The Express.
London, England, 1865-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(TED 3 DAY.)

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
inliaoarDas c.alidau.oo —"otitaiwerrr.
the
hie wu isms,
The fact, were shortly that the pkijouty...r"
of lie
trailers of the will of a gentleman named t...,
ilton Mortimer, in the month of Awl*, pu9P,
testator's dwelling-house and grouads, situate at T
, for We by paid* anctioo. The conditions of sa•
the weal provision that the highest bidder theft t;
parehaesr, but these was no stllation respecting
beer allowed to bid oo behalf of the vendors, wir,
price was reserved. It appeared, however, that the
cad fired reserved price of 3,0 C N. on the prelim,
reon was employe' to bid on their be*lf. By
ts the backer were run up ko whale"
fondant, who was the owner of the adjoining
3,6501., at which price it was knocked down- •;;;;.,
yip, afterwards heard of the way in which the *ker.:
base rue up, he declined to complete the purigr
this bill was filed to compel him so to do.
ter of the Rolls decided in favour of the *hal a(
sale, and the defendant now appealed.
r. liobhotime and Mr. Bask were for the appellant ;114
lav aid Mr. Steen for the *upend**.
e ogee wes argued on the 10th inai, an' juigiget

e Lord Chancellor now, in stating his opinion,
t warts of law had held that in theabsenee of say sefiii2
for a reserved price, uP to which Waini.
it WY • •frgad Oil the pert of a vend toy „
bidding' to a certain point. It wee said, IsiT
, that courts of equity bed held that thus aid;
as implied stipulation for a reserved yeti:
there was no fraud in running up b'
and it wee argued that the present cue caws me,
rule. lie (the Lord Chancellor) thought that it emili
better always that any reserved point &mild be u.
; and it had been the usage of the Court of Cha.
in modern times that a stipulation for a meervniphs
*dabs expressed. In the present case there had beak
act two persons bng for the vendor. hie Rift
the auctioneer, and the holding up to 3,600/, a, i
um" Oakeleted, if not intended, to deceive pawn.
iriog to be purchasers. He could end no case jo widdi
per
such eircomideaces a vendor could intone the we.
• of the webs.", and therefore the bill must ha").
' with assts.

(Beton Vies.Ottancellor Sir B. T. Kinds/sky.)
it LADS BATUMI COMPANT.—IN SHE SLITTER Or
. . .

The Vice ehimesllor gaveTtignmlit Ain day is this sat.
. which was argued • few days ago, but in MOM bit
*flour had reserved his decision until the argument'
lotion to the cues of other shareholder who isootesteitheei
bility to be put on the list of contributories had been brig
Addison case the facts were these. He was the lamer
20 shares in the compact), and is Jule. 18dl, he mini
circular stating that the directors had determised to au
reserved she
at 301 • share ; that the shares went)
offered to the shareholders in the proportion of om
e to every five shares they held in the comic,-
t he was consequently entitled to four am;
sad inquiring whether he wished to tok.
Ho replied that he would take the four be ew
titled to and twenty more if he could have them.
ply to this the manager seat a circular steting that fear
• • clonal new shares had been allotted to him, makisg
ig ht new shares altogether, and the circular contained*
louse stating that the shares must be paid for at
before the lst of October or the shares would
• forfeited. Mr. Addinell did not pay on the
hares, and did nothing more in the matter. lii
• onour remarked that the fact of non-payment made
his use to differ from that of Barites, who paid ams
lately, and who he had decided ought to be retained as
he list. He then referred to the terms of the circular, and
eld that Mr. Addinell had completed the contract to take
be four shares which were first offered to him ; but with
and to the second four shares. • new condition—
at of forfeiture in case of ma-payment es
or before the let of October—was added; and
there was no evidence to show that Mr. Addinell
hail accepted that condition. The result was that its would
be retained on the list in respect of four shares only.
Ltl THE MATS= OF RICHARD DOBSON.
His Honour also gave judgment in HIM ease which
wr
argued yesterday. In this ace it was sought to phut*.
Richard Dobson on the list in his personal capacity in tr
put of two new shares. Mr. Dobson and Mr. Thsckessy
are the executors of M. Joseph Delsomi who ha
five shares in the bank. The circularsnffering the new sheets
were sent to Me. W. C. Dobson, and he agreed to take two
shares. The receipts were given on account of Joseph Deb.
son, the testator, and his Honour held that the evideat
intention of the directors and manager was to deal with
Mr. Richard Dobson in his capicity (of executor oily, sea
therefore that be could not be made a coat*
butory in his individual capacity. Nor mull be
be put on es executor inasmuch as there was no evidence
that his co-executor concurred with him in taking*,
I shares.
IN THE MAMA Or FLUORIDE AND DRAIN,
The Vice-Chancellor also gave judgment herein. The
parties in this case whom it was sought to fix on the NA
of contributories were Earth Fearaside and Mr.
Dean, executrix and executor of Mr. Edward Fears-
side, of Leeds. who died in 1860. He was the
owner of ten shares, and the executrix and executor jMeed
is accepting two new shares. It was sought to plans them
on the list in their private eapseity. His Honour said, thst
the reasons he had stated in Dobeon's see, and which
indeoed him not to put Mr. Dobson on the liat in his pr!vede
ice pacity, applied with still greater force to his miss
euss-
much as in WS case both executrix and exsea
joined in the acacceptance.Het he
tcr could not put them on ut
their individual capacity, but they must be on the lift al
executrix and executor.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock, sad
Barons Bramwell, Channel!, and Pigott.)
BOUILLON AND WIFE V. VALENTIN.
Mr. Serleent Simon, cm behalf of Madame Valentin, the
defendant, resumed his argument against the rule obtained
by the plaintiffs for a new trial. He commented upos Ike
evidence, at some length, and submitted that the dries.
dant's story was consistent with the most perfect Mowers
on her part, observing, that though she washkept wormy
there were women of that class who were not devote of honest
and truthfulness. For 32 years she had lived with M. Dead's
as his wife, and having passed that period when the biome
and charms of youth were wanting, she must have lad
some virtue and goodness or he would not have contiansd
to greet her übus wife, or, on beiog seized wave last
h
nem, undertaken to marry her. The question was ad
whether the jury might have found another verdict, or
whether the learned judge, who presided at the trial.
would have come to a different cooclusioo but whether
there was such an amount of error on the part of the
es to make their verdict manifestly wrong.
Mr. Qusin followed on the same side.
The arguments had not concluded when our report lsei

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinart.)
ttrasooravw r. emscagart.
Mr. loderwiek, for the petitioner, the wife of brick.
maker at Wakefield. lie married her in 1857, end deserted
her in 1861. Since then be bad been living in adaltarl
with Mary Sykes, by whom be had had two childrw
besides one by his wife.
Decree nisi, with costs.

MAUD V. VAUD.
Dr. Spinks for the petitioner. The court had allowed
substituted service, the address of the husband being ND.
known; but he now came into court and professed tkat ks
had a good defence. The Judge Ordinary, however, would
not allow him to interfere.
The marriage was in August, 1F43. The petitioner weed
widow in London, and was receiving an iDOOOIO of 4001.
et
WI. a year, which would go from her if she took a seOug
husband. The parties had therefore married under a fain
name, and the connexion was kept secret for a considerable
'lime. The petitioner now charged the respondent with
1 cru-Ity. Her case was that he was in the habit of driall
and that on three or four occuions he had beaten ltsr.
number of the respondent's letters were put in confessing
his iunioonduct ; and
The court granted the petitioner a judicial sepaTlll4olL
FAWCETT V. FAWCETT AND RILL.
Mr. Searle for the petitioner, a printer. in umck4L
Ho married the respondent in ISSI, and in July, ISA do
took away his furniture and left him. He afterwards
agreed to allow her Is. a week, till he found that she sal
living in adultery with the co-respondent.
Decree nisi.

LCMSDIC7 LUMBDEg.
Mr. Willie for the petitioner. In 18.19 she was •
.widoe
sod kept a milliner's shop in Maochester sod the
February of that year she was marrie I to the rellieedee‘
a clerk to a warehouseman in that city. He vvil
and
began to pursue a career of violence and profligacY
eventaally his wife was obliged to leave him.
Decree alai with costs.

COURT OF ARCHER.
(Before the Right Hon. Dr. Lushisgton).
EDWARDS AND MANN V. HATTON.—EXTRAORDINART CHUNK
RATS CASE.
This extraordinary ease came on to-day for heariaV e_
churchwardens of Mothshall, Norfolk, awaseed the ~_
fendant at 80/. a year to the church rate, ainonntin •"'
: 6s. &1., and be alleged that the 'assesiallaS fog
his farm should be 1001., and therefore the sat*
i was illsgaL The churchwardens exhibited...!
libel to recover the amount io dispute-6e. 841. —sea
ratepayer denied his liability. The proceadinpSo
in tests.
were of a voluminous character, ad the novelty al
question raised created some interest in the present assn.
i tied orreditioo of church rates.
! The Queen's Advocate (with whom was Dr. SwahrY),l.
pared for the churchwardens. Dr. Deane, QfiCailatir
Tristram, with him) for the defendant Jonathan
The Queen's Advocate said this was the first aim okt
an% rate whit* any Noel e siaatical Court had ordered t0_..7
th
tikes by viva woes evidence, and therefore the cau''
anai
1 wardens were called to prove the different avermeata
their libeL The cans bad come before the coon as W
admissibility of so allegation made bthe digs
—a•
To
U waa an important point of law that aa ramow•