The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-22 00:00:00

Lab) 'lntelligence.

EQUITY COURTS—YeSTiRD►Y.
Seem the Lord Chancellor.
ROL►ND V. lIOYO►N ►ND 07 it Ett.l.—BEol:IST OP
JEWELS, &C., ►a HZIELOOMB.—This is an appeal from •
decree of Vice-Cnancellor Wipe= upon the construction of
bequests contained in the will and codicil of Henry, late Eul
of Abergavenny. By the will, dated in 1839, the testator
bequeathed to his sou John, then Viscount Neville, and his
heirs, Sara of Abergavenay, certain plate, jewels, pictures,
and serious other ornaments of value, to be held as heir
looms, and he directed his executors to make an inventory of
them ; and by the codicil, dated in 1841, the testator de-
clared it to be his will that, in addition to the articles which
he had made heirloom in his will, certain other articles of
the same description should be added awl considered heir-
looms; and he gave the same to his executors u heirlooms in
his family, and directed them to make an inventory of them.
On the death of the testator soon altcr, his eon John, Via-
want Neville, suoceeded to the title and family estates,
which, by act of parliament of Phil. and Mary,

bed been settled on his then ancestor in tail male,
without power of alienation and with reversion to the C7olln.
Earl John having died In 1845, without issue, his only
brother William succeeded to the earldom and estates, and
claimed also for himself and his eons the enjoyment of the
said chattels en heirlooms under the said will and codicil of •
his father. The ex, tutors of Earl John also cleaned them
as Laing under the bequest vested absolutely in him, the
float taker. That was the conclusion to which the Vice-
Chancellor came. The question was raised upon a bill filed
by the surviving executor and trustee of Earl limy, the
testator, *Naiad the present Bell and hie sons and the coma-
tors of Earl John.—Mr. Bothell, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Goodeve,
in support of the appeal, maid the Vice-Chancellor himself
admitted that his decision was opposed to the testator's in-
Minden which unquestionably was that these chattels should
descend as hair-looms with the title as far as the rules of law
would allow.—The learned counsel contended that the trusts
were executory, and they cited a treat number of casts.— •
The further harm; was adjourned at 4 o'clock.

Before the Master of the Rolla
OLIVER V. DUINE.—RECaIer you LECIACY.—Mr. Roupell
and Mr. De Gex supported the bill. which was that of a
legatee and her husband mealiest the surviving executor and
the representative of the deceased executor, the executors
being alto trustees and residuary legatees under the will.
The bequest in question was one of 2,500/., which was given
to the executors in trust to pay the income to the testator's
daufe.ter for life, and to pay the piincipal among her chil-
dren at 21, with a proviso that if any child died under 21,
leaving issue, the issue should take the patent's share. Then
was also a proviso that the executors should cot be aecoenta-
ble for leaving at interest in the hands of the husband of the
legatee for life any RUM owing from him to the testator, but
that the same should be considered part of the legacy of
2,5001. The intended legatee for life died before the testator,
leaving live children, of whom one died before the testator,
having attained 21, and leaving issue. The testator died in
1829, and the only question was, as to the share of one of
the four surviving children, who was one of the plaintiffs,
and who attained her age of 21 in 1831, when she signed I
receipt for 500/., which was therein expressed to have been
received by her from the executors as her one fifth part of the
legacy of 2,5001. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was contended
that eke was entitled to one-fourth inet.ad of one• filth, and
that uhtwithatanding the receipt, no money had been re-
aeiv,d by her. I a support of the former proposition.
" Viner v. Francis" (2 Cox 190), and " Shuttleworth v.
G.caves," (4 Mylne and Craig, 38), were cited, and in air
port of the latter, the evidence was read of the son and
partner of the testator's son-in-law, to the effect that he
must hay., known if the tern y had been paid by his fatter,
and that to his knowledge it had not. It was also contended
that the legacy was not specifis of any debt due from the
father, but that the general residue was liable. The case
of the defendants was, that 2,0001. was due from the son•in-
law, who had settled with his daughter, the plaintiff, Wore
her marriage, and that after a period of 13 year', which
elapsed before the bill was filed, the plaintiff could not be
heard to dispute her own acknowledgment contained in the
receipt. " lAmpon v. Corte" (5 Barnewall and Alderson),
was, however, cited, to show th't the receipt was not
conclusive. Mr. Turner, Mr. Randall, and Mr. Par-
sons, for the defendants, admitted that the authorities
as to the division into fourths were too strung
to contend against. But the substance of the case being to
make a demand which had been settled so many years ago,
they contended the bill must be dismissed with costa—The
Master of the Rolls said the objection to the defence was,
that it stated the amount to have been settled between the
father and daughter, whereas the receipt relied upon repre-
sented that money had been actually received from the
executor,. The plaintiffs might have an inquiry into the
fact at their own risk, unless they preferred taking a decree
at once for payment of the difference between one-fifth and
one-fcurth, with interest for a year after the testators death,
without costs, the rest of the bill being dismissed without
costa—The counsel for the plaintiff accepted the latter alter-
native, which his lordship then said be considered by far the
best mode of settling the eispute.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.—YESTSBDLY.

Sitting? In Banco.
Lows V. PENN.—THE SCREW PROPRELER.—This was

an action, which has been tried two or three times, for the
infringement of a patent granted for the manufacture of a
acre A- propeller for steam vessels. The defence was that
neither the principle nor the mode of carrying it into effitt
was new. The cause was tried at the sittings after last
Hilary Term, at Guildhall, before Lord Denman, when a
verdict was given for the plaintiff. Sir F. Thesiger subse-
quently obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside and ane • trial granted, or a verdict
entered on the fifth issue for the defendant, that issue raising
the question whether the specification was not defective, on
the ground of vagueness and uncertainty.—The Atterney-
Oen, ral, Mr. &taint Bytes, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Smith
now showed cause against the rule, contending that the
plaintiff's invention was novel, and that it was sufficiently
set forth in the specification.—Sir F. Thesiger, in support of
the rule, argued that the invention was not now, and that
the specification either claimed that which was the invention
of others, or gave no precise and real information as to the
construction of the propeller.—The court took time to con-
sider it. judgment.

BAIL COURT.—YEeTrithAV.
Situngs m Harlem—Before Mr. Justice Putnam.
STETENSoN o. SHICICSI.L.—WILIT OP PROHIBITION TO
THR COUNTY COURT OP CAMBIUM/R.—Mr. Pashley moved
for a rule to show cause woy a writ of prohibition should
not issue, directed to the judge of the county court of Cam-
bridge, held at Witheach, restraining all further proceed-
ings in this cue. From the statement of the learned coun•
sal it appeared that in the year 182 i the defendant was
appointed by the magistrates of the county of Norfolk to
the office of inspector of weights and measures within the
hundred of Wisbeach. That office, on account of the num-
ber of false weights and measures seized, had been one of
considerable profit to Mr. Shickell. The 4 and 5
Will. IV., cap. 63, was the act of parliament which had
been patted relating to the subject of weights and mea-
sures. That act, although it did not directly repeal a
previous act passed in the reign of the ume sovereign,
contained so much which negatived the pros:aim,'
of the former act that the magistrates entertained a doubt
whether the power given to hlr. Shickell to act as an in-
specter of weights sad measures still remained. Neverthe-
len, he continued to exercise the office, and in discharge if
its duties he had occasion to seize certain weights and
measures belonging to the present plaintiff, Mr. Francis
Stevenson. That person was brought before the magistrates
by Mr.Shickell ; but they refuel to inflict any penaltyupon
him, alleging as their reason that, under the 4 and 5
Will. IV. cap. 63, they d.ubted whether Mr. Shickell was
entitled any longer to act as an inspector of weights and
measures. Subsequently Mr. Stevenson brought an action
against Mr. Shickell, in the county court at Wiabeach. The
learned judge of that court was of opinion that Mr. Shickell
had no right to seize the weights and measures of the
plaintiff, and that the act of parliament which
gave him that power was repealed. It was many months
before the judge bad given his opinion, anal he felt so muck
doubt upon the matter the he was desirous of the point
being brought before that court.—Mr. Justice Patteson ob-
served that whether the 4 & 5 Will. IV. repealed the former
act or not, that did not affect the case. The question was,
had the judge of the county court any jurisdiction in the
I matter i—Mr. Pashley submitted that he had not, inasmuch
las the 58th section of the County Court Act prohibits the
judge from inquiring into cas,s of title, tolls, &c. The
earned counsel also contended that the 45th section of 4 & 5
Will. IV. provided that any appointments made by the
former act were still to continue, and therefore Mr. Shickell
was now entitled to act as en inspector of weights and meu
sures.—Mr. Justice Patteson : I suppose you must have a
rule.—Rule granted.
HOLMES o. TRH SOUTII.WRBTRRN RAILWAY COMPANY.
—Mr. Help moved for a rule to show cause why there should
not be a new trial in this case. It was an action tried on the
6th of the present month, before the Under-Sheriff of Lon-
don, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 64 10s.
The grounds upon which the learned counsel now moved
were, that the verdict was against the evidence, that the
learned under-sheriff had misdirected the jury, and had im-
properly rejected evidence which was offered on behalf of the
defendants. The facts of the cue were shortly these. The
plaintiff had been in the service of the defendants for eight
years. He first discharged the duties of an under-guard,
receiving a salary of 275. 6d, a week; and in the mouth of
June, 1846, he was raised to the first class' at the same time
having his salary increased to 30e, a week. I. that month,
however, he was guilty of some misconduct towards a pas-
senger, for which he was reduced to his former position
of 1111 under-guard, being paid only 255. a week. In
the month of January, in the present year, his salary was
further reduced to 205., for having gone away with en after-
noon train without taking any lights with him. The plt.in-
tiff, with a few exceptions, had always received the 203. a
week, and signed the pay lists for that sum. The learned
counsel now complained that the under-sheriff was wrong in
telling the jury that the company had no right to deduct ss.
a week as a flue from the plaintiff's salary ; that a book kept
by Mr. Godson, the general superintendent at Niue Elms,
ought to have been admitted is evidence, as it was from that
book that the pay lista were made up, and it would have
shown that the plaintiff was put down as being only entitled
to 20s. a week ; and, also, that the weight of evidence went
to prove that the plaintiff had agreed to receive only 20s. a
week. The action had been brought for 26 deductions of Se.,
and from the direction of the under-sheriff, the jury bad
found that the company had no right to inflict a to upon
their servants. tinder these circumstances the learned
counsel submitted that he was entitled to a rule.—Rule nisi.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Yeergnosr.
Fittings to Banco. •
BROOKER S. Cooran.—WHEN Altll PLAINTIFFS DID-
' ENTITLED TO COSTS OF SUIT IX SUPZILION COURTS 1—
This was an action of debt, in which a verdict was returned
for the plaintiff for 61. 16.. 6d. Mr. Collier showed MIMI
yesterday against a rule nisi to enter up judgment for the
debt only, without costs, or that the defendant might
he at liberty to enter a suggestion to deprive the plaintiff of
costs, on the ground that the action might have been
brought in a county court. The learned counsel relied upon
the authority of " Meshing v. Nicholls," recently decided in
the Court of Common Pleas, and of " Butler th Corney," in
this court. He contended that tho affidavit upon which the
rule was obtained was defective, in not showing affirmatively
that the plaintiff was ret within any of the exceptions men-
thmed in the 128th section of the County Courts Act (9 it
10 Vie c. U.S.) The first exception was where the plaintiff
resided more than twenty miles from the defendant
second, where the cause of action had not accrued
wholly or in part within the jurisdiction of the count
court within which the defendant dwelt or carried on his
trade or busiams; and third, where an officer of the entity
court was a party. In the present case, the statement in the
affidavit was, " that the defendant resided at No. 2, Eliza
betlhstreet, Walworth, and that the plaintiff carried on hie
business within a short distance of that house, namely, on
Welworth-common." The court could not infer front th3t
statement that there were not twenty mike between %hie

:! ~ ~

~G~4'

,~~ . i

tosideweee al the pution—Loid Chief Baron . Certelady
ass.—Mr. lierbtese wpm: ad the role, sad assteeded that
le jar es eateetag Jading* ter the is* 'sly. le TM ea
IMW le kiss it made shwas*, sllMai the eflidarit alike
110 ireicielet. •psa the tothetilite at* to 'adds Ida to
War the —Ms. Meta nabs i The dales la
8. Wawa v. Quilt*" (11 Mew= s Washy). she* *at
sethesewed meet be • ___wile___wilese Oa M wifalti Mart 10 taw
that there wee eaSsiest MO why the plehitlff
led *Awed kr ide seas seemilai to the demi el
ffiloseester. Mr. Ruble* awed that the emir* woe
the pitfall ha thew tint be wee owitled to the Mai ei am
seta is me et the eisperier sew* when the saes* re*
weed wee mew Mi. It was melded by the Meth modes
wf the Cowl/ Cow* Aerd. Mid *ben • pielstif is way
se
al ea it • wepeeks meet setweetel •• MN teas
tier sea. he sisal have jedipmeet flie Ids debt ewly, salsa
the judge cadiNkid that it wee_ a ~r ewe for trial ia the
warner awn. The evert *Wed their dinars to loam
* the peastise with hail hew pretty well established slue
tese parft rhe Cely Omits Let. As the delhadent
haelleat ar ms bye
hi sfiwit that the plaintiff wee set
yid* soy ef the easepiews of the 195th week's, the rale
*mid b. ablbuted. tied with toss..—The role was etcord.
imply discharged
NW ran., 111

_ Cr. him Platt sod KIM.=
WINDOM ARAM
RIM e. RIDDI3I.—DUIPINID I`II3IANcT. —This ere,
whisk we may repeat, was ea Mos at lb. instance of a
WSW, to mew tie sae el 6U. far wee done to the
poem ample by Mn. laldin, the defrachat, in Park
iirelbleen,weremed =syphon lir. Crowder w-
ined theth s dew. wifeless were seed, but
the pie so to amiability of et dessart snarly mod on
ea
et emet wed was put_r, ire whisk It append that
Mb* theme Wire otWoodend.the Weelleetur,ft
big therein sepdatod,thatere @Mid poy WI. of rest forte
L. year, and SOL ellieweillt, eed that Woodward elioseld
put the prwies has Ma table repair. The jury retuned
• verde for the dehodsm.
Bum e. Eswe..—Paco bellientestT.—Mr. Serpent
Taltewl, Mr. Seq liararg, 111 r. Scott appeared
fw the plaintiff, wbs
sought to weer composition in
—fairs uries webs& at the hose of the defendant,
et being Ms Moly byre:4 end son-
!ed ot a poise malloa ea a dirge of bray. timid
=woro We laid iler low st wee is his trade. The
pleee not guilty; ere, mendly, that he had
reemable pima enspoies the tho plaintiff had cora-
WM • Many.
illsesort Tanned sited the ars to Me jury. The
pilitiff, David IMh, is • ges-ittsr, ales carrying on Mai-
sel as • woomon and tobaseniet, is Mountotreet, Weft.
netweree; do Maria% Thos. Jaw& Hewer, is the
leadkett ef tho Irwin Teem in Pant, Hewett,
ard MEW, eerie/ the plaintiff's Moos fa Mount street,
the beim at whit he sold to Ma. Oa the 21st of July
bet Ow Weil Meng Mi surges to wort he friend
Mr. I. Die* plrim Holywrierest, on his private
Whim wee loomosaiod to applyhe an tummy. Acting
wee Mee% re westto the-olise of Mr. Paden, an
eltwasy tit bet set berg that gentleman
at hima, M woo aaiemiwM Mt. Dine to go and swab
wile Ws Mad sad ham -Mr. Hewer, the w-
eed dibriest. The *het went to the de-
irders haw, in Few tercet, ressalami with the
ashrhe tor a onsidashis We in ble bar prim The
plied, Ora ill, sod tested to Mr. Dives's. to Holy-
wellsirrat, tai, OW Mike Mr. PWM, the surrey,
be Mt Mut his mem, Wage ari got kw to Meek
shut to tin. He eye west et orberboes esmosslod
with his trade, sod Maly istered bow to sew between
II and 10 'We. the $ Wilk wee to- hie wade
ant, be was *MI by his NM, the debreat wee
paid by two yetis aim) who mss gawp against his
of hatioushies a soh bezigamidorg 24L , ion Me ter
est they had me to Me
Wille meat !iv* beam we smashed but no sway
bed, ewe a hw shilsp.,--Msa Bine, who had only
Leh Naked 10 dap or a Me& . been, west et awl
brought is Mr. Davies, • Mahe is the reighbo4tVeme
cease to be bail, but, so eis we efts& the
wr
tapes away to the poliereihe when he was comled kor
the sight, sod, ea the bilereg Essig, be was Wash' up
bile Mr. Beeme, the Wing wegitrate at Mehomogh.
Wert. The puma Mahe Men were
his slier
we to the mi. sod the phiatilf polsee hie
Memet. megitime *we woo sot sudisiant
Wiwi an whisk to melt the *MIK best thought the
it was •Mt kr twee WI Melee his to hail to
agerg_sa Mt day weit. M the idisoring Saturday the
ZMlffewerltigni=ol=iths 0102= r
sre es the jury to
=dosages to ito ASI et only ha the injury he
sueseed diesegjiii ihire =ent. Mt for the
image he hod Meet in of
sem Wise free the Magentaatie which had Ms bees
ens ups he charade
seater of witness INN ailed, who fully eabstais.
tile the Mame of the hose sergeant. Mr. Dies,
phiatire assieibeer. who ea jmort at the We of
tho seue. sinte, wortere is, that cm being
istruoi off Os Weed es ahem. ha (witness) mid to
ths Aerie Hew the ho stay enrely bays no suspicion
pest lb. hiss. on Moe your sawn, whom ha had
Mows Mire* Sr sew peer ih defendant reeled
that lethod het the imhbox Si. es *if of hie be par-
er ;that Mr. BM woe this, in the awing ; that be had
Ma ish dons in the prier: that.. es had been then
few the ems the box was wen till it was Weed; eel that
Bat had let pto hi attorney, Wes the lie druid
Wen in on MOW he were Weed ; wheangon Mr.
Itihemii that he maid accent far eery lauemoi ho lad
hen B
MW
—Mr. Dipole, whose Weer Way Ma out
the oboe stateteal. ilw the *MIL mo
stated wereintios
the iho mew al worallatios on es Pritighessoen
=o
to woe with as to the hien BE-
sel to hie applying to the Mollie Omit
The or hi as
visit that day, told hhathat Ms.
Ilwene.the hod !sashedto de weething la kb
pow% the the
eat sr tho eight of the wieserd, Mr.
Cr hie weer to the selisehou vit-
amin weasibi osetesloelE _asserame fee the ow-
tiondlithalsrdEbsessiies the
ti fromujibis eft tat/
gight—wain semi.Bratisti=lllho magierat
wlionse tarisatteftliarelbut:
pee the het of tho *kips fiwitesge.—
The *Win spiesstise was wiser
WM, NM peed a
wart stows in Mei lie neer Mk bat mese as pa
leo maser of es shim we agent bia.—
Mr. Maw, a Mime in the Woeminelowsod, dewed
that two or ern bp after the preen impahosem be
dismissal to mils, kis, mg only remmul his Mom
*NO It tegt weer sip. This was theliiiintirs sass
llr Oiesier oddiemod the pry for dreaded, aka-
log at iswideseeloagth, in repot et the lea of eases-
Mls
sepier, the ANI the no wig ons Settee bad been
peel ter .tan leiniesi ogled the deadest in the
liege prohnod by Mu amid es pintail Oa the we
Vey it was shows that they Ml, pit to this warresos,
Ma on the wet kindly Inows, mi MN ei the *Miff 's
*ES Warm paved the dairies by the plaintiff himself
that Mr. Hew ea Ma wary bow whisk thurge wee
hod to de all I. power to him in
lie
Mr. Mee PM, is swerng up, bid the
jary that, with
eget to the
the
of et it WU dear Win wait
new be Ise the philiff. With newt to the plea that there
▪ weerabbe earnes= was kr Sas to decide.
Mr. that this, was nay as
shone, etir it to the ley on the pia at goalietio, bear
mash eit was ass Wm that the wile ben boi bees WM.
Mr. BI
ury !thee Platt wee take • note et emsonsalriss. If
the j* *at there ma an
for eneisiso, Visa tho witatiaue bo flw tho plaktresith
meal damages so the *mit NOMA to Wayseuto him
for the injury which le sestrod.
pad! aistally twor ad returned a verde for the
IS Ill.; Mike that they belied that the
sae be ad bees swim. be MA &t was no ressosable
powid far shop leg the pied, ofee.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YzarazDay.
,sire yr, Ccomermor
Is as T. I. Joem.—la this ewe, which has stood ad.
More for moral annehr, in ardor that scare ewer
&he Mak the perm* epee by Mr.
slew. Neer sod Os, Woonewhists. The =
MI imp ea onlistoMa. the old,
MI6 he lowe paisley son-es by ]lie
rhea ewe/ hliimlir,ssekkrafg thet the ban
in lir riggiauf Mem of St. Paul's
the week of ria....gibutolywit
saltebus=at *Wm of lb or!~ 140111, here nor bit
willesiory Mem. wouraix=is Wee-
..,Leerte—li,That be hal ea wies
by the wales wYee."Bl4=7 they MI been put
;50.7.1aw espersou at •• Me Wes he was hopelmey isse
yeed, sad week to pg any pens a *Nes That he
had peel tho woe dee ispoessi wish Meow Hite
web oad Rog,
ers, who he beliered him throolhoot his
dreiog, all hi. wields stosk Wed at 1151., eat prtee,
whiskyrspere Wboss subsequently sold by them for the
ewe got laarediately after his saarriaare,
we ont et the pcsorsss of hi wediton' goods, had pail to
Were of hfi wig the me et 6U. le ea account of an
allepil old debt dre to anueriocer, upon ewe
retie of tho whole of the olosnoistaws of the case, or-
dered the applies* to bo vomorisd for • period of nine
sestle fresidie Me of wan eider, which will have
the effect of prolangiog hi es merest to March, 1849.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.—YIII7IIIDAV.
A BILL B/AOlllll WAXID °ADDIS'S WAS CONWITTID
TO PRISON Mt 10 days kr contimatV of court in not appear-
Ss bang ansamoned for 101., t.O value of a bill received
by his on WWI of the plaintiff Sbaekatt.

MIDDLESEX 8115810N8.—Yneragmtv.
Beam Mr. Ilte}artadnaci.
Yesterday, the November adjourned .mica emanseneed at
the &MAO= House, ClerkenwelL There were 84 eases of
Stony, and five of miedemeance, for trial. 48 of the primmen
could read and write imperfectly, 14 could mad rely, the
remaining 29 IMO igearsat of either. Not ono could read
er write well. Thelsernml Judge alluded to the feeling that
prevails agalast the contingence of grand juries at thsee
anima and said that documents were in course of prepare-
gee, to be enbesitted to the legislature, la the hope that the
evil, if evil it were, might be remedied.
Isla CUB or Lawn Foevia.—L. Four sad J. Wilson,
whq was convieled a law seldom back, of forcibly entering
some premises in Illifsed4ene, Stand, wen brought up for
Minton—Mt. lienemline, cm behalf of the proeccutors,
111 -erre. Ingram and Ceske, said that Foster bad agreed at
Ina to give up the model ef Mr. Little's patent printing ma-
chine, and it was biped, therein*, that the court would be
satisfied with merely calling area the defendant to cater into
recoguisances te emu up for jud,,:ment when end* d upoa
The court amerated to sea s muse being taken, Foster's