vested in the defendant, Stewart Marionanks, his beosnal
representative • rester expense was incurred in eanyins es
the undertaking than the parties had expected, mad Oto Pan
pects of the concern continued long to be very disosuregiag.
Stewart Mujoribenks, the surviving partner in the firm sr
Marjoribanks and Co., took Ferrero se a partner in hie ball.
mess, and they continued to set as the Larks opals of '
concern, and made advances of mosey esitemy M en. Oval
tributions were required from the pinmaa to wow ohm'
advances, and calls „ere made. Themaldhieliene
from the plaintiff Leanne fell..greatly bee smile,
__Zil=
engaged in other speculations in the 'dewhe lateadal la
leave England. 'There was due from him at Oat lim
2,4001., and not being able to pay all, he expressed his iellim-
tion to pay so much as would reduce the debt to lASI,
and the other partners agreed, on this undentandials to
allow 1,0001. to remain due to the concern from him. Oa Oa
4th of Au 1829, a deed was entered into, whaft Lantoar
sesiened hisg., share in the partnership to ea ganks and
Ferrara, in trust, to sell, and out of Hsi le
pay the 1,0001., and all further sums Lags
owe for calls, and subject thereto, Oa Lautan. And Lsra
tour appointed Marjoribanks and Ferrets iiii elleesige Mint
for him as to the partnership affairs, and ba aseminted not
to interfere with the management mad dirosliaa of ail&
Though not alleged in the bill, it was aOsimpod In be uqg
u
in the argument, that this nsmiling Omni
imputing fraud or oppression to the delimitate. =Leas
so ground for such imputation, and; having read the cone.
epondeace, he was not surprised that the other
desired to Ruud themselves against Lautour's in
in the concern either in England or the colony. LaMar
did not reduce the debt to 1,0001. at the time the deed wee
iniiii
executed, but he paid 1,0001. in September and thereby
reduced it to 1,4001. It appeared that the tiff could net
pay the debt, and in 1830 Isis wee In debt, and in
May of that year he was decimal a He tried to
get the commission of bonkripsy_ 'upgraded, and war
desirous to go out to the colony. The attar partners were
inconvenienced by the position of Latimer Weenie, P
the proceedings to supersede the somminina. Useydeirl
know whether to treat him as a wawa. semi Ory wage
anxious no doubt to get rid of him. 'Whilst Lenten was
also anxious to supersede the emulation, and go out to the
colony, and to take charge ef the concern. In May, 1831,
it was represented to Lautour that he was liable f0r35001.
foe cells, and that his interest in the concern was worth
nothing; and an offer was made to give hint 2601., and to
release him from his debt, for his interest in the concern.
The plaintiff tried to get a larger sum, but ultimately sensed
to accept these terms. This arrangement was considered by
the parties as a binding agreement, so far as having regard to
the existence of the commission it could be. But the com-
pletion of the agreement was suspended in coesequeoce of I
Lentour not Melia done the acts required of him, to
obtain a supersedeas. In 1836 an agreement was entered
into to complete the arrangement of 1831, notwithstanding
the supersedes, bad not bten obtained. Latour was told
there wee then due from him 6,4391. He expressed no wish
to examine the accounts, end declined to have any bagel assist-
ance. Ise May, 1836, the arrangement of 1831 was nom-'
pleted, by a deed of that date ; by which, in considerationof the 6,4371. due from him, and 2501, paid to him, Linton
released all his share in the artnership tothe other partners.
In 1838 he obtained an order superseding his bank-
ruptcy, and ordering a conveyance to be made
to a trustee for him of all his interest in the partnership con-
cern and accordingly he nominated Knight, the co-plaintiff,
as hi s trustee. In Much, 1839, he filed his till to Bet said.
the deeds of August, 1829, and May, 1838, for fraud and en
inadequate consideration. The Nll alleged that the plea-
tiff was not acquainted with the business of the partnership,
and that having fallen into embarrassment his coponaggs
firmed a scheme to get his share from him at an inadequate
price, and represented the concern as less flourishing then it
was. It was not true that the plaintiff was unacquainted
with the Dwane, and took no part in the management.
Till August, 1829, he took an active part in it. All the
Foremen depended on the accounts of agents, and were on
equal terms ; unless perhaps Latour, from his experience,
possessed more knowledge than the others. No doubt Lautour
was in embarrassments, but it did net appear that his partners
bad any. concern with them. His failure to pa his contri-
butions inconvenienced his partners, and made it important
for them to obtain security and some control over him, but
the plaintiff had failed !is impeach the deed of August, 1829.
No unfair advantage was taken of him. Looking at the
accounts kept for all the partners, it seemed very pro-
bable that if in 1831 the property had been sold
nothing would have been found coming to Lutonr
for his share. The arrangement then entered into was
binding on him, and be would have been compelled by this
court to complete it. The deed of 1836 was copied from a
draft settled by his solicitors in 1831, and he was of opinion
that the plaintiff was not induced to execute it by any tar

rs~epprrtearmstatlon or ononsiesat wharves ; and that no infer
adveatsge was taken el his divisor. Poverty and &Uses
wen not 11101111 sailleisat meads to set aside a deed, *see
being no herd pressrod. It was net proved that the pier-
tlrs interest was of greater valise than the via grin Is
it Bat tits guidon of value was set sionseia4 if this. was
no ahem !Pam. er asisnsprossatation, or band. Up to
August, len, Lorre knew the star of the assern and its
raspier, sad arising took places between that tiro sod
Wl,lB3lsarieft riming the prospects of the esessra.
The plaintiff was tlisd to =MUM the eresuats, bat ke
did not require it. and ha believed If an laretise.
tion bad been odor Ibr„ it word not have been
erred. There was nothing in the otedast of the Wm
purrs showiag a dein to sorer myrtle' ; and thin was
no ash cendnot es their past se is a sort of equity mitt
to be dotard fraud. er a grand for setting aide the deer.
He should themes drubs the bill with rota.

Ban the Vke.a.semilor of Engin&
Ex PANTS THZ WARD= AND AIOUTTANTS OF 1711
Towx AND Fill SCHOOL or Lotrre.--Cowns OF DIFIND-
IWO A SUIT TO El PAID OCT OF TIC PURCHAIIII-MONIT
UPON LAND NEMO TOXIN BY A COMPANT.—Thin WAS a
petition presented on behalf of the warden and six assistants
of the town of Louth sad Free School of King Eiward VI.,
for the pigment out of court of a suns of money paid in by
the But Lincolnshire Railway Company, upon the purchase
of certain lands required by the oompany.—Mr, Nelda, in
support of the petition, asked that the petitioners might be
at liberty to pa/;oititissof the fund certain noses incurred by
them in ides a snit instituted by the mayor and alder-
men of Loath • the petitioners, in which suit the title
of the petitioners to the land was called in question. The
cons now asked for were over and above what had been
ordered to be paid by the plaintiff. to the suit. It was con-
tended that the court had power to allow these coats under
the 69th section of the Lands Clauses Acts, the terms of
which were, " any debt or incumbent* affecting the lands
taken by the company."—The Vice-Chanceaor considered
that these costs came within the manning of the clause, and
granted the applkatlea.

Bereft MouMumeellor Knight Bross.
Er PARTS, TRINITI CHUIMEL Sr. ANDREW'S Hoz,
BOlUt.—Counca BUILDING Acts.—This war • petition
presented under Sir Samuel Romilly's Act (62 Geo. III.),
and the Church Building Acta, for the division of certain
charitable property among the district parishes, into which
the parish of St. Andrew's Holborn is divided. It appeared
that the population of the parish was 35,000 in 1834, when
Trinity Chapel was consecrated for the district of Gray's
lon, sad St. Peter's Chapel for the district of 'Saffron
Hill. A portion of the charity estate was comprised in the
seizures made of lands in the City of London, supposed to
have been concealed from the crown, and war afterwards, in
1620, granted by the crown to the then Mayor and Cham-
berlain of the City of London, who, by • deed of Much 22,
1621, conveyed the estate to the rector and churchwardens
and thirty-nine parishioner of St. Andrew's Holborn, upon
trust that they and the trustees, from time to time, should
epply the rents to the reparation and amendment of the
fabric of the church, as need should require, and to and fur
such other charitable and necessary uses, as should be
thought meet in the parish, in such sort as had been
accustomed. This portion of the estates produced a rental
of 1,3501., but arum of 3,4001. had been borrowed upon the
security of it.—The Vice• Chancellor said that the income
mast be first applied in payment of the expense of collec-
tion and management, and the net surplus applied in pay-
ment of the charge" expressed by the deed, and afterwards
between the new districts and the rest of the parish.—A re-
(aurae was directed to the master to settle the amount re-
quired for the :reparation and amending the fabric of the
church of St. Andrew's Holborn, and to apportion the re-
licks among the districts and the rest of the parish accord-
iogly, and the muter was to have regard to any special
circumstances as to the right (if any) of the rector to be
provided with a residence out of the fund, with liberty to
state special circumstances, and the master was to approve of
schemes as to the application of the funds apportioned to the
new districts,

Wore Vice-Chancellor Mgr/mi.
NIXON O. THE TAPP VALE RAILWAY COMPANT.—CON-
TEACT.—Tho plaintiff in this case had contracted to do cer-
tain works for the defendants, at prices specified in 'schedule
to the °entree, which was in writing. The contract also
contained a provision to the effect that, open a written order
under the seal of the company or under the hand of their
engineer, the plaintiff would execute extra works at prices
also specified in the scheduis. In the progress of the works
eonrible extra work was found necessary, and the plain-
tiff, by the direction of the company', engineer, performed
suck extra work, but without a wrat ten order. The WU wu filed
for an account of work done by the plaintiff, and for payment
of what should be found due to him in respect thereof. The
plaintiff had made a claim before the meatar in respect of
extra works, upon the footing of the prices mentioned in the
written contract; and such claim had been allowed by the
mute. who, however, had not certified whether the works
were extra works performed under the written contract with
the company or lot. To this report the company excepted,
and the question upon the exception was whether, at the
order for extra work had not been given in writing, the
plaintiff wu entitled to chore's for suck work upon the scale
of prices e Astound in the schedule to the written contract.
The argument wu not concluded at the rising of the court.

BAIL COURT.—Yzervanay.
Snap la 9•6oo.—lsetore tar. Justice raMISON.
Tea QUEEN O. VIZ JUSTICIA or BIMMINONAM.—LIA.
!MLITT or LITERARY INSTITUTIONS TO TOM PAYMENT OP '
POOM•R•Tes.lar. Slalom moved. on behalf of the over-
e.v.• DI& Ats a .alc, *a Wilhasa• ea/
the other justices of that town, to show cause why they
should not issue their warrant of distress against certain
parties liable to pay.poox-rates for the premises known by
the name of the Bamaghans Literary Institution. The
magishates had refused to issue their warrant, believing
that under the 6 and 7 Vict., c. 36, scientific and
literary societies were not liable to pay poor-rates.
The institution which it was sought to render liable for the
rates (paid for the last time is 1845) was sustained by a cer-
tain number of members, who paid an tread subscription
of two guineas each. Now, the act of parliament to which
he had referred, enacted that societies of this kind, to be
exempt from the payment of poor-rates, should bo supported
by voluntary contributions. In the argument in the case of
the " Queen o. Phillips" (Bth Queen's Bench reports) it was
contended that parties who enjoyed the pleasure of reading
the papers in a public room could not be said to belong to en
institution supported by voluntary contributions within
the meaning of the act. It was urged that it ra-
ther referred to such as mechanics' institutions where parties
in the humbler class of life were admitted upon the payment
of a small sum, and enabled to turn the knowledge they there
acquired to a profitable mount. The sole point upon which the
'Queen ~Phillips" wee determined was, that by the act of par-
liament it was provided that no society or institution should
he exempt from the payment of poor-rates where any bonus
should be divided by the society (and amongst the rules
of the Birmingham newsroom there was no provition to
the contrary) and hence the court held that the defendant
was liable.—Xr. Justice Patteson You would We out
this institution in question to be a mere club I—Mr. Miller
thought that it wee nothing more nor lava. The persons
who paid their money and subscribed to the rules of the Bir-
mingham Literary and Scientific Institution, he contended,
entered into a contract. The first rule of that institution
was, that on the payment of two (guineas a year the party
AMA be entitled to all the privileges of the society. The
second rule provided that it thi subscription remained
three months in armor, the librarian should writs and inform
the member of the fact; and that until the money was paid
finch member should be deprived of all his privileges. The
3rd rule enabled a member to transfer hie interest in the
society. That clearly showed , hat it was a contract entered
into between the individual and the institution. There was
also another pant in the "Queen tr. Phillips" which likewise
arose in the cam now before the court which was, that as the
parties sought to be rendered liable had not appealed
against the rate it was now too late to object to it. That
had been daefded by the C ,urt of Queen's Bench in
the me X the " Governors of the Poor of Bristol o. Waite,"
6 Add and Ellis. Under these circumstances, he
trusted his lordship would grant a rule.—Mr. Justice
Palms: I think the matt!r ought to be inquired into.
Take a role nisi.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAB.—FtenitDLT.
Sittings in Banco.
Sterne e. DIARBACK.—Mr. Justine Maul* delivered the
judgment of the court in this cue. It wan an action by in-
dorses of two bills of exchange, against the defendant as
acceptor. The defence sat up was the coverture of the
drawer to the effect that the drawer of the bills was at the
time when** bills were drawn, and lathe time of their being
indorsed by her to the plaintiff, a married woman. The
coisilerisetion, and which arose neon demurrer to the repli-
, was, whether the defendant having admitted the
capacity of the drawer to draw the bills, by his acceptance of
them, could now allege her overture in his discharge. The
court said then having been no alteration of status in her,
between the periods of drawing and indorsing the bills in
question, the defendant was not to be allowed to set up her
coverture in impeachment of her indorsement, any more
than he could deny her power to draw the bills.—Judg-
ment for the plaintiff accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER —YIIaTERDI4.
*Minnie In Be.nco
ANOILL O. WORSLEY, LIAKT.—BILL DISCOUNTING.—
This was en action brought by the plaintiff, a manufac-
turing silversmith, is Penton-street, Haymarket, to recover
3001., the amount of a bill of exchange, at three months,
drawn by one Anderson, and accepted by Sir William
Wei:slay, the defendant. It was tried before the Lord Chief
Baron at the segue of Hertford, when a verdict was re-
tuned for the defendant on the ground that the bill was ob-
tained from him by fraud. Mr. Berjeant Dowling now
moved for • rule to show MUe why that verdict should not
be set aaide, and a new trial had, on the ground that evi-
dence had been improperly received, and ales that the
verdict was against evidence. The bill in question wu
drawn on the 25th of February, 1547, and endorsed to
the plaintiff on the 18th of Much following, when it was dis-
counted by the payment of 2181.5 e. in cash, to Anderson, and
a silver soup tureen, valued at 721. 155.; the remaining 111.
having been deducted as discount. At the trial the defend-
ant preyed that, in payment of the bill, he received another
bill at 21 days, drawn by Anderson on a firm described as
Btraubensi sad Co., who had advertised themselves as
meneplenders. This bill was made payable at the Bank of
England, bit, en preventing it there, the answer was, they
knew nothing of such persons, Pad there was no account
opened to their credit in the Bank of England. The plain-
tiff's son, who was called as a witness, said his father had
sometimes dismanted kills, tut very seldom. He did
not meld= the cashing of the bill in question a
dimmer inured's, bet merely an ordinary mer-
cantile enamours. To support the plea of fraud
suing I*e,. from Anderson to the defendant, de-

seriptive of the advantageous terms upon which he
could have the defendant's bills discounted, were tendered
in evidence. They were objected to on the ground that the
plaintiff could not be affected by communications passing
between the defendant and a third pawn. The Lord
Chief Baran, however, received the widows, and reserved
leave to awe upon it. The learned serjeent then contended
that the verdict was mann evidence. All the plaintiff had
done was to charge at the rate of 20 per cent. discount,
which wee a perfectly legal charge. He had given cash to
a large amount, and a valuable tureen, which would bare
been purchased at any time for the sum the plaintiff sold it
for. It was gaits true that inquiries respecting the dc-
fondant had been reads at Mews. Glyn and Co.'s, the
bankers, before the bill was discounted, and that
they had reported favourably of him. They stated that he
bad an 'mount at their bark, and that the bill would be
paid when it nine to maturity. But considering the un-
certainties of such transactions, twenty per cent. could not
be considered so exorbitant as to stamp the whole transaction
with fraud, as the verdict bad done, although there was no
other evidence of any fraud on the p..srntiff's part.—The
Lord Chief Baron raid that in his opinion the verdict was a
very proper one. He was perfectly satisfied with it, and he
would not have been satisfied if it was otherwise. He felt it
. .

to be his duty as the Judge w►o tried the ease, to state his
opinion respecting it to the court.—The rule was refused on
this ground, but granted on the point as to the reception of
bur:otter evidence.

Nat Pads at °dial:lll.—More Mr. Baroa Platt and • London
common jury.
Awn v. Lteent—Luent.—This was an action to recover
compensation in dunes for en alleged libel on the charac-
ter of the plaintiff, an attorney's Aerk, published by Mr. E.
Lloyd, the printer and proprietor of Lloyd's Weekly London
Newspaper. The plaintiff, who sued in formal pauperis,
stated his own cue, from which it appeared that in the
month et June, 1844, he was charged before Mr. Brou3hton,
the sitting magistrate at the Clerkenwell police court, with
moulting and maltreating his wife, and sentenced to pay a
fine of 11, or suffer two months' imprisonment. In default of
payment the plaintiff underwent the term of imprisonment.
On the 30th of June a report of the case was published in the
police intelligence in the defendant's paper in these terms :
CLEItIiriWELL.—A Barran. Henry Haynes ~inarA),
an attornees clerk, was charged with maltreating Mama, his wife.
The complainant, ebb is within • few days of her woad:errant,
came into court on Tuesday, her face being covered with cute and
contusions, and her dram stained with blood. She seemed to be in
the greatest distress of mind, and entreated of the magistrate towed,
her from her heabrod'e violence, as she feared he would murder her.
—Mr. Broughton, who presided, issued an inunaliate war-
rant, and the prisoner Ins brought up in an hour after
by Cale, the warrant officer. It apreared that the coin-
Oidnant and her husband, with their two chidren, occupy a
mieerabie apartment, for which they pay 2a. 3d. a week at 21,
Collier-etreet, Pentonville. They have been married about six years,
and the poor woman declared that from the very Bra week of her
marriage he bed ill-treated her. On the previous morning they had
not • morsel of food fir breakfast. At eleven o'clock she left the pri-
soner slid her two little children, and honing been brought up to the
dressmaking busintee, went out to a poor woman named Hayes. re-
siding in the same greet, worked for some hours at a dress, and re-
ceived 61. Immediately on receipt of the trifle, she purchased a red
herring, some bread, and some tea, and went home that they might
all share the meal. The prisoner waa out, but 'besought everywhere
for Iron, and at length herself and children reluctantly sat down
to the ;Ilea without him. In a few bows afterwards he came
home in Isquor. He had been at Doetore-commons on profeesional
Inkiness, but had spent his fee at the public-house. Ho went to the
house of Mrs. Hayes, to which hirewile kid returned to finish the
needlework, and rudely entering the house be dragged his wife down
stairs and behaved with such violence rower& her that a female
lodger fainted. Having got his wife home he went to bed, but arse
about an hour after. Hie wife was atillsewing in the room, and with-
out having received any provocation he knocked her down.
She some, and was approaching the dour, when the prisoner
dragged her bock, knocked her down a second time sad
beat her so that the blood towed profusely from her
nose and mouth. The unfortunate woman faintly sersemmt
" Murder," and her aka were heard; but, when asidetanee onteed.
she was exhausted and amid epeechlein. The blood corithenei he
stream front her head, and it was stated that she had award Mediae
mansions on her breast and shoulders. Pearal whoa= gem
examined, who described the oomplainiutt as an iwiwiltiam,
sober, poor woman, exceedingly attached to her gym. me re.
mariaMe foe her forbearance and kind disposition tae de ks hr.
band. The prisoner appealed to the magistrate to deal Iniettly_with
him, wawa of his poverty, and to the reporters not lb puha& Ms
case. Ile said he would behave better, if allowed to go home me
live with his wife. The complainant, crying bitterly, said she would
Tether drown herself, sooner than be obliged to live a Biz& ow
with him. If he kept away from her, she would caddie Is
nipped herselfand little children. Mr. Broughton declared he hal
seldom heard of greater brutality than the prironeea He weadd
pretence him to pay • Bs of H., or two months' imprisonment, sal
he regretted the law did not permit him to increase the punishment.
The worthy magistrate gave rhe poor woman a trifle from the poor-
box.
Teen were several pleas on the record, but the libel com-
plained of was substantially this—that the report war greatly
exaggerated and overcaloured, or, as the plaintiff phrased it,
t. inflamed," to the damage of his character. The damages
were laid at 5001. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the
publication of the libel ; secondly, denying the technical al-
legations of the plaintiff, that the report was inconsistent
wink the evidence adduced before the police-magistrate ; and,
thirdly, notification of the report.
Evidence of the proprietorship of the defendant having
been adduced, Mr. Humfreys, for the defence, stated that
the report in question, according to the usual practice with
weekly journalists, had been copied from a daily newspaper.
lie untended that the report complained of contained a fair
and impartial statement of the ease, and that the present
action was a barefaced attempt to extort money. Soon after '
the action was commenced, the defendant baring been ad-
vised to make it a special jury ease, the plaintiff addressed
a letter to him, headed in tonnal terms " Myself V. Your-
self," in which he stated that perhaps the defendant
was not aware that the expense of making it a special jury
case, would amount to at least 201., of which the defendant
must be out of pocket, besides the attorney's charges, and
whether the plaintiff or defendant gained the cause the
latter must be involved in costa. The plaintiff, therefore,
proposed to the defendant that he, instead of paying this
201. (or a special jury, should pay it to him, he being will-
ing, without prejudice, to receive that sum as compensation
for the injury which he had received. (Laughter.) The
learned counsel then proceeded to call evidence in justification.
—The Chief Clerk st Clerkenwell police office produced the
depositions taken at the court. He had heard the report
read, and his general impression was that it gave a correct
account of the OM. lb. E. Broughton, Esq. , police
magistrate of Marylebone, but who happened at
the time to sit at Clerkenwell, said he had a clear
recollection of having made some strong remarks
in reference to the plaintiff's case, bat he could not
recollect the precise words used, as many hundred cases had
since occurred, too many of them being of a similar character.
—The letter from the plaintiff to the defendant, referred is
in Mr. Humfreys' speech, was then put in and read, after
which, the plaintiff in_ person having called wittiest" in reply
to the defuses, Mr. Humfreys declined to reply, and the
plaintiff then addressed the jury in • running comment on
the evidence.
Mr. Baron Platt, in summing up, told the jury that if they
thought the plea of justification placed upon the record wag
not made out, then the plaintiff was entitled to their ver-
dict. His lordship pointed out where the evidence had
failed fully to substantiate the statements in the report, bat
left it to the jury to say whether any and what amount of
damage* the plaintiff was entitled to under the drown-
stances of the case.
The jury briefly consulted together, and returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff on the two first pleas—damages, one
farthing. On the third plea they found (or the defendant.
A murmur of applause followed the announcement of the
verdict.