The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-14 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 14, 1853

Litui intelltaence.

JUDICIAL CONIMITTEE OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL.—YzeTetwAY.

PIASUIT-411a I. 1,10111. BkLCI. PII USALG, nails,. Si, ivoi
Parrisoa, lash:sus or TIM ADIIIIALTT CCLZT. AND Sil EUWAILD
RYAS.
BULLET'S PETITION POE AN EXTENSION 07 BOOMER'S

. ----.
PATIN?. .-.-..
Mr. Atherton and Mr. Webster appeared for the peti-
tioner, Mr. Russell opposed the petition on behalf of Mr.
Worsell, the Attorney-General represented the crown.

This was an application, u we stated yesterday, for the
'envois, of Cent/in letters potent which had born granted
during the year IM') to Mr. J. (I. Bodiner, now deceased,
fur impro?emer.ts connected with the manufacture of tools
or apparatus for cutting, planing, drilling, and roiling rail-
way materials and other substances.
On the termination of the evidence.
_ _

The Judge of the Admiralty Court said the council
would advise her Majesty to grant an extension of this pa-
teut for live years in so far as it Mated io the manufacture
of the tires of railway wheels, but it must be understood
that the other portions of the patent should be disclaimed.
Judgment accordiugly.

HOUSE OF LORDS-APRIL 12.
Area.. Ls.

BEFORS Tn Loin CIIENCYLLIA, LUNG SYDNEY, AVM Lou POIRET.

FRASER AND °TIMIS V. HILL AND OTHERS.

This wee an appeal from the Ceurt of Session in Seot
land. The appellants are the executors of the late George
Fraser, of Paisley ,grain dealer and pawnbroker'; and the
respondents are ilfolter Hill, of Glasgow, and the represen-
tatives of James Sinclair, deceased, tavern keeper, of Glas-
gow. In September, 1814. Walter Hill and James, Sinclair
entered into partnership with Alexander Hair, of GI now,
as pawobrckirs,
_add by the coutract the capital was de-
clared to be 2,0001., of which each was to contribute a third.
In 1845, Alexander Hair sold to Walter Hill his share of
the concern. In 1818, George Fraser brought en action of
assent and reckoning against the respondents and Ilair, (or
the purpose of setting aside the deed of partnership, and
the deed of assignment from Hair to Hill, on the ground
that he was a partner of Hair before the date of those
deeds. In defence to the action, it was pleaded that Fraser
was barred from challenging the respondents' rights under
the deeds by virtue of the 39 & 40 Geo. 111., cap. 99, and
also at common law. The question at issue on the trial
was. whether the contract and deed of assignment were
executed fraudulently and wrongfully as against Fraser,
and contrary to his interest in the partnership with Hair.
At the trial, the pursuer tendered the contract and deed of
assignment in evidence ; and it was objected, on behalf of
the defender, that they were not receivable, as they were
not in process when the record was closed. The judge re-
ceived the evidence, and a bill of exceptions was tendered.
Evidence was then tendered for the pursuers as to the name
of Fraser not being on the door of the pawnbroker's shop,
and was proceeding to prove by parole evidence that hie
name was not on the pawn tickets or in the licensees
when the defenders objected to proceeding further without
parole evidence to the alleged partnership. This objectless
was negatived by the Judge, and an exception tendered.
An attempt on the part of the pursuer to put in the verdict
and judgment in a case of " Fraser v. Ilair" was also ob-
jected to, tee evidence received, and an exception tendered.
Several exceptions were made by the defenders to the
summing up of the Judge—namely, in his refusing to direet
the jury that on the facts proved there was no lawful part-
nership between Fraser and Hair, as pawnbrokers, between
the year 1340 and 1844 ; that as the came of F:aser was not
on the pawn tickets, or on the door of the shop, or in the
licenses, there could he no legal partnership between Fraser
and Hair; and that is respect of the violation of the Pawn-
broker's Act, proved on the part of the pursuer, ho had no
interest in the pledged goods transferred by the contract of
28th September, 1841. The jury found a verdict for the
pursuer on all the iieues. The questions on the excerione
came before the first division of the court, and a motion
was made for a new trial. The court, by their iaterlocutor,
allowed the fourth exception—namely,_ that the Judge

ought to have told the jay that on tkrefacts proved thrill
was no legal partnership between Fraser and Hair, sad
granted a new trial. Against this interlocutor the present
appeal was brought, on the ground that the exception al-
lowed raised no principle or queen= of law, but related to
a matter of fact, which A was for the jury to consider. The
respondents maintained that the Judge ought to have told
the jury that on the facts proved there was no partnership.
The Lord Chancellor, without hearing the reply on the
part of the appellants, reversed the interlocutor, repelled
the exception, and remitted the case back to the court be-
low, to find the pursuers intitled to the costs carried by the
exceptions.

EQUITY COURTS.—YEsreaDAY.
lams TR2 MAWR% Or Till ROLLO.

IN 11 TAB

NSW COLLEGE.-JUDOMENT.

His Honour gave judgment in this ease. A petition had
been presented under the statute (52 Geo. 111., chap. 101)
by twenty persons, who represented some of the trustee' of
the charity called the Manchester New College, praying a
declaration that it would be to the benefit of the insti•ution
that it should be established in London as a theological in-
stitution, for the purposes for which it was originally
founded, to be in connexion with the University College of
London, and that notwithstanding such removal the rents
of the property shall be applied by the trustees as the
court shall direct, and if necessary for a scheme for the
future management of the charity. His Honour then
referred to the question of jurisdiction which had been
raised by the respondent, and decided that he had jurisdie.
tion. He then referred to the history of the institution,
showing that it was first established at Warrington, was
then removed to Manchester, then to York, and then back
again to Manchester. The resolutions and proceedings of
the trustees from time to time he considered showed that
the main object of the institution was to afford education
and training of ministers of the denomination of English
presbyterian dissenters; that its success mainly depended on
the peculiar fitness of the person who was for the time
being the head of the institution ; and that with
view to this the institution was removed from War-
rington to Manchester, to be placed under the,
superintendence of Dr. Hennes and Mr. Harrison. On
their death it was removed for the same reason to York, to
be placed under the superintendence of the Rev. C. Well-
beloved, and on his retirement it we. removed back to
Manchester. He considered that the institution was fixed
at Manchester not for the benefit of Manchester and its
neighbourhood, but for the advantage of the institution ;
and that the trustees were entitled, if they thought fit, to
remove the institution to London. He should therefore
make a declaration to that effect, which would probably be
sufficient to induce the respondent, Mr. W. Rayner Wood,
to pay over the rents of the estates, and the dividends on the
debentures, to the institution ; but for his indemnification
he would, HU desired, make an order to that effect. He
considered it was a proper case to bring before the court,
and he should therefore order that the costa of both the
petitioners and the respondent be paid out of the estate,
not out of the capital but cut of the rents.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YEsTERDAy.
Emu Ma. CONN/NMI= lioutoro.
IN RN CASTELLI.-7DIVIDEAD.

Mr. Lawrence aid he appeared io this case on behalf of
Messrs. Lefuente and Webster, of Liverpool, in pursuance
of a nodes from the assignees of their intention to apply to
expunge a claim which bad been entered on the proceedings
by those creditors to prove for 8,0001. The claim had been
entered gain timet, it being impossible for Messrs. Lafuente
and Webster to state whether they were creditors on the
joint or separate estate. Proceedings were pending else-
where to determine whether the partnership which the
bankrupt said was dissolved in September, 1830, had not
continued down to the period of the failure; end a special
case had been directed, but they had not yet agreed on it.
Under these circumstances it was submitted that the claim
ought to stand, as there had been extensive dealings be-
tween Messrs. Lathents and Webster and the bankrupt,
who was liable if the retiriug partners were not. A
similar claim bad also been entered by Messrs. Peter
Clark and Co., for 23,0001. The ordinary course was not to
expunge claims of this nature until the final dividend.
By the 187th and 188th sections of the Bankruptcy Law
Consolidation Act, it was enacted that the second dividend
should be a final one, and allowed eighteen months to elapse
before it was made. This claim had been entered in July
last, for the purpose of being allowed to oppose the certifi-
cate ; that of Messrs. P. Clark and Co. bad been entered in
the February preceding, for the purpose of dividend. It
was now asked that Messrs. Lafuente and Webster's claim
should be plated on the same ground.
Mr. Cairns, for the assignees, said these claims had been
entered for the sake of opposing at the certificate meeting.
As these creditors did not now ask for a dividend, he should
not object to the claims standing—a sum being reserved to
pay the dividends thereon should they ripen into debts.
Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Upton (for Messrs. Clark) ac-
ceded to this course; and the dividend was ordered to be
calculated accordingly.
The amount of dividend was net determined at the meet-
ing ; it is said it will be very small, probably not more then
one shilling in the pound.