The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-15 00:00:00

M amt AL.

-•••••••••--
SALIM CDLLPSS on Busesose —At a nastier of the
eleoll et obi save al lie I Mr. J. Flint loath. sus et ths
mmiprass se IL 4 s Wand as sse le ts.
worse assysimed by dr Ammo M Mr.S.Cars or. Mr. Ala* leak Ids
▪ st irr Oben d Iminers Ow UM ha.. ilbss
MO di i tbe
usibminme nom wassemy molar
Mums Ise 60 plarrersig:Mttsd smatisw albs soap : Mmes.
lc A. Lem WM.; J. Dull, !Unsaid; W. SRL themmit; Brie
More;bp. ;W. K. JON" Osrsory ;W.
MO. Ila A.G. D. Tameartb; sou T. Weds, Dublin.

SPORTING.
BETTING AT MANCUEBTLII —Taws?.
Caserta Cur. —I,UOO to 26 son The Tarter (t), 1.000 to
Is sort out (t). LOOS 0,111 WI IktwoeU (t), 1,000 to to seat me
lieso (t) Lose as 10 opt Mast (t), 110110 to 10 apt Talon= (t).
Offers of 4i to Ima Commit sad 40 to I spit Mrs. Taft. The others
as before.

tats, Enttlitanut
EQUITY tUUNTB—Satvitna(.
newts the Lard asswastke.
Davis AND Wirs V. KtIIOeIUkD.—FADILT AlltAXoll.
mint —Beware us Disc.—This appeal from a decree of
Vice C est isellor Loofa drum was opened last Thursday,
mad tunpied the ought the greater part of that day and of
Fraley and Saturday. Mrs. D rtes, the pl tiatif, is sister to
the dales ,ant, and the question in the case arse, in this
smut r : In and ar.s,ious to the year 1822 Flavin-. Ignatius
Xissittord, lather of oho plaintiff and defendant. carried on
the basin as ot a homer. miller, and cored( al.!, on Bulwark-
kill. in the county of Kent. In 1822 he took a brewery
adiniaing the mill, and put his eldest ion, Edward Love
Kingsford is menage it, as the plaintiffs alleged, for the
benefit and support of the whole family, which then con-
sisted of the father and his wife and ten . hildren, includitte
the and Eiward, who am the eldest, and war ted then tens
mautke of the age of 21 years. Two of the children, besides
him, wire by a fotnao wit*, the other seven were the issue
isf the same mannage. B. L. Kingsford carrie't n the
brewery busbies. trim 1822 to 1825, wit Lout profit, further
then that he was alin of contribute suffieiently to the support
Obis father and the family, whodl liven together. The father
took the hem It of the Insolvent Dfhtore Act in 1824. In
1823 Edward L. King-turd retired from the management of
the csiscorm, which as., in his bands, b coming quite unpro-
amnia*. His neat brother, Alfred Kingsford, the defen-
dant, was then put into the inanagemm., with a bslappe
of 151 10. only in his favour on the b inks The hus;ness
booms prosperous in ha hands, and in 1827 larger premises
were required, and they were found at B iekland, at or near
Dover. Io the asimistlon for the purchase of lease of
that .roperty the father was a party, as w sold appear from
the corrensondence. From the time the d. fendvnt entersh
en the premises at Burchland his busies's, as a brewer, Was
meat pre alienate, and he regularly allowed Ms father and
family from 31. to 61 a week out of the profit-, for their
maintenance. In 1839. after the death Id the lather, the
defend -nt, on taking an account of his ,ed accumule-
tons of profits, frmsd that the property and :main c• .am mod
with the brewery amounted to about 16,00 W., which he pro-
Wm divide in• a ten parte, out Ire e Alf of his
es tea children, including himself, n.d further
to divide his ow.. share equally ark.aia •he satin
children of his &that by I.4o4ns:id martins so that the
amount of each of the seven shares war 1 7;Otf., or there-
about., sad he gave sash am sekaosidedguitnt in writing
that he was debtor to hoe or bet to the, anianut, and he
pail the interest of their shafts regularly to the female
plaintiff nod others of the family. The 41.41.adact married
some lime after that &elevation of divitti -a f the property.
and si4 sister, Jaw, tne eldest of the a- • II area ,if the
father sad his smite •ife, married B eh-.a r DAVI!, the
other plain iff, is 1844 The fend nt ton: nomissenilid
that a sett'. aunt of er mid stint should he made pr•
to the znuriage, but nine Ina made. 11 lot. ti Mr Davis,
the huatoand, grimdied that • settleoti at shattio be then
made in whet to mak.- a certain prisv..a.a .ar ht. wile and
children in the event, es he said, of any seeri:cot to himself,
who wee in teed+. I. the e wroyoud“ hen teak
place between Mt . a..' Mrs. Davie on V • ate sal the
defendsat on the other, he refused to pay the plaintiff's
shah at once, alleging that as it wJ of his free gift
and bounty, he would pay it only at his conve-
nience. Mr. sod Mn,. Dien then fled their bid, and
claimed payment of vie 1.7801. as due .0 term .f r,ght, and
not from the gift or bounty of the deter.' At. Their ease,
ea set north in the bill. wag, that the deters?' n• MA upon
the management of the brewery in 1823 ena4inted it
for 14 years down Vs 1839 under an sr ..harigient or un-
der!, ending with the hither to superb:lr ter •ue erincern for
the benefit of the whole family for 14 pie-. and alter that
for Ms own 'archive benefit, and pa • .;thire of sash an
arrangement they ref rod to the seta of he defendant
and to the amounts kept by him. Ti.,, er tries of edraners
regularly each wee k tor the 'maintenance of f tinily were
reverts d to a. proms ut the armor A4..1 AO were,
as the plainiiff. ail. gal. the Gael c ikon ha, and amassing
up of the profits in l&T), at Vie capireier. of th.. 11 year.,
and th acknowledgment then b the defaneant that he
stood inleb ed to each if his broken, and sitters in the
sums bstoro mentioned, for which he regularly paid inte-
rest as adt hi, an lhecv n "add tl.s a :4.1.14.f some of
the shares. The d. ft of ail, in7tu irvialeati denied any mach
arrangement, express or implied, and insulate I tliot all he
ever give the firmly ur intended to pie bee
Mt asd bounty, without any legal sill emioa to do so.
The Ifice.Chionalho, %gain thu heath* A tor ...use, was of
opaline that the minis in the m fazes enu, .s fa 1828 and the
acts or the defend int, und valiant t arr.-y.4,ns in the c..rre-
igninileace at the det•aal iut with his i•vars old tatters, im-
plied a entree. ,ir errangeinent haw, n th fief natant and
his father in 1828 stvl Lis Ilanotir id for p merit of
the share claimed by the plaintiff with interest. The appeal
was sesins• t..a; ,It cr. •
Mr. Matins r it. the absence of Mr. J. Run cll, his leader),
argued the case tar t, e sippellant, and cuataiale.l that there
was no goosed to silage or assume a ...tor Scr or arrange-
nt. The la- her was an insolvent in 1824. He never was
a brewer, he was a m Ikr, and failed. Mr. Edward L.
Kingsford tied to is.n,e the twee, ry, mat he was same
medal. The detendsor then took trie cone rn, and was
eminently snocesetul, and was ever liberal tad generous to
his lathe, 'a family The whsle of Au- same edema/ad to
them, and the who!e of what be still lit-esA d for them was
gift and bounty. He inigieed on biomes( am nd obligation
to share his proptrt) with his brut', ire sad sine», and
that obligation he had already discharged to some,
and would, no doubt, to all of th. /1, hut beieg
largely concerned itt trade, le would rot run the
risk of at once r• dueium his capital until he would find it
hi. cony. Mena to do an Tsis court 'mild rot convert a gin
into a debt. or ami al into a legal oblige ion. By the se-
feadant's ackunwl, dement to each of his feather,' and sisters
he imposed a moral obligation on hisasal; it that was bind-
ing, the plaintiffs had ;heir remedy at law by en maim ise
the written memorandum. The bill did not ask for any
aceouat, hut mealy tor payment of a coos certain with in-
terest. wish was a lit matter foe an sciion, as in "Foley v.
Hdl " In the court b-low the case wee put nu the footing of
family smog, ntet.ts, which courts ot tquity c..fo•te; but
the foundation at those tamely Manumit Ida was a compro-
mise of a d•ubtiel claim, which this court holds to be •
valuable consideration fur an agreement tve.wern the parties
He cited "Cans e. Cann" (1 P. Was., 723). "8 apilton v.
Staudt. se" (1 hub e. 2), " Pallen e. Kr..a," (2 Atkins, 587),
"Wi cheeky e. Wyentfley" (2 &len 171), "8 ockleye.
Btockley" (1 Iles. and Bea., 23), "Vor-t et V. Gov "
(3 Swaast, 463), and " Neale e Net 1.-" (1 Keen, 672), to
show that this court will give effect f tudy iurangtments
on the principle of • compromise of a dosubtlui
as the consideration end foundation of riga arrangements,
bat will not aid in *armies vela tar, arrangements
or I. te:aing moral oblistatloes into ;egul liabilities.
There were nom* late caws, as Dales. et. Cippin" (4 MyL
a Cr) and "J. forme. Jeffreys" (1 Cra4; & Phil, 138), de-
eded us the priaespie that where a Ir. limitary gift is perfected
by weal cameleer e or delivery, equity w;11 ',Menai& it, but
will net wore* seers gift where it it not perfsmed ; aad for
that maims the eras of "Ellis e. Ninuno" (Lloyd & Oneld),
a derides. of Sir le Su/Idea's is 'relator, was di/approved of
is tha two last eked area. This is the first case in which ft
has been attempted us turn as act of K :woos bounty into a
legally valid sad beading obligation. He submitted, there-
fore, that the deems ought to be /evened, and the plaintiffs
left to their soli .0 at law upon the note or memorandum.
Mr. Teed, Mr. Semis-on, and Mr. Shehhe .re, severally
addressed the roar for the plaintiff, in support of the
decree, and contended that there was an arrangement in
1822 between toe lather and his eldest sun, Edward Love
Kingsford, to conduct the brewery MUNI% for the bent fit of
the whole family; end the latter acted upon that arrange-
ment, which was eeatinued spa the defendant's taking
the manage= at of the soarers. And the continued
existence of auett an arrangement was evidenced
by the deierdan 'a own acts, by the various letters
that ossard hetwei n him end his brutners and utters,
inelsd-
log the pianitiy., sad 4anecia ly by the entries in the books
of accounts, one of which was 100/. (named evert year ear
the Impulse of menegemeut. Why should the defendant
make that o ate, If he was managing the concern for Lis own
exclusive heat fi ? The defendant himm-lf suggested to the
plaintiff to tact " her shaneLaregured to het own i.e by a
setteemeat before her earnings. It was on the faith of that
Matte, as her fostnne, that else and the other plaintiff inter-
married. The quesriun in the cause was whether this share
was a Ott from the defeti-V_Lor a debt due from him of
right, as Pen of tie prufits 'milli, from the brewery, of '
with the /Oradea, was manager, a- el as such he Is ease •
trouser or the other ehilrire n's shares fifth* profits. The eon-
trod or armottement was for 14 years, which expired in
1b39. The allegatois of gift was incoesistent with all the
sets of the defend.nt at, and previous to, 1839. He had
roam paid the shar s to his eldest brother, and to Whom of
the family. They relied on the cue of •• Wycherky v. Wy-
chselsy," as applicahle to, and decisive of, this case.
Mr. Malin* replied.

The Dant ChaßeClL.r bevies, is the course of the ergs-
ed, the ern oat fevers! oh...metier,' to the same vice* as
these which lure fuller/ said, at the close of the lirnantent,
that he Gorda not help thinking that tris was a meet Wen
tufts.: us for all lefties not only from the ozpradve lid•
iSm: hal already takes piece, but still more from thre
ae ti doe th„- is kis Vi4W a the ems may be yet pesbding,
that act azii any sittseisl ipasebea of Wens; butt
rod, !ca
meow
•:.1111thig, te ekes, athaidini

the evidence, the• nit Was to be attributed. It was impot
sills to speak in terms of too much usggeration of the be
nevolt cc. awl kind emu g grimed by the defecdate, and
admitted by all his famil. He had devoted the best yeah
of hie Wei* realise a competency for his family with the ear-
eain• y of ruin if be proved utionseenful ; hut, being sucesee-
Gel, he had made a diei.inn ot his profit., and engaged be re-
serve to sack member of his fatally one tin h at the whole
amount, adding al'o thprtnetenell which waa his own to the
.bares of the others. OAR might starch all history with.
cut meeting with a purer instance of bet:evt•l ore, and
no doubt to a stied et agitated u that of the de-
fendant's appeared to be, was irksome to find that the
collieats of his bounty should treat his bsnevolence is a mere
matter of right. and that when they obtained an ecknowledg-
meat of his kindness they suoald turn round on him, and treat
it as a claim of right which they could enforce in a court of
law. Under such circumstances one cguld not feel any wonder
at inch an attempt excitiag indignation. This view of the
ems arose on the supposition of the invalidity of the claim of
tie plaiselles to a legal participation in the profits. There
web another septet of the ease from which attention could
not ►e withdrawn. It could not be supposed that because
t►e husband of the defendant's sister gave him reason for com-
plaint, it was the intention of a person of such acknowledged
hesevolense to deprive the sister of what he had originally
intended to bestow an her. The defendant could not be sup-
posed in sorsequenee of the conduct of the husband to leave
the wife, his sister, the only person of the family,without any
particip grim in his 'minty ; on the other hand, he (the Lord
Chancellor) could cot suppose the husband to be so ena-
moured of law as to decline to accept that which kis relative
held to be a benty. He could not, for a moment, think
that the plaintill's husband could be so foolish as that, or
the defendant ao unkind as to leave his sister without a pro-
vision. He could net divest himself of the impression that
the matter was capable of a private arrangement. and with
that view he would abstain from any expreision of his opinion
judicially, on • ease that depended very much on the effect
of minute details, sad on which he could not come to a satis-
factory conclusion without a very attentive examination
of them. It might, however, be right that he
Amulet state for the guidance of the parties, that he
feared he mart have great difficulty in maintaining the
Vice-Chancellor's decree. His Honou• thought there was
evidence to support the alleged arrangement, but when he
(the Lord Chancellor) found two persons of the family
giving evidence. one of them the very person (Edward I.
Kingaferd) who must know better than any other the exist-
ence of an agreement, if any, for the division of the profits—
and when he found that these two persons were not sub-
jected to any arose-examination, it was quite (fear that the
nature of the contract, if any existed, bad not been suffi-
ciently inquired into. Tim Vies-Chancellor seemed to think
it was proved ; his lordship could not agree in that condo-
eke. It was not a contract all ged to have been made be-
tween the plaintiffs and the defendant and wher parties, and
it was quite contrary to the practice of the oust to proceed
on such evidence as that at present before it. If he should
be called on to Mapes of the case, he would have to consider
whether he scald not retain the bill and give the plaintiffs
an opportunity of trying the question of contract or no
contract in a court of law, or whether he must dis-
miss the bill and leave the plaintiffs to suck legal
right as he might be able to assert in the memorandum. On
these polio, however, he would not, without a more attentive
examination of the prove. dines, give any opinion. Accord-
ing t his present tenon ssion he could hot maintain the
decree, but he entertained a hope that the parties would
make an effort to overcome their feelings and come to an
amicable arrangement, and, with that view, he propoud to
let the matter stand over for a week or mere if necessary.
WARD O. WARD —Mr. Btuart asked that a petition pre-
sented in this cm- might be entered for hearing on short
notices. (The matter relates to a dispute bstween husband
and wife as to the custody of the children, and has been be-
fore the Lord Chancell ir in his private r00u..) —The Lord
Chancellor, having granted the application, add-d that he
had received several letters from Yr. Ward misting to the
matter in dispute. It was improper for any suitor to ad-
drew letters to him on the subject of the suit, and he would
not hear anything except in court, and from profes►ional per-
sons duly instructed.