The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-15 00:00:00

lalW Ottelltgence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YEsTCADAT.
BOOM TIIS IsMID CSAZ4CIII.III.
RIB CATMAIRINII
In this oast. which on former occasions excited so mach
attention,
The Solicitor-General (with whom was Mr. Southgate),
stated, ia consequence of • suggestion from the court, an
'reenlistment had been male between the different parties,
of which the following were the terms, viz., that • petition
be presented, praying for an order for • supersedeas of the
commission, and also that • petition should be presented on
behalf of Mrs. Cumming, praying that Mean. Robinson
end Llaynes* cots should be taxed; that the next of kin
having agreed to the supenedeu, Messrs. Robinson and
Haynes should undertake to furnish Mrs. Cumming's soli-
ei:or with full accounts ; that there should be a reference
to the Master, to inquire what property Mrs. Cumming was
possessed of in August, 1i?.46, the time when the lunacy was
alleged to have begun ; that • medical attendant
should be named by Mrs. Cumming to attend her,
who should be 'abject to inquiries from the next
of sin ; that the costs of the commission should
be ascertained and taxed as between solicitor and client ;
that the nets as certified should be secur.d by a mortgage
on Mrs. Cummiag's property, but which was not to come
into operation until after her death ; that Mrs. Cummiag's
income should be secured at 4001. a year, exclaim: of a resi-
dence; that all mortgages, debts, and liabilities of Mrs.
Cumming should he forthwith paid, and, lastly, that at
Mrs. Cummirg's death her property Ann' I go an equal
shares to Mrs. Hindu and Mrs. Cooper, her daughter., and
next of kin, and failing them, or either of them, to their
chit ren. . .

Subject to this amngement two is:Stains had been pre-
sented for carrying it into effect, another petition bad been
primented which would have the effect of nullifying the
arrangement altogether, and unless it was withdrawn, all
that had been done would be ineffectual, and all that could
now be asked would be an intension of the time for trying
the traverse which had been directs:J.

The Court was urged to sanction the arrangement.
Mr. Follett and Mr. Morris for the nest of kin, did not
oppose it.
The Lord Chancellor said that a eupersedcaa could only
be granted when a lunatic was proved to be no longer of
unsound mind, and when that was the case the party eou:d
make any arrangement for himself. The present was in
truth a suggeition that the lunatic was not an object of
' a supersede's, but that if the court would supersede the
commission, something would be done by way of boon,
which would be of equal force for her protection as a com-
mission. That was entirely out of the ordinary course, and
be must refuse the petition.
Mrs. Cumming being in attendanee,his lordship proceeded
to have an interview with her in his private room. On his
return,
The Lord Chancellor said that he would do nothing in
the case but extend the time for trying the traverse. Tilers
appeared to be no change in Mrs. Cumming's conditicn,
and the traverse must be tried. She was moat anxious that
itshonld be tried as soon as possible.
It was then arranged that the time for trying the traverse
should be extended to six months, with leave to the Attor-
ney.Oensral to apply to fix the time in a fortnight.

semen =I Muraa or xis sous.
ATTOUNBY-OZNEILAL V. HALL.
The hearing of this cue, which was commenced in the
sittings after Michaelmas term, was resumed. It was a
suit instituted for the purpose of setting aside a lease of
certain charity property in Drypool, near Hull, in York-
shire. By an indenture of the 15th August, 1711, Robert
Stephenson demised the property in question, which was
described in the deed as a close of meadow, with a cottage
and wind corn mill, in Drypool, to trustees on trust, to
apply the rents and profits towards the maintenance of the
Nonconformist preaching minister for the time being at the
chapel or meeting-house in Lair Gate in Beverley. By a
deed of the 31st January, 1800, the trustees granted a lease
of the property to Elisabeth Stickney, for 98 years at a
yearly rent of 41. Mr.. Stickney has since granted several
sub-lessee, and the under lessees have greeted buildings on
the land, by which the value of the property has been in-
creased until it now amounts to 4801. a year. The present
proceeding was to set aside the lease of 31st January, 1800,
on the ground that the lessee had notice that the property
was charity property, that it was a husbandry tease, which
as affecting charity property was bad ; and, moreover, that
the lease wee an improvident one, inasmuch as it con-
tained a covenant that at the expiration of the term
the lessee wee to be at liberty to pull down
any buildings which had been erected on the land.
On the other band, it was contended that the lease
was not an improvident one at the time it was granted, and
• mass of evidence was read, showing that at that time
there was only • dilapidated wind cornmill and a cottage
on the land, and Mr. Batty Take the only surviving
trustee, who joined in the lease. had given evidence that
rei
the mooned rent was quite sate to the then nine,
and that a surveyor was em to ascertain the value.
Aloe, that at that period the was falling into ruin,
and the linelmelmi reeetved UK from Mrs. Stickney, at
aline en the Wes king realm], which sum was applied
to paying for • new roof mistime repairs of the chapel;
and moreover that she surrendered another lease which
she bad derived from a ilmoter lessee which had then 30
years to nos
His Honest, midis.' • reply, said the case de-
pended upon tens whether the lease of 1800
1 we. such • isms okerrypeshis the lease to have known
that the twellort, Milempor te the ebegsl. would 1» -t
aside; sad siesenllg. mbar" the wideness was sufficient
to •In the how with nodes of the treat for
the artpli. He doddered the lease to stand much
on the mom *Wig es • mere husbandry lease, which
when imolai eleherbg property was held to be bad; and,
moreover, **dome nimbi to the removal of buildings
was not a provident et pow provision, especially with re-
tenses In se seer the town of Hull. He thought
that the peas of UK which was paid, was not suftl-
cient to sustain the ISM ea the ground of adequacy of con-
sideration. Then, am the question of notice, he was of
opinion there was ease& to justify the court in holding
that Mrs. Shaw, thelessee, must or might have knows
that the property will be earity property. The consequenee
was, that the lease set aside, but it was not a case
in which costs shoal be given.
Mr. J. Hindi Palmer asked that the Attorney-General
might be put upon terms to confirm the under leases which
had been granted.
His Honour said he could not do that, although he con-
sidered it a proper case for such an arrangement to be
come tn.
I Mr. Rowidell Palmer, Mr.. Lloyd, Mr. Roupell, Mr.
I Humphreys, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. John Hinds Palmer, ap-
! pawed for the parties respectively concerned.

4,677
12,720
4,180
17,962
168

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.
amass us Haim—Baas' Into CAISPIIIIA Ma. harms Comaster,
Ma. Jon= Wternuir, Am) Ma. Jwinci Cuomo.
CROWN/ V. ASZLIT IT 11.—Niw C011110:1! LAW PILO-

C ZOO 11.3 Acv.—Pnacycs.
This action was tried before Lord Campbell on the 27th
of November last, when the plaintiff was non-suited.
Mr. Udall, for Mr. Cromont, now moved to set aside the
non-suit and for a new trial, on the ground of the im-
proper rejection of evidence. The question which turned
upon the construction of the 25th section of the Common
Law Procedure Act, was whether a party could deliver
fresh particulars of demand with his declaration when he
bad specially indorsed his writ according to the provisions
of that statute. The words of the act were to this effect :
when a writ has been specially indorsed, such special in-
dorsement shall be considered as particulars of demand,
and no further particulars of demand need be de-
livered unless required by a court or judge. The
learned counsel contended that them words left it
to the option of the plaintiff to deliver fresh particulars
with his declaration if he thought fit. In this case the
plaintiff had specially indorsed his writ, and also delivered
particulars of demand. Certain evidence was offered at
the trial, not warranted by the indorsement but coming
within the purview of the particulars of demand subse-
quently delivered; but the learned judge had refused to
receive it.
Hale nisi granted.

120
4,539
17,527
1,022

358
12,663
945
8,791
9,501
356
_136

16.i-2

464
22,006
1,791
597
2,196
3.717
6,346
770

;6;
1,950
693

BAIL COURT.-YESTEEDAT.

Birrnws £T Nat

646
1,631
526
1,663
14,763
2,717
1,091
1,584
2,239
916
396
430

noose Ms. hence FAL& AND Cosmos
Juana.
THIOIALD V. COTTNYELL AND 075115.
Mr. E. James (with whom was Mr. Jones) stated that
this was an action brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman
of fortune. against the sheriffs of Middlesex, for having
made a false return to a writ of execution issued by the
plaintiff against Lord Glengall. The plaintiff had been in-
duced in the year 1850 to advance to Lord Glengall, upon
the joint note of himself and a Mr. Jackson, his solicitor, a
sum of 6001. Tpe plaintiff, not beinif able to obtain pay-
ment of this money, was compelled to issue a writ, and the
was, that there was some property of Lord Glen-
t which was liable to be taken in execution by the
to whom a writ of execution bad been delivered.
The ease would be an extremely painful one, because it
would be his duty to put Lord Wengall in the witness-boz,
and, although he believed that the greater portion of the
Airniture carriage, and horses at the house occupied by
Lord Glengell were the private property of Lady Glengall,
pet that there was some personal property belonging to
Lard Mengel' which was liable to an execution, and that
would entitle the plaintiff to a verdict.
The writ, &e. having been put in, and a joint note of
Lord Glengall and Mr. Jackson for 6001.,
Lord Glengall was called, and said—l became Feeurity
fir Mr. Jackson against my will, for asum of 6001. I never
Imaehad • farthing of it, nor was it expended in my service.
I have a private note to prove what I say. I was told the
Money was to carry on the sale of my estates in Ireland,
but I have paid him 1,000/., and here is the order for the
payment of the costs. I reside in Grosvenor-street. I
`should say I had little property there. Some trifling things
—a wardrobe, but I could not say much more. I don't
know what g have there. By wardrobe I mean wearing
apparel. I don't know the value of it. I pay about 601. a
pear for it. I could not say it was worth half 2001.
Would you take 1001. for it ?
Lord Glengall—l never bought second-hand clothes. I
should not be safe in saying 1001.
The Judge—l think it should be what it would fetch at
a sheriff's sale.
Examination resumed—l believe there is not a person in
London who has so little clothes. I never had peer's robes
or coronet, or court dresses. I have no trinkets. I have
a clock I purchased of Lord Alvanley for 71. 10s. It was
bought by the plaintiff's attorney. I don't think I have any
ether pro rty there—no books—no wines. There are wines
vwi
by the trustees of Lady Glengall—probably of
ho el 2301. ; that is furnished to my table. I have
Imo belliget say own. I have no horses. There might be
i a glees liketand. I have no other property in the county
el Dtidillessz. Grosvenor-street hones is handsomely fur-