The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-06 00:00:00

Kato intentgenct.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAT.
Bloom TNI Lou) CNA:WILIAM
R 01361178 O. ROBRICIA—PIDIORRI—NRw TRIAL.
_ .

This was a motion for a new trial of an issue, which ap-
plication the Vice Chancellor of England refused. The trial
was had at Chester before Mr. Justice Cromwell, and a ver-
dict was found for the plaintiffs, which, if allowed to stand,
would establish their claim to be next of kin of one Catherine
Lloyd, who died some time ago intestate, leaving &maid/T-
-able personal property The parties had to deduce pedigrees
from a common ancestor who lived in 1680.

for this court to protest by iejanctios. The penalty in that
agreement being bald to be liquidated damages, treat is, the
price which the deeudent agreed to p.y it ha should red
Um, Were was as gnu to the egraminunt. The Wein:iff, of
the two somedies by action for the penalty or by injunction,
adopted the Kamer and got his verdict for liquidated da-
mages, the prim We deendeat sorted to pay it be violated
the 'greenest. The plaintiff bad no right to emus for an
injunction when his legal right was woes. There was Lot,
nor could there be. any authority for this court's interfeence
in such a ease. The lajunstiss must be discharged with We
wins below.
Mr. Russell suggested that they might be set off against
the 1351. costa due to the plaintiff in WM action at law.
Mr. Blooll—They were costa in another matter.
The Lord Chancellor—Costs at law could not he set of
against core is this court.
Foliliirrr o. Jsrraays.
This WWI a motion to discharge en order of the Vies Chan-
allot of England, ordering that Astrodomes to produce motets
never' and oorrespondenee between them and their solicitor,
is a negotiation for en annuity.
Mr. Parker and Mr. Fueling, for the motion, cootended
that the corner adonis wee privileged, as passing between
pieties end their lege advisers.
Mr. Molt supported the Vi -Chancellor's order.
At 4 o'clock the further hearing was adjourned.

Mr. Stuart, Mr. Parker, Mr. Ampblett, and Mr. Webby
were heard on Saturday in support of the appeal notion.
They complained that the verdict was not borne out by the
evidence, and that the learned julge did not put it fully
before the jury.
Mr. Bethell, Mr. Bualsette, and Mr. Bramwell were now
heard in support of the Vice Chancellor's order and of the
verdict. They maintained that the verdict was justified by
the evidence._ _ .

Senn eta Marna or TVS noun.
B=lol IL BTOIO2.—INDANTIDAII SIT AIME.
The Muter of the Rolls gave judgment in this case, which
was heard in May last. The suit was instituted by Wil-
liam Sturge against his brothers Daniel Steep and Tobias
Sturge and other parties, t. set elide a deed dated the 16th
October, 1841, cm the ground that it had been improper)
obtained from him. It appeared that Wm. Mill, by his
will, dated 16th July, 1764, devised an estate called (Ail.
worth, in the parish of Crudwell, Wiltshire, to his daughter,
Elisabeth Mill, and to her One lawfully begotten, and
the heirs of such issue for ever. No fine or recovery
of the estate wee levied er suffered by Elisabeth Mill; but
au bar marriage with Tobias Walker Starer, in Sept. 1786,
it was conveyed to uses for the benefit of herself and hus-
band for their retentive line, with a power to her (subject
to her husband'. life interest) to appoint it as she pleased.
Mn. &urge died in August 1825, leaving her hub and and
tour sons and a daughter surviving. One son, John, died
In her lifetime. The plaintiff was her eldest son. Elbe exer-
cised (hy will, dated Feb. 1826) the power give* to her by
her settlement, and appointed the estate in question to such
of her four eons, Daniel, Tobias William, Samuel, and John,
as should be living at her death as tenants in com-
mie, other than such of them as should, by the death
of her son William, become the eldest Goo, subject
to the payment of one-fifth of the value of the saute to her
daughter Heater, who had married a Mr. Sergeant, and she
expronly excluded her eldest son William, because he was
otherwise well provided for. Tobias Walker Sterne cis& in
1841, having in his lifetime settled an estate, called Little
Sudbury, on hie son William. It appeared that William
had fallen into difficulties in his father's lifetime, and that
he principally resided with hit father, sad, on his father's
death, negotiations took place between William and his
then surviving brothers, Daniel and Tobias Walker,
for a division of the estate amongst them, it being conk
lend that William was only entitled to ooe fourth, under
the mother's will as heir-at-law of his brother Samuel, who
was dead ; although, in fact, he was entitled to the whole
estate under the estate tail creaud by the will of Wm. Mill,
which had not bun barred. It was ultimately arranged that
tbe plaintiff should sell his share to hie brothers for 9601., and
tido arrangement was carried into effect by a deed dated 16th
Oat, 1841, which was prepared by a Mr. Roberts, who ap-
C: to have been consulted by all parties, sad this was the
Which the plaintiff sought to set aside. The plaistiff
alleged that at the time he executed the deed he was ***-
rant of his rights as tenant in tall under the will of W.
KM, sad that they were known to the defendants ; that he had
on independent professional advice ; and that he was induced
le execute the deed nu der penman of pecuniary difficulties. The
defendants on the other head contended that the plaintiff
was aware of his rights, and that the deed was a fair tom-
preogise of family disputes. After full consideration, his
lordship recapitulated the facts at considerable length, and
said that he was of opinion, upon the evidence, that it was
not made out that the plaintiff, in 1841, knew that he had
any legal claim under his grandfather's will, or that he alone
was entitled to the estate, and was about to convey away his
missive right to the whole ; and under all the dram-
emus el the case, he thought the deed ought to be set adds.
Some parts of the estate had been sold, but all difficulty on
died bead would be got over, as the plaintiff was ready to
Nedra the sales. The defendants, Daniel and Tobias Sturge,
Mut pay the costs of the suit.
Coons v LanoTrz.—lnroric-riore.
The argument in this ease was resumed. The object of
the application was to obtain an injunction to restrain the
&andante from proceeding at law in an action commenced
by them on a bond for 16,0001, executed by a deceased laity
(Mrs. Louisa Foam). The plaintiffs, Isaac Cooke and
Simon Fraser Piggott., were the executors of Mrs. Foster,
and the de Indents were her nephews. Mrs. Foster had not
provided for the defendants by her will, but it appeared that
she was very partial to them, and she executed the bond in
question in their favour, payable six months after her death.
The plaintiff, alleged that the bond was obtained from the
deceased under circumstaaoes which rendered it inequi•able

The Lord Chanoellor said he would dispose of the motion
to the month g (this day).
SAINT'S. V. FeROVSON.
_

that the defendants should be allowed to recover spew It at
law.
Messrs. Turner and Elm,ley appeared for the plaintiffs in
support of the application ; and Henn. Walpole, Llo, d, and
Busk appeared for the defendants.
The Master of the Rolle granted en injunction to restrain
execution on the bond, but the defendants were to be at
liberty to proceed to judgment.

BIJOU Tin CHAtiCTUAII KNIOITT BUT",
PARLEY O. LIKOOLESRIRI WATERWORKS COWPANT.—

ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE.

The plaintiff bacontractedto ;;;;;1. certain specified
works for the aboyastmed defendants, and, by the con-
tract, any additional works were to be paid for at • rete to
be certified by the irenpany's engineer. The olainiff
executed certain additional works, for which he demanded
9001 , but the ci-mpany's engineer certified to the amount of
5001., whereupon the plaintiff filed the present bill arainct
him and the company, charging collusion, and requiting
him to set forth the grounds on which his valuat'on pro-
needed. The engineer, Mr. Hawksley, by his answer denied
collusion and submitted that he was not bound to set forth
the grounds on which he had made his calculations. To
this answer the plaintiff excepted for insufficiency.
Mr. Willman and Mr. Hallett in support of the earepti,nt,
referred to Mackintosh v. Oreat Western Railway Company
and Russell on Arbitration.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Olasee, for Mr. Hawksley, contended
that an arbitrator could not be compelled to set forth the
seasons on which hb award was founded, and that a mere
charge of collusion in the bill could not entitle a plaintiff to
elude this rule.
The Vice-Chancellor reser% ed his judgment.

.Bl7OhR

Wioux.

VINCENT O. THE Hlesor 0171i0DOR•N1) MAN.-WHAT A
-

Du ALTIIIWMTION Or PUBLICATION OP A WILL.

The question in this ease areas under the will of Mrs.
Ireland, wife of Dr. Ireland, late Dees of Westmin-
ster It appeared that by the marriage s-ttlemen• of the
doctor and his wife, power was reserved to tkc latter, in ere of
failure of issue of the marriage, to appoint certain lesseholds
for lives by deed to be by her signed and delivered in the pre-
sence of, and attested by two or mere credible witnesses, or
by will to be signed and published in the presence of, and
attested by, the like number of witnesses. The issue of the
marriage having failed, the wife executed the power given to
her, by devising the premises to certain of her relatiors.
The will was attested by two witnesses, but the atteratien
clause imported that the will was signed and sealed in their
presence without stating that it had been published. Dr.
Ireland, after surviving his wife, died, and his executors, to
whom the premises were limited by the settlement in default
of appointment by the wife, then claimed the property on the
ground that the will was not a due execution of the power,
inasmuch us the fact of publs.cation was not notictd in ;be
attestation, signed by the witnesses. A cue had been stn.
to the Court of Common Pleas, who had certified that the
will was a due execution of the power.
Mr. Malin (with whom was Mr. Bacon), for the executors
of Dr. Ireland, staged that the court of law had not giv.n
any reasons for its certificate, and asked for anot::er cas I.
be taken to'the Court of Queen's Bench, who erre in the
habit of as-igoing reasons for their certificates. He ;tunnel. d
the application upon several authorities, going to show that
publication of a will was a substantial ceremony, and that
where several ceremonies were prescribed by the power, and
the attestation of the instrument made in execution of the
power, enumerated some of the ceremonies prescribed, but
omitted others, the power was badly executed.
Mr. Humphry end Mr. Hislop Clarke, for the appointees or
Mrs. Ireland, argued from numerous authorities cited, that
as it appeared from the attestation elsuse that the testeeris
had done all that was necessary to give validity to the will,
that was of Itself a sufficient publication ; sod that the (=le-
sion by the court of law to give reasons for its certificate was
not a sufficient ground fur directing another case.
The Via-Chancellor, after hearing Mr. Melina in reply,
?veered his judgment.

Mr. Bacon and Mr. Lewin moved to discharge an order
of Vice Chrocellor Knight Bruce, restraining the defendant
frog practising as a surgeon and apothecary, in or within
seven miles of Macclesfield. It app ored that the defendant
was taken, in 1848, as an assistant to the plaintiff, who is
a surgeon and apothecary in Macclesfield, at a Wary of 601.
a year, and he bound himself, by the agreement, not to
prattles in or within seven miles of that town, under a pe-
nalty of 5001. The plaintiff, before the expiration of the
year, discharged the defendant for misconduct. The de-
fendant then began to practise on his own account, where-
upm the plaintiff filed a bill for an injunction, which the
Vicr-Cnaneellor reused until he established the agreement
at law. Tee plaintiff then brought his action, and got a
verdict for the 6001. penalty, with 1351. coats. The defen-
dant then bad himself declared a benkrup', after laving
failed in a motion for a new trial of the action in the
court of Common Pleas, the judges of which held the
6001. recovered to be liquidated damages. The plaintiff
went before the Court of Bankruptcy, and was admitted to
prove against the defendant's estate foe the 1361. costs only.
lie then fleet Jane) applied to Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce, and obtained the injauction, which was now sought
to be discharged. The learned counsel argued that the 5001.
for which the plaintiff get the verdict, being, IA held by the
court of law, liquidated damages, must be held to be the
price which the defendant agreed to pay in ease he practised.
The agreement was thereby satisfied, and the plaintiff was
not entitled to farther penalties, or to restrain the defendant.
The plaintiff having also gone to the Court of Bankruptcy
to prove the debt, had no tight to any remedy in another
wart. Vim cited, among other eases, " Woodward tr.
CIYIrs" (2 Yazoo). " Lower. Peers" (4 Burrows), and
French v. Macale" (1 Connor and Lawson, and 2 Drury
and Warren).
Mr. J. Rama supported the ceder for the injunction.
The pixie tiff had, by bringing his action, in obedience to the
sunggggaceuuon of the court, established hie right at law; but
although he obtained a verdict with damages and l, the
defendant tools we that no benefit should be derived these-
from by tr.• plaintiff. The Vice-Chancellor, considering
these circumstances, was of opinion that the court ought to
interpose by an injunction to restrain the defendant, but pat
Wu to the alternative of abandoning the penalty.
The Lord Chandelier raked if there was any ere or autho-
rity for the interference of the court by iejanetion utter the
agreement, in which the legal right was founded, was at an
end _

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YEATEEDAY.

WI/TAWAY V. FIIOIIT.-1111DIRICTION.

This wa•;e•;•;liici was tried ceronlll;:iiiitiee Cress-
well at the last mains (or Devonshire, and • verdict found
for the plaintiff for 1431. It was an action brought by a
lodging-house-keeper at Plymouth against an attorney, for
wrongfully appearg in as action brought against the pre-
sent plaintiff by a person of the name of Dyer, and defending
it, without any authority from Westaway, and the result of
which was a judgment against him, sad he had to pay the
costa, the damages being only nominal. Westaway was,
in fact, • mnslc-master, but had married the widow
of • person who had left her some lodging_
houses, which she managed jindependeatly of her
hwband, and having incurred a debt for furniture, accepted
a bill, which was the subject matter of the action by Dyer.
Mrs. Weataway usually employed an attorney of the name
of Wears, but in consequent* of his absence, she requested
Frost to enter an appearanse fee her, bat herontinued-to est,
and defended the action through.
Mr. Serjeant Manning now moved for • rule to chow cease
why there should net be a new trial, and why the judgment
should sat be arrested on these grounds ; namely, misdirec-
tion; that the verdict was ageinst evidence ; and that the
damages were oseassive. With regard to the misdirection,
it was contended that it was proved that Mrs. Ws/tansy
had paid Frost, the present dehodant, 2(. for the pur-
pose of entering an appearance in the action brought by
Dyer end the learned judge said to the jury that the probs.
bffity wee that that sum woe *dile settle the motion, and he
did not direst the jury with ropod to what damages they
knit ve_, whoa it was osanwiti they should be °al)
It WM *lf dist tionoim, for
swot key weak moon to two in.
at>ak min by Dm, sal ON.Tho

arseaell weld not refer to say smelt we. He pro.
seeded to swain the order on other grounds.
The Lord Cheneeller, without hearing Mr. Baena is reply,
mid it appeared to hies that the agreement between the par-
ties was at aa end by the verdict is, the pmmity, which was
held by the soul of law to be liquidated damage., bolding
W egeeenest to be that In ernes the &deadest preedeed he
should pay theyeselty. The 6001. peoalty wee du prise el
preetisisg, est act as sneezed pesalty. This wart hater.
peeled by intesetien to prevent ea isjsry to a partji legal
right. mod whore tiers was a doubt /beat the legal t,
part wee mist te a evert of law le establish it. ere the
end friths milky end get his mai& That the
ionsons, tM legililo4ll Ma W. sei Ow is Webs

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 6, 1849.

deelaratian stated that the defend rat, without authority,
entered an appearance in the aetib•n by lb er lot the present
klainiiff. and went on to say t'+at Frost ruled the plaintiff
er In declare, but it did not allege that he did alt wittout
authority. and therefore the judgment should be &nested.
The court decided that wilt regard to the question of
excessive damages thty wLuld confer with Mr. Justice
Creswell, but that en the other points thus would be no
rale. As to the alleged misdirection, it merely consisted
in two observations of the learned judge, whieb could not
ho construed to amount to a misdirection ; and with regard
to the arrest of judgment, the objection which had been
taken was not available after verdict. The whole effaet of
the declaration was te charge the defendant g• 'wally with
wrongfully oondnotiog the action brought by Dyer against

pratit plelatitE

BAIL COURT—YEWMIDAY.
Suomi Ms. Immo PArrseox.
ASHWORTH IP. SHRPHRRD AND OTRINS.—PRORIBTTION.
—JURISDICTION OP IRS COUNTY COURTS.
Mr. Atherton moved for a rule to show muse why a pro-
hibition should not issue to the judge of the County Court of
La cubits, held at Harlington, calling on him to stay pro-
ceedings in this ease. It appeared that Shepherd had
issued distress** for rent claimed by him as heirat law to
one Judith Tattersall, and summons in replevin in the
Gusty Court had been served on him. A document having
been lodged in the Consistort Courtof Chester, purporting to
be the will of Judith Tattersall, a suit was pending in that
court between bins and the executors under the alleged will;
and node's bad been nerved en the tenants not to pay rent
to him. Other claimants arose, and distresses had been
levied by them. It was contended before the judge of the
minty court that he had no jurisdiction, es the title to the
Property was in question. but be proceeded to make an order
in the cause. The question now, therefore, was whether the
313th section of the County Court Act applied to actions of
re, Irvin, or whether they were governed by the 121st
section.—Rule granted.
TER QUASH O. JUSTICIR Or SUSSEX.— T. • agarincerE
Or BANKRUPTCY • Ban TO • DISTRESS FOR POOR-

it-ariF
Mr. Phinn moved fnr a rule, calling on the Justices of
Sasses, and F. Douglas Raviland, a ratepayer, of the parish
of Barwasb, to show cause why a distress warrant should
not issue against him, to levy 691. 12s. 8.1.. due by him for
poor rates. The rate was duly made and published in No-
vember, 1848, and on 23rd December, in that yes'', Hartland
bemuse a bankrupt, and obtained his certificate in Mardi,
1849 He had never ceased to occupy the premises for which
he 'ea rated, and the question now was, whether a certificate
of bankruptcy would operate as a bar to the distress warrant
for the rates dim—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YrzrzanhT.
errreme nr Banco.—lisroax Loao emir lumen Waste, Ma. les-
TICII MAMA, Ma. Jima WILLIAM. *MD Ma. Jounce TALTOVIIb
KIDOILL v. MOOSE —Riout OP WAY.
This was au action brought for an alleged infringement of
the plaintiff's right of way through a certain close called
" The Little Pitt Field," situated in Berkshire. The cue
was tried before Mr. Bar n Rolfe at the last &mixes held for
the county of Barks, when a verdict was found for the plain-
tiff—damages one shilling.
Mr. Whately, Q. C., now moved, on behalf of the defen-
dant, for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside, and • new trial had, on the ground
that the verdict was against the evidence. The
learned counsel also moved in arrest of judgment
because the declaration did not disarm a good ground of
action. It appeared that the plaintiff was the owner of one-
seventh part of some land, called Ewens Wood, and he
claimed to have a general right of way from his property
through Little Pitt Field, belonging to Mr. Moore, to a
public common and highway. The defendant had erected a
eate, which he kept locked for some time, thus injuring the
reversionary interest of the plaintiff to the right of way, Mr.
Kidgell hiving let the land to a tenant of the name of
Reding,. By the evidence which was proriueed at the trial it
was proved that the plaintiff's father in the year 1812 purchu.
ed the property at:Ewens-wood, which according to the state-
ment of the oldest witnesses, was at that time actually a
wood. The plaintiff 'a feller removed the tress which
covered the ground, and made it arable land. In doing
this, Mused the road through Little Pitt Field, for the
purpose of removing the timber. The defendant denied that
the p:aintiff had • right of way for general purposes, and
nearly the whole of the evidence offered by Mr. Kidgell
went to prove merely a limited right of way, with the excel).
ti,n that it was shown that two crop. of beans had been
taken front the pl sintiff's property at Ewens Wood,
aer'•s, the Little Pitt Field, aid that when a beer-
hnuse was building, some few years ago, the
bricks had been carried through that field. It
was further proved on the trial that there were remains of
an old gate in the field in question, which the plaintiff con-
tend, .d clearly showed that a general right of way existed.
Mr. Whitely now submitted that the weight of the evi-
dence established the feet of limited rieht of way, and .he
jury in finding that there was a general tight of way, had
returned a verdict against he evidence. Upon examining
the deed of conveyuce by which the land at Ewens Wood
was conveyed to the plaintiff's father in 1812, it was found
to make no mention whatever of any right of way, and this,
it was now contended, was a circumstance which showed
that the plaintiff set up an unfounded claim to the right of
way. Upon the point rupee:lug the arrest of udgment the
learned counsel urged that the plaintiff's declara-
tion did not disclose a good cause of actioo, in-
asmuch as the injury complained of did not en.
title him, as the party Levi, g the reversionary
interest in the land, to maintain an action. The defendant
had not done anything which would be permanently inju-
rious to the plaintiff; and then fore there was not a good
ground for c mmencing legal pr merliege.
Lod Chief Justice Wilde said the court would give an
answer to-morrow as to whether or not they would greet a
rule.

COURT OF ERCHEQUER.—YnnzaDay.
Brinvos DI Basta".
NOTTIOCIE v. RIPLEY —Tnt AGAPEMONE CARE.
_ _

Sir F. The.igcr, Q.C.. moved for a rule calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why the verdict in this case should
not be set aside and a verdict entered for the defendant, or a
new trial had, pursuant to leave reamed. It was an action
for money had end reedy. d to the plaintiff's use, and the
my question was whether t' e tI Pendant was entitled to sett
off certain expenses defrayed by him for Miss Nottidge, the
plaintiff, for a period of 17 mouths, during which she bad
been confined by her relatives at Dr. fitilwell's private
lunatic asylum. The plaintiff cc ntested her lialility on the
ground that she had been kept in the asylum
en:tray to her wishes, and that she had never sanctioned or
authorised the expenses which the defendant claimed to be
allowed. It may be remembered Miss Nuttidge brought en
action nab st the present defendant, her brother-in-law, and
the Rev. Mr. Nottidge, her brother, for assault and false im-
prisonment, alleged to have been committed in the lady's
removal from an es'ab'i•hment called the " Agapemone,"
or " Abide of Love," at Charlinch, to the lunatic asylum.
The trial Wore the Lord Chic( Baron and a special jury, at
Westmincer. occupied three days during the sittimes after
last Trinity Term, and terminated in a verdict for the plain-
tiff, with 601. damages. Amongst the absurd notions enter-
tained by Min Nottidge. and the other inmates of the
" Agape mono," it appeared they believed that God wag
personified in a Mr. Prince-, who had been en officiating
clergyman of the established church, and afterwards "chief '
of si the Abode of Love," which he originated. The plaintiff
and her sisters were entitled, in their own right, to 6,0001.
or 7,0001. each. Three of her siatc re, in obedience to " the
will of God," married three members of the " Agapew one,"
and on her own release from the lunatic asylum, her first act
was to transfer to Mr. Prince the absolute control of her
entire fortune. Upon all other subjects she was perfectly
rational. During her confinement, the defendant, who is •
very reepectable merchant in the city, received her dividends
for the amount of which tee present act on wsic brought. It
WO arranged that the fame of the first case should be taken
as proved in this, and • v r lid entered for the plaintiff, sub-
iect to this motion. The learned counsel now submitted
that the expenses incurred by the defendant on behalf of
the plaintiff in maintaining her at the lunatic asylum were
necessaries, and he was, therefire, entitled to deduct them
from the money he had received on her account. Alter
ei-ing a variety of authorities in support of the m ition,
The court 'gemmed their d uhts whether, under all the
c'reumatanate, the eapensea incurred in confining the plain-
tiff in a lunatic asylum, without the finding of a regular
commission of inquiry, could be considered as " necessaries."
The jury might he of opinion she was a lunatic or enter-
tained insane delusions upon some subjects, but it was ad-
mitted she was not a danger•-us lunatic. The jury before
whom the action was triad were of that opinion. The ques-
tion, however, was whether the defendant was entitled to
maintain his set off, and it was desirable that question should
be disceimed,

---•
A rule Mid wu greeed.
Nest rims 4S WZOTIIII4.TRIL—BI3,OIII Ms. ii•ZON Purr ANS •
WOWING& COMMON .11.,1T.
. . . . .

There were five causes on the paper for trial, but on being
called on no appearance was made ; the causes were cait-
iff quently struck out of the paper. This concluded the
Waimea of the first Middle w: term sitting'.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Yzenuwey.
Birna Mi. COIIIOIIIIO3IEI Eva L.
Rs blousyr.

His Honour pima judgment on en application to annul the
orition in this case. It had been contended, in support of
the spplication, that there was no legal evidence of the act
of bankruptcy. The principal witness was Mr. Evans, soli-
citor to the alleged bankrupt, who had premed him for
money, and bad been shown a number of writs which had
been saved on the bankrupt, who asked if the witness could
not get him time, sad gave instructions to his wife to deny
him to any creditors. This evidence had been objected to,
as a privileged communication ; and, in answer to this the
eine of Bramwell v. Lucas" had been cited. Though be-
lieving the decision in that cue to be erroneous, he felt'bound
by it till it was overruled by a competent authority. In this
cue the comeaturicatioo had not been made to the witness,
nor in consequence of his advice ; it was therefore not in law
a privileged communication, and the evidence was conse-
quently admissible. It had been suggested, on the part of
the appellant, that a general order to deny was not a sufil-
elect act of bankruptcy; bet his Honour had no doubt that
it was ; he must therefore reject the application to annul the
senproceeding.
Mr. Leese supported the petitka. sad Mr. Bagley repre-
ted the appellant.
oat= Ma. Ocenamena ram
C=•1011 or DIFILMMINO • GAS Coaraor.
There wee a dividend atio:2lllre case of Davies and
Davis,, who were exlssedee
Mr. Radiates* Modered • peoef for 3,00 W. en the part
of the Lome= Gls Cleassy, stadag that the dais lad
arises is assessmase et as bamboo spun at hoed width
had ben paimad by Daniel pain, as of Oa
now la Aailualli. lbeasedsmis al a pa=

Hutchinson, forn•erly en suiployi of the company. The
b,.ktupta bad undertaken to simply to the company various
quantities of building materials; and, by metes of Ilirchin-
soa, credit had been given them for fronds which were Mil er
deliv.r.ll at all, or were remov..d immeliately from
the company's premises, to some works at Brumley, with
which Huteninsm was conntc•td.
Mr. Cooke, for the assignees, resisted the proof.
His Homoar did not think any end would be answered by
punning this investigation, se the company had their
remedy, either by civil or criminal proceeding. There was
not a farthing of meets ; therefore the right to prove wee
immaterial.
Ultimately the proof was withdrawn.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Boons Tax Cirsz COIOIIIIBIONL.
Ix RI hints BAR RITT.—RAPPLIS..

This ineoWetit. a member of the Stock Exchange, was
opposed by Mr. Dowse for Mr. Charles iiarcourt, a stock
brokor and also • member of the Exchange, and was sup-
ported by Mr. Sergood.
The ease was before the court in September, and on it ap-
pearing that the insolvent had omitted to make a statement
of two watches he had p_oeseased, his case was adjourned end
his bail not enlarged. He had given up one of the watches,
and the other had been " reified" on the Stock Exchange. It
was stated that " rallies" were very often got up en the ex-
change.
It appeared that the opposing creditor h►d made consider-
able advances to the insolvent, and now claimed to be •
creditor to a large amount. The insolvent, on the other
aide. claimed 1,1001. for board and lodging, which it wee
admitted bad been allowed in an account between them, and
Mr. Harcourt denied that it was now owing, and a state-
ment was ordered to be plead on the schedule in accordance
with the facts.
Mr. Dowse contended that the insolvent was not entitled
to his immediate discharge, on the ground of big conduct
with respect to the watches.
Mr. Bargood relied on the imprisonment the insolvent had
undergone in consequence of the adjournment.
The Chief Commissioner said the insolvent had antici-
pated the remand he should have pronounced for his con-
duct, and on that ground he would now be discharged.
The Court ordered his discharge, and allowed the costs of
opposition.