The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

ender In Banco. -
KNIGHT V. BARKER,—NECESSITY TO STAMP BOUGHT
Norias" or RAILWAY SCILIY.—This action, which was for
not accepting scrip certificates of shares in a certain railway,
was tried before Mr. Justice Cresswell at the last assizes at
Liverpool. At the trial, a note, signed by the defendant,
stating that he had bought the number of shares in question
of the plaintiff, was offered in evidence, but the learned
judge rejected it for not being stamped es an agreement be-
tween the parties, and the plaintiff was nonsuitcd. Mr.
, Baines now moved for a rule to show cause why a verdict
should not be entered for the plaintiff, or for a new trial. He
contended that the document was improperly rejected,
first, because it was not an agreement—it was signed
by the defendant only, and therefore was not liable to
stamp duty ; and, secondly, it was a memorandum relating
to the sale of railway scrip certificates, which, the learned
counsel contended, come within the description of " goods,
wares, and merchandise," all written memoranda with
respect to the sale of which were exempted from stamp duty
by a special pruvicion in the Stamp Act. The Court were
unanimously of opinion that there should be no rule, upon
the ground that railway scrip did not come within the des-
cription "goods, wares, and merchandise" exempted by the
Stamp Act, and as the broker's note (technically called " a
bought note") amounted to an agreement between the par-
ties, it should have been stamped, and the learned judge was
right in rejecting it.—Rule refused accordingly.
Dos Dese r. WILKINS.—MR.WOOD'S WlLL.—This ease,
which occupied Mr. Justice Maule and a special jury for two
days, during the last anises at Gloucester, terminated by a
verdict having been taken for the defendant, in consequence
of the strong opinion entertained by the jury that the plain-
tiff had failed to establish his pedigree.
Upon the motion of Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, a rule nisi for
a new trial was now granted, upon the ground that evidence
had been improperly admitted.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
_ Before Mr....Commksioner.

A ROYAL Git)misrTll.oUlll: e. —John Gower, of the
Royal Stable., Windsor, one of her Majesty's grooms, was
summoned, under the Small Debts Act, by a Mr. Roberts,
for goods sold and deliveresl. The case was brought on
about a week since, but the defendant not attending
upon that occasion, the case was adjourned to this
day. —The defendant did not this day attend, ■nd
the solicitor for the plaintiff submitted that an
order for commitment ought to be granted. He (the soli-
citor) believed that the defendant was merely an assistant to
one of the grooms, and if he had any privilege it ought to
be set up when he was arrested.—Mr. Maynard, Lir the
defendant, said that his client was not here, and offered no
excuse. The next step sought to be taken was to execute
a warrant, and his business was to contend that the court
hnd no power. If the warrant were executed, his client
would be discharged, and there was—Mr. Coirmisaioner
Evans Now, listen to me. lhe question is whether your
client is to treat this court with contempt. —Mr. Maynard :
The Muter of the Horse had called on the plaintiff in
respect of this—The Solicitor for the Plaintiff: But he only
offered to pay the debt.—Mr. Commis.ioner Evans: I base
a strong opinion about bringing him here, and I shall ad-
journ the case for one week. It is not for the payment of
the debt, but for not obeying the procedure of this court.