The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-13 00:00:00

Resale for her aspogelesis. fl. marriage took place in May,
1947. bat owleg wuebeeppillihremes between them a lops-
Nati took plow es the Oth m hut manta, atter which the
bombead mace Is the boom in charge of the foraltunt
aad was promediNg to MU lt.—Tae Vice Chancellw granted
the Wanda&
°OTOS e. WASNIOVIUPL—INIUNCTIOS TO ITIOTLILUI
TITI SALO Of WATIMPIIO,I7 DIMINO DISOOLTILD.—Igr.
Stuart and Mr W. Conpsr Mona to climolm as Hamden
graated nn the Ws of Numb*, to restrain the dalloodost
hem statue any watarproo: dsbbiatt purporting to be memo.
ketursd by the plaintiff. Mr. Samell, on behalf of the
*heft, used that Um ease might "Mad over for time bas-
goer eflldavits whisk hail besalled try Use cehodans.—!he
Vier•Ctoneeller moresieff this objembre r Um elm Wig
heard ; and no further Tiembibm being rolood, the wise was
made for dissolving the lidoesdeet.

adore ViessCheenellor Knight firma
Br TALUS BP•CIMMt. —Rs •OSICCLTURIST
C Wit•T NI • TIADI/10 01 Colt
m▪
astess4 Co .—This was the petition of coatribu
Series to • joint-stock sompany, to have its affairs wound up
ander the JoinsBtock Companies Winding-up Act. The
ehjecis of the company were the insuraace of Larose, cows,
and other animals, whether quadruped or biped, being pro
party in live 'inch, Wafting to farmers, keepers of exhibi
Seas of salamis, to., against death or disease, whether occa-
sioned by alaugster, best, infection, or suspected taint or
iefectioo, or from seotegions, epidemic, or endemic disease,
or telkhout apparent esase.-11r. Swanton end Mr. Collins,
fa weet of the petition, contended that, although the 00m.
y was not in exisames at the pawing of the act 7
rs V 30.. 0. 111, whit& was referred to in the Joint-
Bee* Compaaies Winding-cep Act, in deleting some of the
sompani.• to which the latter act was meant to apply. yet
that the words "now eakting," in the former act, could no
be rant to be strictly interpreted. Should, however, the
Main he of a different opinion, still they argued that the
Illteipsay in question was formed for trading or eommercial
purposes. and therefore tams within other words of the act.
The Vice Chancellor, without calling on fir. Russell, who
appeared to oppose the petition, said that he continued to be
at the opinion which he had expressed in a former cue,
that the remedies afforded by the Joint-Stock Companies
Wiading-up Act were not intend. d to be enforced except in
eases plainly falling Willa* its moaning. His Honour
thought the present case much tee doubtful to be treated as
sae stadia/ withia the scope of the act, and the petition must
therefore be &missed, sad, under the circumstances of the
present we. with mete.
Bs PASTS Tres Istcroasiuot or BROMPTON, WI Kix-
SIINOTOSI C114111171= —This was a petition for the appor-
titionwet of charities. gives to Kensington parish, ananeg
the districts Into Willa that parish has been divided, accord-
fag to the provision of the Church Building Acts. Among
ether charities were those known as Lord Camden's sad
Lady Ca-tides** gifts.
Tee Vice Cow-calor thought he was not at liberty to hold
that L rd Camden's gilt was a charitable devise, bequest, or
gift, mid. , or given to, or for the use of the perish, within
the messing et the S& 9 Vie., c. 70, s. 22. His Honour,
however, thought 'bat Lady Camden's gift was apportionable
uder the. Act. It bad be.. assumed, but was by no means
char, hat • hooey, r • ease for apportionment was made out,
the pr. peg rem given to a district was to be applied by the
incutoti st d the district church. Without meaning to de-
cide the point, his Honour's impression was, that although
there might be a case tor apportionment, yet it might not be
neeewarj to Direct the distribution of the fund to be made by
the incumbent or the churchwardens, or by him and the
churchwardens. As to several of the charities there was not
serf cio nt informetion ti enable the court to decide whether
they were app ationahle or not. Inqoiries must be directed
as to these be tore the Illsoter,

Wore elesawneettor wigwam.
8111111 V. PALIIIII.--CONSTAUCTIUK or WILL.—His
H. hour tithe, red judgment in this case, the question is
when arose upon the will of lie. William Findlay, of
Therees, in the parish of Sedgeley, in Yorkshire. The testa-
tor, utter providing for the enjoyment of his real and per-
sons' estate by Ede widow for her life, directed that at her
death his reei irate should be sold by his trustees, sad the
=lasaid applied and distributed by them in manner
g, that is to my, one-third thereof unto his cousin,
James &mbar, if be should be then living ; but, if he
should be then dead, then to his personal representative or
representatives, if more than one, share and share alike.
The remainder of the protweds was given in thirds to James
Shanks and Charles Smith, two other of the testator's cots
Mae, io sitniter terms. The questions were arse, whether
the shares of Straehan and Shanks, whim both died in the
lifetime of the testator's widow, became vested in them ta
the testator's death ; secondly, whether, if that were so,
such shares belonged to their executors, or to their mit of
kin ; and thiodb whether to the next of kin according to
col senguitity, or according to the statute of distributions.—
Hie Weimer wee of opinion that the share. in questi.m be-
came vested in the legatees en the death of the testator ;
and belt noted, not to their executors, but to the parties enti-
tled as next of kin, ander the statute of distribuidas,

COURT or QUERN'S BlNCH.—Y•evithimv.
Pitney In Demo.
Tau QIIIIN • DIXON.. CAN •Pi lISON FILL ?Ur
OPTIC' Or X•TO/I wanes NAN' IS ONITTID MOM INS
DUNGEN LIST t—ln tide tale a rule had been obtained by
Mr. Knowles last tutu, as Hug on the defendant, the Mayor
of Carlisle, to show cause why an infeematkia is the nature
of a quo +errant°, should not be Vested ageism' him, with
the view of ascertaining by whet authority he filled that
office. Tee groan ca which the rale had been obtained
wee, that the name tithe defendant was not on the burgess
list el the bonsegh, sad he was therein' Not by law a coun-
cilor at the ties.' of his Oinks to the aloe o' mayor. The
objection was founded cm two seetins of the sth & 6th
11. IV., cep. 76. It weaned ken the fete that lie.
Dizor, who had retired true besisaa, was as of the oldest
Inhabitant. of Carlisle, and had, keel the hatanduetian of the
Mssicipal Returns Act, been • member of the town enneil.
asemb.r 01 Aldermen mad commillore la the bernigh
forty, and on the 9th of November defendant was Inani-
mately eeeteci mayor of the borough by 36 ef the
numbers of the town council. It ass subset uently found
that his aurae • as not oaths burgem roll fur the .arrest year,
it having been accidentally omitted by the overseer. Renee
the application for the rule which now cease on for arse-
inent.—Mr. Marti., Q.C., ia showing cause, contended tkat
as the defendant was molded to be on the burgess roll,
although his name was net eatually placed there, he was de
facto a councillor of the borough, and the mayor being
selected from the mum-Mors, he had been properly elected.
Miriam, the relator, a puma called Richard Porter, was
swum in tie afSdavits to be an individual who had sought
alms within the last year, and was, therefore, not a proper
person to institute each proceedings, he having in feet been
put forth by a party for party parposes.-Bir F. Thesiger
was .bout to adorer the court in support of the rule, Lord
I). noun. however, intimated that there was sulkiest
doubt on the point to render it desirable that it should be
fully areutd, and the rale must. therefore, be made
absolute.

BAIL COURT.—YIIITIRDAT.
Sittings Is Betwo.—S,kee Mr.fostioe Sri'.
IN as SCOTT —APPLICATION TO ATKIN, AX ATTOII-
- OFF THZ RoLLO.—lo this eve Mr. Robinson had ob•
tamed last term • rule nisi, caning on a Mr. Montagne
Douglas 30:01, an attorney of the court, to *bow cause why
be should not be struck off the rolls.—From .he statement
of the learned onentel, it appeared that Mr. Scott had been
Convicted id felony at the Central Criminal Court, and TM
now an •ergoing his sentence at the Clerkenwell House of
Correction. An attempt had been made to serve the rule
upon him, but it had beledowing to it being contrary to the
prior regulations to um any process on a prisoner during
the time that he was unuergenag his punishment. The *Wi-
eder to the law society bail applied to the county magi,-
trates requesting them to allow the rule to be served
uonn the prisoner, but the application was refused. Under
these circumstances, Mr. Robinson now moved for a rule to
show cause why service uppoenn the keeper of the Clerkuwell
prison should not be eoeeidered as good service upon MScott
himself.—Mr. Justice Rile observed that if the peewee could
not be regularly lured upon the prisoner, according to the
prison rules, certainly the keeper of the prison could not
himself wens the rule upon Mr. Scott. —Mr. Robinson would
then apply to have the rale enlarged until Trinity Term, as
Mr. Scott would nyt be met at liberty until the month of
June neat. it would be eisavenient that the rule should be
enlarged to the east day but one of Trinity Term, as Mr.
Scott wool,' have undergone his sentence by about the
middle of the :eras.—The motet granted the &pollution.
haw Pawn
Lune e. Itansm—PionneoaT Morns.—Mr. Watson,
Q.C.. and Mr. Carrie. appeared fur tie plaintiff; and Mr.
BassiesYi Q.C.,with whom was Mr. Hayes, ciondswited the eau
on the part of the defendant. This win scud= brought by
an attorney carrying on bedtime in Norfolk-street, Strand,
as the holder of the defendant's prsmtssory note for 3004 ,
against the Hon. Capt. Bahamas Dalrymple Wardlaw Ram.
my. The defendant tad formerly served is the 14th Light
Dragoons, but was at present in the 75th Poot,whigh regiment
was new in Ireland. The promissory note had been endorsed
by Mr. T. Roberts, a solicitor, to Mr. Nathan, the sheriff's
officer, and by Mr. Nathan to the present plaintiff. The
deteodant pleaded that he did not make the note in ques-
tion ; that he had bat to one Atkins, AL the Berkeley Club,
in Albeeteriestrest, of which place Atkins was the pry-
prietor, the sum of 6001, at a game called Huard ; that the
defendant then gave to Atkins his cheque for 6001., end bie
subsequently gave the promissory note to Mr. R•berte in
respect of the debt due to Atkias. The defendant further
pleaded that the promissory note for 3001. bad been endorsed
by Roberts to Nathan, and by Nathan to Lewis, without
any consideration.—Mr. Watson, on behalf of the plaintiff,
baying briefly stated hie case, proceeded to call a Mr.
Cooper, a clerk in the service of lessen. Cu and Co., the
army agents, who proved the peosabeory note to be in the
defendant's handwriting.—Mr. Henry Levy, brother to the
plaintiff, proved the endorsement of the promissory note by
Roberts to Nathan, and by Nathan to the plaintiff.
Mr. Hamfrey then addressed the jury for the defendant.
H. said his learned friend Mr. Watson had observed that he
thought the detenciant was very ill-advised In setting up as
• defease that the promissory note was given in reepeet of
the SOW, which he had lost at play, and that if sporty played
who was willing to pocket the winnings, should as be lucky,
be ought to pay when be bet. He (Mr. Humfrey) agreed
with his learner{ frayed In the general truth of his remark,
bot be thought that a In the situation of the defend-
dant was ant likely to Pint—tai Berkeley Club. The de-
fendant hot beeet Isdwd 10 let and play at the Berkeley
Club, IA 4I• Mbar emasioce Plee the one now before the
court, led le sues of nosey. On the night when the
ess Na ISIS. wee given the do mits% had lost at this dab
300rts hard soh. Mr. Rollefte wee an attorney, who
acted on behalf of Atkins, sad led Lid tzlasattions with the
dohndost roupwaft ether at of many won at pay by
Adder of the entt. The treat day a :gss CIPL sass 7
hod het the MK, for while be gave his uheqllse be wrote
• to Mr. Moline about It, and satuquantly ,•aw ids} Mr.
Robertip 'eked him how snob be sold pay dons;. apes