The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-14 00:00:00

Maw mend in law, the lady having then attained her twenty-
Int yew ; but the influence of it still continued, and it was
under that influence that she put her name to the note in
1846, without knowing the obligation Me wes incrarring.
The wise of the defendants was that they negotiated the note
is the usual way of their business, being informed that
killidlaittand, whose name was endorsed on it, was a lady of
preporty • but without any knowledge of dee relainni is
whisk tie had 'stood to the drawer at the now. Besides, the
otooerd by the note we. that Mr. Ileclean owed
the lady the 10101., and it mu a fact that he was largely in-
debted to ha.

Before the Raster of the Bak.
ATI.OIIIIIT-011/111L4L r. Bacions.-Bv. LBONAIRD'II Hos-
rrraL, NEWARI.—This was the petition of the Attorney
-
General for leans to Me a bill of review. The original in-
Ibrmation stated an set of parliament of 16 Charles I. re•
• citing that the hospital of St. Leonard's at Newark had loon
before memory founded for the maintenance of a few poor
people, and that in 1417 the Bishop of Lino made an
order for the regulation of the chanty. The present master
of the hospital had been appointed in 1788. The question
raised by the information was, whether the master was en-
; titled to the surplus rents and profits after providing for the
- ,inkkein "lithe charity. At the hearing the master of the
aßrrt WO directed to approve of a scheme fir the future me-
ad* charity, the court intimating its opinion
=rat psdrenting the trusts, the matter would be en-
* •111kd reds midge. The present petition stated that since
- Ike bare*, evidence had been discovered of the contents of
the *IOW foundation deed, and on this ground the At-
torney-General made the present application.—Meson.
Tides, Turner, and Blunt supported the petition; Messrs.
iimissaley and De Ciex, for the master of the hospital, did not
the application, it being understood that all objeo-
, =hould be open at the hearing of the new infortnauon.
' Master of the Rolls, under thus eircornmancee.
grunted the -

_l,lefors the

of Enema.

HILES e. 1.11001117-4CCOUNTS BITW/liN SOLICITOR AND
CLIRNT.—The Vice Chancellor delivered judgment in this
' ease, which was heard in December last. The application
wee for • rehearing ef • cause, which was instituted for the
dane of investigating certain accounts that had been re-
ed as settled accounts, and that the securities in the de-
t's hands should be declared to be only valid for the
amount actually received, and that certain conveyances
should be set made.—The Vice-Chancellor said the principal
question in this cue was, whether the accounts should stand
as they were, or whether they should be re-opened on the
ground of the relation of solicitor sad client which existed
between Mr. Moore and the plaintiff. It appeared to his
honour that beyond all doubt the relation of attorney and
client did subsist ; and it had been decided by Lord
Reclesdele and also by Lord Eldon, in eases whirl
emu before them upon several occasions, that where this re-
lation existed and the solicitor hul taken security from his
client, it was necessary by extrinsic evidence to show what
advances had been made by the client. His honour con-
sidered himself concluded by these authorities, and he must
. allow the accounts to be opened ; but this would not extend
to third persons, who did not stand in relation of solicitor
and client—their rights could not be prejudiced. A question
. had been raised as to the payment of interest upon certain
moneys said to have been laid out upon repairs. His
honour thought the fairest thing was, under the circum-
stances alleged in this cue, to allow interest upon suck re-
CLARK V. ARCRIBALD.—BILL AGAINST A RAILWAY
COXPANY.—DINLORRIR ovnaniumn.—This cue came on
upon demurrer to a bill, filed by, plaintiff on behalf of
himself and all other the shareholders in the Staffordshire
And Shropshire Railway Company against the de-
ft:dant, who was • member of the provisional _commit-
toe. It appeared that the railway in question was projected
. in the yea- 1845, and the plaintiff applied for and obtained
thirty shave in the undertaking. It was then a ivertised
that all the shares had been allotted, and the plaintiff, on the
faith of this representation, paid up the deposits upon his
shares, amounting to 821., and signed the parliamentary con •
tract. The plaintiff subsequently took 170 more shares in
an undertal tug for an extension of this railway. It appeared,
however, tk at the whole of the deposits were not paid up,
and the directon being unable to proceed with the affairs of
the compuy, a meeting was called, under the act of pull*.
ment passed for that purpose, end it was resolved that the
company should be dissolved without bankruptcy. The
members of the managing committee then retired, and kept
the residue of the funds, amounting to 15,7001.,
the hands of the defendant. The bill alleged that the
rights of all the shareholders were identical with
those of the plaintiff, and it prayed an account against the
defendant, and that the court would declare that the plain-
tiff and the other shareholders were only liable to pay so
much of the expenses as they would have been justly liable
to pay in case all the deposit' had been paid up. The bill
then prayed that the surplus might be paid over to the share-
holders, and that the deiendant might be restrained from
interfering further in the affairs of the company.—
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Lloyd appeared in support of a gene-
ral demurrer the ill
Vice-Chancellorsnd Mr. Jones in support of the
bill.—The said he did not see how this bill
could be maintained. It was alleged that there bad been a
dereliction of duty in several persons besides the defendant,
and one person alone was made a defendant upon the record.
It was impossible to admiaister justice unless other persons
wbo were members of the company were made parties. He
did not think that the statements in the bill were sufficiently
intelligible for the court to come to any decision upon the
question. His opinion was, as he had stated in a case now
upon appeal before the Lord-Chancellor, that • bill should be
fairly intelligible, so that any person of ordinary understand-
ing could find out the meaning of it. It should not merely
be English, but intelligible English. Under these circum-
stances he should allow the demurrer ; and he did not see
that there would be any use in giving permission for the bill
to he amended, as he thought the whole scheme was wrong,
end it seemed to be an endeavour on the part of the plaintiff
to slip into some relief on the ground merely of his being the
sole plaintiff.

Before Vier llor Knight Brace.
8/1180)1 v. EDORWORTH.—RAILWAY LIMBILITIM—This
was a suit instituted by a shareholder in the Wreshius,
Nantwich, sod Crewe Railway Company, on behalf of him-
self and the other shareholders, not defendants, praying that
the accounts of the company might be taken, and the assets
d among the shareholders. A demurrer had been al-
lowed to the bill as it originally stood, with leave to
amend. The cause now came on to be heard on
a plea to the amended bill, the substance of the plea
being that a shareholder had taken proceedings at
law to recover the whole of his deposit —Mr. Bacon
and Mr. Fieeling, in support of the plea, contended
that the bill could not he considered as filed on behalf of all
the shareholders other than the defendants, when one of
them, instead of being contented wi'h the relief sought by
the bill, took proceedings to recover his whole deposit —Mr.
Russell and Mr. A. Chlsholme Anstey supported the bill
The Vice• Chancellor allowed the plea, but gave the plaintiff
leave to amend again.

Before
WILSON V. BRORT.—CONTRACT MISREPRESENTATION.
—The particulars of this ease were stated in this journal in
the report of the argument in November last. His Honour
now delivered judgment. The plaintiffs, it will be remem-
bered, had advanced 2.5001. to one Bright upon the security
of certain contracts, which the latter was under for the pur-
chase of 3,000 tone of pig iron. The defendants, Meters.
Short and Mahony, were employed by Bright as his broken
in the transactions, and upon completing the coutracts they
gave to him " bought notes " stating the quantity and price
of the iron sold, but aot disclosing the names of the sellers.
The plaintiff', before advancing their money to Bright,
inquired of Messrs. Short and Mahony whether the de-
posit upon the contracts had been paid, and why the
sellers' names did not appear upon the notes ?
The defendants in answer stated that the deposit
bad been paid, and assured the plaintiffs that there
were bona-fide sellers in the transaction, and that there was
nothing unusual in the concealment of their names, as there
were many speculators in iron who were unwilling that their
names should be dieclosed. They offered also to guarantee
the fulfilment of the contract by the sellers. The money
was then advanced to Bright, by whom the bought notes,
together with the benefit of the contracts, were transferred
to the plaintiffs. The price of iron having afterwards fallen
considerably the plaintiffs urged Bright either to give them
ow additional security, or at once to get the iron sold. Nego-
(*aloha were then set on foot for that purpose, in the course
of which it was discovered that the defendants Short and
Mahony were themselves the only sellers in the trans-
actions with Bright. The plaintiffs then applied to
Short and Mahony for a repayment of the deposits,
and upon their refusal to comply filed the present
bill, praying for such repayment, and that the contract in
question might he declared void.—The defence set up waa,
that the plaintiffs and Bright had throughout been aware of
the fact that the defendants were the only sellers, and that
Bright, if any one, was the only person entitled to claim
the relief which was sought by the Honour, after
going through the facts and the evidence in the cause, made
a decree for payment of the deposit, with interest, to the
plaintiffs, together with their costs of suit.—Messrs. Hominy,
Bacon, Rolt, Hare, and Cole appeared for the different parties
upon the record.

COURT OF QUEEN'Banco.S BENCH.
Sittings in
Lit1:111 v. BOTDELL.—IiaroaTANT POINT IN THE NEW
IlleoLvENT .ACT.—In this case, which was an action on a
biller exchange tried before Lord Denman at the sittings
after last term, at Guildhall, when there was a verdict for •
the plaintiff, Mr. Knowles, Q.C., moved an 'nest of judg-
ment. The defendant had pleaded that after the accruing of •
the cause of action, and before the commencement of the
sue, he bad filed a petition, according to 6 & 6 Vic., c. 16,
in the Court of Bankruptcy, and that a final order for pro-
teetion and distribution was made. presentedff replied that
at the time when such petition wasthe defendant
owed divers debts, and had not any property or debts due to
him, or any
.estate or effects whatever. To which the de-
fendant rej, ined that he had a certain debt of 21. 15s. due to
him at the time from one Thomas Pearson. A cur-rejoinder
denied this tact. At the trial they called Pearson, and he
(Mr. Knowing must admit that he did not make out the re-
joinder ; but he should contend that the petition and final
order were a sufficient defence to the action. The point had
not arisen before ; and it seemed that a notion was enter-
tained that the act to which he had referred only ap-
plied where a party seeking to take advantage of it
had some estate to be distributed among his creditor,. Now
he submitted that to be an error ; and, at all events, that it
was a matter for the decision of the commissioner before
whom it came ; and after he had decided and granted his
final order, that was an answer to any action for any debt
Which existed prior to the petition being filed. As to the
necessity of a petitioner having some estate, he apprehended
that the words which would be relied on in favor, of that
construction were only introduced for the purpose of se-
canng a
who had no distribution of the estate where there was one; but
aparty estate of course stood in need of the