The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-19 00:00:00

low and Vaughan, who were in d.bt to them a conaid?rable
sum of money that all they knew about the parties was,
that Miss Maitland was poseesaed of property, and had at-
tained her majority , end that it was not incumbent upon
them to sot &bent inquirice as to the fiduciary CORM:SIM
which raided between her and Maclean ; that Vouch as ob-
ligation existed, all mercantile transactions would be greatly
tittered, and every person, before discounting a bill, would
have to make inquiries about the parties whoa, names ap-
peared upon it that were wholly incompatible with businees.
The Vice-Chancellor said he should continue the injunc-
tion. It appeared to him to be • case which required further
investigation ; but some of the facts were undisputed. It ap-
by the defendants' answer that it had come to their
knowledge that the young lady had been the ward of
Maclean, that she bad lived under his protection, and had
attained her majority in September, 1831. It was alan
within their knowledge that before 1818 Maclean was
in difficulties; this they knew from transactioas which
had taken place between them and Maclean himself.
They had bad information that Miss Maitland was
possessed of considerable property. It then appeared
that there had been transactions between ?desire. Backbones
and Messrs. Pocklow and Vaughan, and on the 12th of
March the promisaory note in question, which en the face of
It purported to be given by Maclean. was presented to them
by Pocklow and Vaughan. They did not immediately dis-
count the note, but they caused inquiries to be made, and
then the operation took place which was stated in the
answer, by which it appeared they credited the sum of
6,0001 to Pocklow and Vaughan, minus the sum of 811. for
discount. It was, however, very singular that on the books
this sum of 5,061. was placed to the account of Pocklow and
Vaughan, but there was no entry whatever of the sum of
811. His Honour thought one of the most valuable parte of
the jurisdiction of a court of equity was that of prevent-
ing any unfair influence being exercised over there who
were placed under the control of others ' • and, in Es opik
nine, this was • case which justified the interference
of the court. The defendants perfectly well knew that Mir
Maitland had but • little while previously been a ward of
Maclean's, and living under his control; and without mak-
ing any inquiries of theplaintiff herself,who was the only per-i
son really interested in the transaction, they took upon thins-
selves to advance the sum of 5,0001. He did not wish to say
anything harsh respecting the conduct of the Messrs. Back-
house, but he thought there wee • case of suspicion suffi-
ciently strong to enable him to interfere ; he should, there-
fore,_ continuo the injunction.
MOOURIDOI V. TllO,l sS.—INJIINCTION RESTRAINING
Tan SAL. OF ARTIFICIAL TEETH DISSULTRI).—Mr. Bethell
and Mr. Harrison moved to dissolve an injunction, granted
ex parts in January last, to restrain the defendant, who was
a dentist, residing in Duke-street, Grosvenor square, froml
manufacturing, alien, setting, selling, or supplying any
artificial teeth in imitation of the artificial teeth made
under a patent obtained by the plaintiff. The ground upon
which the motion was made was that the reties of motion
upon which the injunction we, applied for contained the
words manufacturing, fixing, setting, or supplying, and that
the word selling was afterwards added in the injunction ;
that, in consequence of this irregularity, the irjunction
ought to be dissolved.—Mr. P. Cooper and Mr. Hilton ap-
peared in support of the order.—The Vice-Charcellor con-
sidered the objection valid, and dissolved the ii.junction.
Before

Kaixtst Bruit,.

SHACKLETON V. FRITCLIFIE.-01URCTION TO SPECIFIC
PIRFORMANC, OP CONTRACT OF SALE,ON THE GROUND OP
lINDISCLOSID WATER-RIGHT9.—The plaintiffs, as devisee*
in haat of a Mr. Edmund Wadsworth, had put up kr sale,
by auction, a farm and lends called Higher Margatahaw,
neer Halifax, subject to cattalo conditions, among which
wee the usual one, that any mistake in the printed par-
tknlor should not vacate the sale, but that compensation
should be given or taken as the case might require. It
turned out that upon certain sales made by a former owner
of the land, rights were granted to the then purchasers to
receive the water flowing from the land now contracted to
be told, by certain artificial channels, and to enter upon the
lastmentioled land for the purpose of repairing thew than.
nets, and for other purposes incidental to the enjoyment of
their rights. On the discovery of these rights the purchaser
refused to complete, and the present suit was instituted by
the vendors to enforce a specific performance of the contract,
with compensation if neeessary.—Mr. Wigram, Mr. Stinton,
and Mr. Malins, for the plaintiffs, contended that the rights,
conferred by the grants, were not more extensive than would
lave existed independently of those instruments, and that the
portions of the farm to which the right of entry extended were
so small, as to be proper subjects of compensation.—Mr.
Rumen and Mr. Follett appeared for the defendant, and the
Vice-Chancellor reserved judgment, which he now delivered,
dismissing the Dill with costs, and holding that the righte in
question created a defect in the plaintiffs title, of which the
defendant was not apprised; and that, having regard to the
whole quantity of the land purchased, the portion' of it af-
fected by the right' in question were too considerable to ad-
mit of compensation being made.
SPOONER V. PATNA.—INJ”NCTION TO ',STRAIN INSOL-
TENT lIIITIRID COMMISSIONER OP BANKRUPT FROM
MIS Colleens:trict—lt will be remembered that
an application was made on the tut day of bankrupt peti-
hoes for an order directing the accountant-general in
bankruptcy to pay to the assignee under the insolvency of
Mr. Payne, a retired commissioner of bankrupt at Bristol,
the amount of the compensation awarded to that gentleman
under the 5 & 6 Vic., c. 122; and that his honour refused to
interfere under kis jurisdiction in bankruptcy. A bill had
now been filed, and Mr. Bacon and Mr. Faber moved in the
suit for an injunction to restrain Mr. Payne from receiving
and the awountant-general in bankruptcy from paying to
Mr. Payne the compensation salary.—Mr. Wright, for the
defendant, argued that the salary was like the pay of an
officer in the army, which, it was known, would not pushy
the vesting order, and that the Insolvent Debtor, Court had
so held with respect to a salary like that now in question.
He said that the defendant disputed the validity of the adju-
dication against him by the Insolvent Debtors Court.—The
Vice-Chancellor said that the injunction must i-sue as against
Mr. Payne, but was not requisite as regarded the accountant-
general in bankruptcy.
BARE' 9. NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COM.
-ANY.—INJUNCTION.—BOND BY INCORPORATED COM•
rant RIQUIRIS Suarrize.—The respondents having filed
their affidavits In this case, the motion for an injunction came
an to be heard. It appeared that the notice given by the
company to the plaintiffs required ten clues of land therein
described, including certain saltworke at Sandbaeh, in
Cheshire. They had siree entered into possession of eight
of the closes, giving the plaintiffs a bond with the
view of satisfying the 85th section of the Lands Clause*
Consolidatien Act. The land scheduled in the
bond, however, only comprised the eight closes of '
which possession had been taken, and was under the seal
atlas company alone, without any sureties joining in it.—
Yr. Russell and Mr. Daniell now moved for an injunction to
restrain the company entering on the land, unless they pur-
chased the whole 10 closes.—Mr. Mains, for the company,
said that the defendants were willing to take one of the re-
maining elan*, but not the other - and the Lord Chancellor
had decided, in "Bridges e. Somerset and Wilts Railway
Company" (11 Jurist, 316), that the whole need not be
taken under circumstances like the present. As to the want
aunties, the 86th see. of the Lands Clauses Act only re-
quired a bond " ander the common seal of the promoters, if
they be a corporation, or if they be not a corporation under
the hands and seals of the promoters, or any two of them,
with two sufficient sureties.' The last worth only applied
to the second branch of the sentence, as had been held In
construing the clause in the Statute of Frauds requiring—" a
deed or writing, under the hands of the parties"—the last
qualification being construed to apply to the word " writing"
cal
ba Vine-Chancellor said that his impression war in the
plaintiffs' favour on both points, and that an injunction
must be granted till further orders, with literty for the coin-
panT to give tirenty-kar hours' notice cf motion at any time
to diabetes the injunction, upon new facts.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
_

Ton Queen O. SCHLSSINOZII.—PIarraT.—The defend-
ant wuconvicted at the sittings in London, after tut Michael-
mas term, of wilful and corrupt perjury in evidence given
by him at the trial of a cause, in which it became material
to ascertain whether certain writings in red ink, in certain
books of account, were in his handwriting. When qui&
trotted on the subject at the trial, he made a statement on
oath to the effect that he did not think, or did not believe,
that they were in his handwriting. This statement was
made the foundation of the indictment for perjury, on which
he was convicted. Subsequently an application was made to
the court to enter a verdict for the defendant, or for a new
trial, on the ground that a statement made on the thought or
belief of the person making it would not support an indict-
ment for perjury ; end the court granted • rule to show cause,
which was afterwards diecharged, because it washeld
that such • statement would support the indictment
if it were also shown that the person making it knew at the
time that the fact was contrary to his alleged belief—Mr.
Crompton now moved for judgment and affidavits were read
which set forth that the attention of the defindast had been
suddenly called at the trial to the writings in question,
which were then found b him to contradict a statement
which he had just made ; tat, surprised by this confutation,
be had yielded to the temptation to deny the handwriting;
that the defendant's business had been destroyed by the con-
viction, his wife's health ruined by a premature confinement
brought on by the shock consequent on these
and he himself subjected to four months' imprisemaPracta,
bail having surrendered him. The affidavits d same M.
spectable persons in trade testified to his previous good &e-
-recter. and set out their belief that the defendant was in-
capable of committing perjury.—Lord Denman mid that
the statement of the gentlemen that they believed the de.
fondant incapable of committing the very crime of which
he had been convicted was very improper, in form at least.—'
Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., for the defendant, enured the court
that the statement adverted to would have been made in
a form more correct if he had seen the affidavits
before they were sworn. The learned counsel then
addressed the court in mitigation of punishment. Mr.
Crompton, for the prosecutors, disclaimed all personal feel-
ing against the defendant. This prosecution had been insti-
tuted to put an end to the notion that wilfully false state-
ments might be protected, by a qualification that they were
made on the thought or belief only of the person making
them. The prosecutors would be content with the least
1118Aillre of punishment which the court might think it con-
sistent with its duty to award.—Mr. Justice Coleridge then
admonished the defendant ; and, after intimating that the
court took into its consideration the time during which the
defendant had already been imprisoned, sentenced him to be
imprisoned in Coldbath-fields House of Correction for two
calendar months, and there kept to hard labour.
HODOLINSON AND WITII e. Coxtxoaev.—lreaoran
CONSTITUTION Or A JVH`r—The court had taken time to
emsider its judgment on an application which had been
'e early in term b' fierjeant Shee for • rale to show cause
•-e defendant's verdict in this case should not
.4s, and • new trial had. The applies-
't the ground that the verdict was against
'Ns on affidavits which stated that the
tesover damages for *juries seeteMed