The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-26 00:00:00

Mendebookies original composition of music to Shakspere's
" Midsummer Night's Dream," of which the plaintiff claimed
to be possessed of the copyright.
Mr. C. Hall appeared for the defendant, and on his ap-
plication the motion stood over to enable the defendant to
file affidavits in reply till the first seal of the sittings after
term, the defendant undertaking not to publish any copies
of No. 11l in the mean time.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAT.
Birriskis Linio,CuirimJ., Mt Jim ics Parriwin,
Ma. Juane. Potassoint, ..0 Ma. James Wmemakii.
EDWAILDS ♦YD WIFE V. FIELD AND OTHULS.—ARESET

OF A MARRIED WOMAN.
This was an action of trover, iu which judgment as Meal*
of nonsuit had been signed against the plaintiff,. The female
plaintiff had been taken in execution fur costs, and discharged
by Mr. Justice Patteson, upon the ground that she could
not be taken without her husband. A rule was subsequently
granted to rescind the order made by Mr. Justice I'attcsou,
and retake the female plaintiff.
Mr. Ogle now showed cause against the rule, which was
supported by Mr. Gray.
Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that the rule ought
to be discharged. The judge had a discretion to discharge
the female plaintiff, and hail well exercised that discretion.
If the husband and wife had been taken together, and the
wife had no separate property, the court could discharge the
wife from custody. That was clear front the authorities,
and among the rest from the authority of Mr. 'fidd. He
(Lord Campbell) looked upon th.it authority with the great-
est respect, and indeed with piety, always remembering that
to him he owed the success which he bad met with in his
profession. The only object to be answered in this case by
keeping the wife in custody was oppression, and he thought
Mr. Justice Patteson had exercised a wise discretion in or-
' daring her to be discharged. Her detention could be of no
benefit to the creditors, who were still at liberty to take the
husband.

The other learned judges having concurred, the rule was
discharged with costs.

THE SHREWPIIVRY AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY COM-
PANY P. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WPSTSSN RAILWAY
COMPANY AND THE SHROPSHIRE UNION RAILWAY

AND CANAL COMPANY.

Lord Campbell delivered judgment in this case, which
came before him upon a demurrer to the fifth breach in an
action which had been brought upon certain articles of agree-
ment. The articles were set out in evens.) by the defendants,
and by the 4th of those articles it was provided that the
agreement should not be evaded or eluded, and that no de-
vice should be resorted to for the purpose of evading or
eluding the egret:mint. The fifth breach was assigned upon
that article, and to that breach the defendants demurred
generally. The points relied upon at the arguments were
two, the chief of which was that the agreement was void in
point of low. The agreement in question contained the
terms upon which the parties had arranged that the opposi-
tion to certain Wits which were before parliament should be
withdrawn, and it was contended that the agreement was
void, among other grounds, because it was injurious to the
public, inasmuch as it secured to the plaintiffs a monopoly
of certain railway traffic. But the court did not consider ,
this objection could be sustained; it was merely an agree-
ment that one company should nut interfere with a certain
part of the other company's line. Neither was it, as had
been contended, injurious to the shareholders of the com-
pany, but it might even be greatly to their advantage. The
same objectionslaad been taken before Lord Cottenhani, and

overruled by him atter being fully argued. Lord Cottenham
had held that there was nothing in the agreement contrary
to the duty of the company toward. the public or their
shareholders. Another objection, and one not taken before
Lord Cottenham, was, that the agreement was bad in law
because it was contrary to the act of parliament, which pro-
vided that railway companies should carry mails and troops
for her Majesty. The court, however, were of opinion that
the agreement contained nothing in derogation to her Ma.
je.ty's rights in those respects. Upon the whole, therefore,
the objections made by the defendants could not prevail;
and the judgment of the court must be for the plaintiffs.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
THE QUEEN O. AVEKY.—QUO

Mr. M. Smith moved for a rule calling on Mr. William
Avery to show cause why a writ of quo warranto should
not be filed against hint to inquire by what authority he
held the office of a town councillor of the borough of Barn-
staple. Ile moved on In half of Mr. King, of Bradillird,
who was at the head of the conservative list of candidates
at the last election for town councillors, Mr. Avery being
at the bottom of the liberal list; and the affidavits dis-
closed the same facts which had been brought before the
court on Saturday but, when a rule I,r a quo warranto had
been granted, calling on the same defendant to show by
what authonty he held the office of Mayor of Barnstaple.
Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.—YESTERDAT.
IN B.ani. -Btnisw NII:. Jt,TICI Eau.
THE Query r. LESLIE..
_ _ ..

Mr. M. Smith, on the part of Mr. Ferris, applied for a
rule calling upon Mr. John Leslie to show cause why on in-
formation in the shape of a quo warrant° should not issue,
requiring him to state by what authority he held the oilier
of alderman of the borough of Barnstaple. The defendant
was elected on the Nth November, upon the supposition of
an extraordinaryvacancy having been created in the office of
alderman for the borough. A Mr. Latham, the former
alderman, was elected in November, 12410. ne left Barn-
staple on the 14th of May last for France, where he resided
for the last sit months. His period of other would not have
expired until the 14th November. The town clerk having,
however, issued the usual notice for the election of an
alderman in the place of Isatham,about the 2nd of November,
the defendant was elected on the Sth of the same mouth,
being the day previous to the election of mayor. By the
52nd stains of the Municipal Corporations Act those cases
in a hich the office was declared vacant or voidable were
provided for, but there was no provision of the act under
which the election in question could be considered
Application granted.
THE QUEEN V. ALLEYNE AND ANOTHER.
_

In this case an indictment was pending under which the
defendants were charged with obtaining from a Captain
Kennedy a sum of 8,0001. by alleged false pretences upon
the subject of certain horse races.
A rule nisi having been obtained on a former day, calling
upon the prosecutor to furnish the defentlant4 with a state-
ment specifying the particular matter., which they proposed
to prove, ou the ground that several of the counts in the in-
dictment were vague and uncertain,
Mr. E. James with Mr. Hawkins appeared to show cause
against the rule, on the grounds, that, although the trial
was pending for a considerable tune, the defendants never
thought it necessary to raise this objection till about a week
ago, and the prosecutor believed that the application had
been made for the mere purpose of delay.
Mr. lluddlestone having distinctly disclaimed such an in-
tention on the part of the defendants,
Mr. Justice Erie recommended the prosecutor to furnish
a statement to the defendants to the effect that the general
counts in the indictment were to be supported by the same
evidence that was to support those other counts that were
specifically brought forward.
It was ultimately agreed upon that a statement should be
drawn up by the learned judge by the following morning to
the above effect, the defendants binding themselves to inter-
medno delay in the case being tried at the time already