The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-24 00:00:00

SPORTING.

BETTING AfMiliEffESTEß—Fainay.
CHESTER CUP.--30 to 1 art Blaze 33 to 1 apt Re.
Who (t); 33 to 1 agst Jonathan Wild (t): 35 to 1 apt
Clumsy (t); 40 to 1 Let Mendicant (t) ; 40 to 1 apt Swal-
low (t) ; 40 to 1 apt Swiss Boy (t); 40 to 1 apt Cossack (t);
1,000 to 20 apt War Eagle (t), 1,000 to 20 apt Lightning
(t) ; 1,000 to 20 agst Sylvan (t) ; 1,000 to 20 apt Lady
ilyds (t).
DERBY —5OO to 50 apt Surplice (t) ; 2,000 to 100 apt
Springy Jack.
NEWICLEKET STEEPLE CHARE.—Weights for the Open
Handicap, to declare forfeit on Feb. 2:—Chandler, 12st;
Gaseley, lOst 121 b; Novice, lOst I Ilb ; Chronometer,
10st 101 b ; Boakeeper, 10st 10lb; Profligate, 104 1016; The
Witch, lest 91b; The Rejected, 104 81b; Nottingham,
104 Sib; 3lahomet, 104 71b; The Doctor, 104 Slb ; Rhea-
door, lOst 511); The British Yeoman, 104 Sib; Roulette,
104 4th ; Gayttursit, lOst 21b; Eagle, 104 lib ; Jerry, 104;
by g by Medoro, d by Amedis, 9st 13Ib ; Blue Bell, get 11th;
Railroad, 94 101 b; Blue Pill, 94 Mb; Lady Helen, 9st Sib.

tab ihtteUtstnct.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lod Chancellor,

THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE
OXFORD AND BIRMINGHAM JUNCTION RAILWAY COM-
PANY.—AORERMENT TO SELL A RAILWAY.—SPECIFIC
PERPORMANCE.—DCMURREIL—Thii was an appeal from an
order of the Vice-Chancellor of England over-ruling the de-
murrer pat in by the defendants to the bill tiled by the
plaintiffs, for specific performance of an agreement between
the parties fur the sale, by the latter company, of their line
to the plaintiffs. The circumstances of the case have been
frequently stated in this paper ; the last time in November
last, on the argument of the demurrer before the Vice-Chan•
cellor.—Sir F. Kelly opened the appeal on Wednesday last,
and concluded his argument on Saturday. Jas. J. Parker
followed on the same side, but had not concluded at the rising
of the court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Dam,.
REGINA v. SoI:TH-WEsTEILN lIAILwAt COMPANY.—
LAND, CLAIAES CONsOLIDATION ACT. —ln this case, which
was partly heard on Wednesday, some demurrers arising upon
a mandamus were argued. The mandamus was directed to
the South-Western Railway Company,. commanding them
to complete their contract for the purchase of a certaiu
manufactory and premises known as the Lambeth Starch
Manufactory. It appeared that under the Railway Metro-
politan Extension Act of 1845, the South-Western Company
had given notice to Mesas. Coward and Co., the proprietors
of the Lambeth Starch Manufactory, that theyshould require
a pinion of their premises for the extension of their line of
railway from Nine Elms to Hungerford-bridge ; but Messrs.
Coward and Co. refused to accommodate the railway com-
pany with a part only of the property in question, insisting
that they were bound to take the whole. They
had subsequently refused to take the portion of
the premises which they had given notice they
should want, it appearing that the interest of the Starch
Company, as lessees of the property, would expire in about
twelve months; and as tt ey required compensation to the
amount of about 43,0001. for the entire property, consisting
of the manufactory before named, a dwelling-house, two
large gardens, a greenhouse, and various outhouses, all of
which they contended the railway company were bound to
take, if they wonted only a part of the manufactory, the
company had preferred waiting until their lease should
expire, when they would become, on much easier terms, pos-
sessed of the freehold..- Mr. Martin, Q.C., now contended,
that by the IStli and 19th sections of the Lands Clauses Con-
solidation Act, when notice had been once given by a railway
company to the owner of any laud which they were authu.
rised to take by their act, that such land would be necessary
for the purposes of the railway, it amounted to a conclusive
determination that it was required, and they were bound
to take it. 31 orearcr, they become liable to all
the terms which the legislature had imposed upon
them ; and haring in the present case, given notice that they
should want a part of the manufactory in question, they
were also bound by the 92nd sec. of the same act to take the
whole, if the owner was willing to sell It. The learned
gentleman refened to" Rex v. Hungerford Market Com-
pany " l 4 Barn. and Adol., 327), " Salmon and Randall "
(3 Milne and Craig, 439), and "Stone v. Commercial Com-
pany "(" Milne and Craig, 122), in support of his argument.
—Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C., contended that the company could
not be bound to buy what the prosecutors were not bound
to Orb. The railway company had given notice to purchase
half a manufactory, but the prosecutor said he was not bound
to sell it, and that they could not take it without his con-
sent, which he refused to give. The prosecutors' case was,
that the company could not compel them to sell that part
of their property, which they had given notice they should
want, without taking the remainder; and the company being
aware of that chose to suffer some inconvenience in the
progress of their works, and to let the prosecutors have the
bench; of the enjoyment of their property during the re-
mainder of their term, rather than give 43,0001. for pre-
mises the greater portion of which they did not want. Then,
as to the notice being binding, it had only been so held in
the oases cited by his learned friend, with respect to the
exact property as to which notice bad been given. In this
Bass it appeared fo him that the notice did not alter the
maionLof the parties, who must stand just as they did be-
er* it was given. The learned gentleman proceeded to
addrov himself to some technical points, contending that the

mandamus did not contain all the averments ,e....ary to
raise tho questions before the oourt.—Mr. :Cain haring
been heard in reply the oourt deferred it. judgment.

BAIL COURT
Sittings In Banco. before Mr. Justice Eris.
TEE QUEEN O. ALLEN.—ELECTION OF AN ALDERMAN.
—Mr. M. Smith moved for a rule to show cause why an in-
formation, in the shape of a quo warnuito, should not be
filed, calling on Mr. John Meade Allen to show cause why I
he exercised the office of an aldermen for the borough of
Southampton. It appeared that there were ten aldermen
of the borough, and in November in every year five went out
out of office, and • new election took place. On the Sth of
last November Mr. Allen was elected, being fifth on the
poll, and • Mr. Lefeuvre (the gentleman on whose
behalf he sow moved) was girth. The ground of
his application was, that under the Municipal Corporation
Act Mr. Allen was ineligible to fill the office, he being
sasemor for the ward of St. Mary.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(sitting. on Crown oases reserved.)
Before Lord DP1101•11 and the common low judges.
THE QUERN O. WILI3ON It THY FILLING UP AND FINING
A BLANK (GONAD CHBOB BT A CLEKIL FOROP.ILT ?—This
was a point left from the Liverpool Assizes. Tho facts of the
case have already been fully stated in the assize intelligence
of the Express.. Wilson was clerk to a Mr. M`Nichull,
a merchaut Liverpool, who gave him a signed cheque on
the banker. leaving the amount in blank, which Wilson was
directed to fill up from the bill-book. Wilson filled up the
cheque with the sum of VOL, which ho cashed, and appro-
priated to his own use, on accountof salary alleged to be due
whim. Ho was then indicted fir a forgery, and the objec-
tion that the act did not amount to a forgery having been
raised and overruled, and Wilson Coned guilty, the present
appeal was made for :he opinion of the judges of England.
—Mr. Brett (in the able' cc of Mr. E. James) on Saturday
argued that the offence was not a forgery under the statute,
seeing that a discretionary power was given to the prisoner
by hie master as to the amount to be filled up--At the con-
clusion of the learned counsel's address the court rose.

ARCHES COURT.
Before sir H. J. Test.
GEILS 1/. 0811.6.-Dr. Addama resumed his reply in
this case to-day, and terminated. No point of im.
portance was quoted beyond that already reported, except
evidence of • character most offensive to delicate or
moral minds. But, at the close of the learned ad-
vocate's reply, he implored the learned judge early to give
his decision, es should there be a point alleged to be proved
against Mrs. Gelds, she should have an immediate appeal to
the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and to the
bar of public opinion. (The last few words were
spoken most emphatically by Dr. Addams).—Dr. Curteia
rose to address the court elao in reply.—Sir Ilerbert J.
Fust: I will not proceed with the case further to-day, after
what I have just beard. It is disgraceful to the court, the
public and the profession, that the argument should have
been conducted in the way it has been. Sir H. J. Fuld
then rase from his seat to retire, but being very fettle re-
quired aid to conduct him into the dining-hall to unrobe,
during which Dr. Addams rose, and with vehemence said,
" I protest, sir, against your observations, and I treat them,
sir, with contempt and disgust." (Strong emotion in the
court was here displayed.)—An adjournment of the case
was ordered.

CITY OF LONDON COUNTY COURT.
Before B. Bullock, Esq.
HEWETT v. WILLIAMS, DEACON, AND Co.—Judgment
was given in this case. The facts were there :—A certain
sum of money had been paid into the bank of Knapp and
Co., of Abingdon, of which advice was forwarded to the
creditor in London, who was directed to apply for payment
to the defendants, Messrs. Willi►ms and Co. On applying
as directed, Messrs. Williams and Co. gave a cheque, drawn
by themselves, and upon themselves, crossed to Spooner and
Co., bankers. The plaintiff then applied on the following
day for the money, but payment was refused on the amend
that Messrs. Knapp had suspended payment —His Honour
said he felt bound, after full consideration of this case, to
give a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. The cheque was
given by the Messrs. Williams for the amount paid into
the bank at Abingdon; it was evident that the Messrs. Wil-
liams considered themselves responsible for the sum, at the
time they honoured the letter of advice and gave the cheque,
and if it had been presented on the same day It would have
been paid. His Honour did not consider that the plaintiff's
delay made any alteration in the case, and he thought the
i defendants were liable for the amount.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. Mlles, Esq.
GAME O. MALCOLM. -- Assumrrtox OF POWER TO
ORDER A DISCHARGE FROM POISON BY THE it:DOZ.—At
the sitting of the court, Mrs. Malcolm, the wife of the de-
fendant in this use, which was reported on Satur-
day, applied to the court for the release of her husband
from custody, he having been committed on the previous
evening to Whiteeross.street Prison, at the suit of Mr. Gas-
man, the plaintiff, a gentleman living at Tottenham. Bartlett,
the officer of the court, said that having left Mr. Malcolm in
Whiteeross-st. Prison,hewent on Friday evening,at the request
of Mr. Malcolm, to Tuttenham,and had an interview with Mr.
°anon. That gentleman admitted that he had received 41.
from Mr. Malcolm-21. on the tBth, by poet-office order,
and 21., previously ; and expressed his surprise that Mr.
Malcolm had been taken in execution. He, Bartlett, having
ascertained that Mr. Malcolm's statement to the judge on
the previous day, was so nu ,rorse.t, begged or Mr. tramon
to write a letter, detailing the fact to the judge, as he had
promised Mr. Malcolm that he would write to Mr. Cuff, the
clerk of the court, and stop the execution of the warrant
of committal. Mr. Chalon consented, and began to
write a letter, which he destroyed, saying that
he would appear at the court the first thing in
the morning, and would apply to the judge for
I his release. He was nut, however, present. —Mrs. Mal-
colm said that all she knew of the transaction was, that Mr.
Gaston, after the judgment summons was issued, had owl-
seated to take the debt by instalments of 21. per week.—
The learned Judge said, by the 100th section power was
given to the judge, should he think fit, to rescind or alter any
such order. He should take upon himself to order Mr. Mal
colt's release.—Accordingly, at the rising of the court, the
learned Judge made out an order for the defendant's release
from custody