The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-09 00:00:00

the debt, and the bank, by this arrangement, brought actions
againat the plaintiff Gillevie and others of the defunct com-
pany.
The injunction was granted to restrain this
upport action.
the—
Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Ragahnwe were sof
motion ; Mr. Bethell and other counsel supported the order
for the injunction.—The Lord Chancellor was of opinion
that the arrangement between the bank and Lord Mount-
eashel, and the transactions between Mtn
to
and the plaintifl
and between their requctive solicitors, gave an egnity
the ylaintilf. Hi, I,,rilihip stated his view of these trans-
aci.ins, and, retaining the motion witk coats, sustained the
injunction.

ereme the Vieedltancenor of Emiand.
DANsts r. PEttroRMANCP. OF AN
Au toir:mENY.—Tli., MIA-From ComrAN OF Ltratieuot,.
—This suit was iustituted by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Banksthe
,
Bowman, and Doodson, on behalf of themselves and all
other partners or shareho'alers in the
company[ called the
Liverpool Ahattoir Company against the danarker,
who was a farmer, fir the epeeitie performance of an agree-
ment entered into between the pleintillit and the defendani.
It appeared that the said company was formed for the pur-
pose of establishiee and km ping up certain slaughter-houses
is Liverpool, seal that the company being forbidden, by the
regulations of the corporatian of Liverpool, to permit the
blood manure and garbage of the animals slaughtered to re-
main upon the pie Mist", W. re desirous of taking a farm, as
the most profitable mode of dispcsing of the said manure,
and they had entered into on agreement with the defendant
under which the defendant contracted to assign to the plaintiffs
his interest in an agreement for a lease fur 21 years in
certain land near Liverpool, which had been entered into
between the defendant and Lerd Skelmersdale, and the terms
el' the contract were that the defendant should assist the
plaintiffs in the management of the tam, end should receive
half the profits thereof; anti the plaintiffs were to expend the
sun of 1,3431. in the cult ration and working of the farm.
It appeared that certain disputes arose between the plaintiffs
and the defendant respecting the management of the farms
and in consequence thereof this bill was tiled, and it prayed
the specific performance of the agreement; and an injunc-
tion was applied for to reatruin the defendant from inter-
fering with the management of the farm, and from prevent-
hag the sale of the produce. This injunction was granted by
the court. The defendant then put in a demurrer to the
bill, on the ground that all the ehurcholders in the company
ouht to be made parties to the *nit, that the aumber of !
the shareholders did net exceed forty, an.l that the plaintiffs,
one of whom was a :rustee, end the other two dire eters of
the company, could not be taken to represent the whole in-
terests of the shareholders.—Mr. Roll and Mr. Giffard ap-
peared in support of the demurrer, and Mr. Stuart and
Mr. Prior for the bill.—The Vice-Chancellor said he thought
there had been a plain case of justice made out on the part
of the plaintiffs. They stated that a considerable sum of
money exceeding the required amount hod been expended
for the benefit of the farm. The agreement was entered into
by the plaintiffs. and was afterwards ratified by the com-
pany. It was imponeihle not to lee what the ease really
was—that the three gentlemen who were plaintiffs bad
actually signed the agreement, and had therefore become
trustees for the 0 mpany in the strict sense of the word. The
nature of the transaction showed clearly that they wets
trustees for tee company, and whether they were director*
or shareholders was in fact quite immaterial. toile r
the agreement it was provided that the company
should carry on the farm, although there were some vague
espresaions about the defendantassisting in the management
of it. That, however, was not the essence of the contract,
and it was very certain that the defendant had no right to
interfere in snch a manner as to damage the interest of the
company. The substance of the agreement was that tt c
far wits to be carried on by the plaintiffs ; and the net
profim ts, alter deductiug certain suolll which might have been
expended, were to be divided, so that the defendant was to
have half. Upon this contract the plaintiffs only asked to
be put in each a situation that they might perform the
agreement. His Honour thought, under these circumstances,
that it was quite competent for the plaintiffs to file the bill
without making all the shareholders who were cestuinue
trust parties to the snit, and the demurrer must therefore be
overruled.
A motion was subsequently made that the injunction
granted to restrain the defendant front interfering in the
management of the farm, and from diepasing of the stock
and produce thereof, might be dissolved. The grounds upon
which this motion was made were, that there had been a
suppression of the real etas e.f the cane when the injuocOm
was eranted by the court, and that the defendant had acted
strictly in conformity with the term* of the agreement.—
The Vice-Chancellor thought there had been no suppression
of facts, and that the detendant had acted inconsistently
with the avetmeut ; he should, there ore, continue the in-
junction.

Before Vice-ft:mecum Wirsol.
DOWNS T. COLLINS.—DISsOIXTION OW PARTNERSHIP.
—His Honour delivered judgment in this suit, which was
instituted by the executors of a deceased party against his
surviving partners, members of a firm of brewers and malt-
eters, at Richmond, for a dissolution of the partnership, end
fur an account of the partnership wit:sections. The ground
of the proceeding was that the defendants, with whom, by
terms of the partnership articles, the executors of
the deceas.d partner were enabled to continue the
hominess ter a term certain aft( r the death of
their testator, i:ad by their conduct violated the
stipulations contained in tie articles ; and stcoudly, on the
ground of general mismanagement of the concern by the
defendants.—His Honour said that the esidcnce (-tiled to
show the mariner and proportion in which the capital of the
concerti was to be furnished by the different partners; and
that the articles them•elvts contlined no stipulation upon
that subject which could be made the ba,is of an accuuht.
The proper decree, therefore, would be, to dissolve the part-
nership simpliciter, with libcrty to the parties to bring such
actions as they might be advised on the covenants contained
in the articles.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before U. C. Moyle*, fisq.
ICtettotao:a n. MITHEWS.—Nu MONEY RETIMNEI).—
This was an action brought by a banister against Mr. Chas.
Mathews, the lessee of the Lyceum Theatre, to recover hack
the amount paid for admission into the pit of that theatre,
under the following circumstances:—It appeased from the
statement and evidence on the part of the plaintiff, that a
short time since he paid a visit with two friends to the Ly-
ceum Theatre, and on going to the pit entrance, before pay-
ing his money, he inquired if there was any room. lie was
answered in the affirm .tice, and accordirgly paid for hirns, If
and friends and went inside the theatre. There being no
seats in the pit, the party came out again, and paying the
difference went into the hues. This part of the house was
more crowded than the pit, and consequently the plaintiff
with his friends came out again and demanded the return
of the money which he had paid. The money-taker offered to
return the amount paid for going into the boxes, but refused
to return the money paid for going into the pit, on the
ground that there was plenty of room in that part of the
house when the plaintiff went in there. Mr. Nicholson re.
fused to receive any part, and summoned the defendant as the
lessee of the theatre for the return of the whole.—On the part
of the defendant several witneases were called, who proved that
there was ample room in the pit when the plaintiff paid to
go in, and the only objection that could he raised was, that
the seats disengaged were those under the boxes and not in
the middle of the pit. Upwards of 100 persons paid for ad-
mission into the pit after plaintiff demanded his money back.
—The learned Judge said that if the pit had been so full
when the plaintiff entered it, the proper course for him to
pursue was to have immediately demanded the return of his
money back. If that had been done, he no doubt would
base been in a condition to have recovered it back, but hav-
ing rescinded the contract he first made, by paying an addi-
tional soom to go into another part of the theatre, he could
not new recover back the money be paid under that con-
tract.—The case was dismissed.