The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-01 00:00:00

Zab3 intelligence.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—YEsnaDAT.
31.tatoonu r. CAtaNel (Two APPIAI.3.)—ACTION OP

RZUCCTION.-ADMISSIBILITT Or EVIDENCE.
- - -

These appeals a;ainst interlocutors of the Court of Ses-
sion—the nature of which was stated in our report+ in
this journal on the 20th and 24th of June, were further
heard. At the conclusion of the arguments the house
took time to consider the judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCll.—YesrminAy.
STITVIAS AT nil FAITS AT OLILDEALL.-138101111 LORD CAXTULL AND

• COMMON 'CIT.
BARTLETT T. EVANS,

This was an action by the Rev. Josiah Bartlett, the in-
eumbent of the district of St. John's, Ivington, which hail I
been carried out of the ancient parish of Leominster, in the
diocese of I fere ford, against the defendant as the acquestrator
of that benefice, the object being to dispute the validity of
the appointment of the sequestrator.
It appeared by the statement of the learned counsel, and
the evidence called, that the plaintiff was ordered by the
Court of Queen's Bench to be imprisoned for two years for
a libel published by him, and while he was in prison the
bishop of the diocese issued a monition, calling upon him
to made upon his benefice, and, in default of his so doing,
appointed the defendant sequestrator, under the powers of
the 1 and '2 Vie., c. 106, and by which statute it is provided
that an incumbent, after the lapse of a year loses his bene-
fice, and in the present case a successor had been appointed
in the plaintiff's place. The plaintiff had applied to the
Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of prohibition, prohi-
biting the bishop from appointing a sequestrator, which
was refused; but Lord Denman said, in giving judgment,
that of course the court did not intend, when they sen-
tenced the plaintiff to imprisonment, to deprive him of his
living.
Mr. Keating said a similar application hail been made
with u similar result to the Court of Eschequer.
The plaintiff had been duly licensed and officiated, and
it was proved that the ecclesiastical commissioners had paid
to the defendant as sequestrator the sum of 1391. The
objections to the appointment were that the bishop had no
jurisdiction to appoint a sequestrator unless the incumbent
kept away from his living eoatumaceously. Second that
after the return to the monition of the bishop, he had
sequestered the living without calling on the incumbent,
by citation or summons, to appear and show cause why be
should not be deprived. And, third, that he could not be
called upon to reside, because there was no residence on the
living.
It was contended, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the onus
of proving the validity of the sequestration was upon the
defendant. . . . .

Lord Campbell said he thought it must be taken, till
the contrary was shown, that the sequestration under which
the ecclesiastical commissioners paid the money was valid.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY.
811711104 AT NW PIT. AT °CHAIR /11..-B.ATORI LOAD PULP JIIITICT

haus Aro Commas Juutfl.

Lazo. ROOLRB7-72117:4 TO KI;COVETA SP NI OF MON EY
PAID BY THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANT IN ORDER
TO TARE NIX THROCOH THE INSOLVENT COVIVI,

This was an action brought by an attorney's clerk, who
also carries on the business of a grocer and cheesentonger at
Bethnal-green, against a lath-render living in the same
neighbourhood, to recover 24f. 14s. 'AI., the balance of a
sum of money paid by the plaintiff for the defendant, being
costs incurred by the latter in passing through the Insolvent
Debtors Court. There wak also an item in the plaintiff's
demand for money lent. 'Pile defendant pleaded, that,
never indebted ; secondly, payment ; thirdly, a set off; and
lastly, that he was discharged from the debt of the plaintiff
by the Insolvent Debtors' Court.
From the opening statement of the learned counsel, and
from the evidence subsequently adduced, it appeared that
in the month of April, IMO, the defendant, finding himself
in difficulties, consulted the plaintiff, who advised him to
assign his property for the benefit of his creditors. A deed
of assignment was accordingly prepared, and the plaintiff
was selected as one of the trustees to the deed. Subse-
quently an execution was issued against the defendant by a
creditor who had refused to sign the deed of assignment,
and he was sent to prison. The defendant then sent for
Mr. Lee, and requested him to employ a solicitor to take
him through the Insolvent Debtors Court. The plaintiff
accordingly engaged a Mr. Massey to set as the defendant's
attorney in the Insolvent Debtors' Court; and it was, as
we have already stated, to recover the amount of costs paid
by the plaintiff, and for money lent, that the present action
was brought.
Mr. fierjt. Ryles then addressed the jury for the defend-
ant, and contended that the plaintiff had received the
amount of the sale of Mr. Rogers's stock in trade which he
hail not accounted for. _ .

The Lord Chief Justice said it was proved that the plain•
tiff had accounted fur the amount realised by the sale of the
defendant's property in the Insolvent Debtor's Court, and
the defendant had sworn to the truth of that account. It

was not competent, therefore, for him now to question the
account so rendered.

Mr. s..erit. Ryles said after the opinion expressed by his
lordship, he would not keep up the ease any longer.
A verdict was then returned for the plaintiff—Damages
SO/. 12s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YESTERatT.
- Srrnxus an BANC.%

lIART T. BAIRNDALI.--CAIRIERS ACT.—NOTICE.
This was an action on the case against Pickfurds, for
negligence as common carriers. At the trial before Sir F.
Pollock it appeared that the plaintiff, who is an army
clothier, had delivered at his own door a box containing
some valuable masquerading attire to the defendant's
carman for delivery at Liverpool. No mention was made at
the time of the nature of the contents, and the box being
lost in transit this action was brought to recover its value.
Under these circumstances the defendant resisted the
action on the ground that the plaintiff' had not brought
himself within the terms of the notice affixed in the office of
the defendant under the Carriers Act. The plaintiff, on
the other hand, contended that the parcel was received
without any restriction, and that the defendant was liable as
a carrier for hire at common law. The Chief Baron being
of opinion that the act only required the defendant to put
up the notice at the chief office, and that fact was to be
deemed a sufficient notice to the owners of goods delivered
elsewhere, directed a verdict for the defendant. Afterwards
this rule was obtained to enter a verdict for the plaintiff,
,
and time having been taken to consider,
THE PEEL STATUE IN THE ClTT.—YesterdAy the Mr. Baron Parke now delivered judgment in favour of
committee assembled at the Mansion-house, for the purpose the plaintiff. In arriving at this deeision, the court had
of selecting one from the number of sculptors who sent in met with difficulties, no doubt, but there were such on both
models for a statue to be erected in the City in memory of sides, and on a comparison of them all, it apipeared that
the late Sir Robert Peel, Bart., and dividing upon a site. less difficulty lay in the way of the plaintiff than of the
Sir Peter Laurie in the chair. There were present the fol- defendant. The plaintiff was entitled to notice, either
lowing gentlemen :—Sir J. W Hogg, Bart., Sir Moen Mon- " actual or constructive, of the carrier's intention to limit his
teftore, Bart., Baron Goldsmid, r. John Dillon, Captain liability under the act, and it appeared to the coast, with
Shepherd, Mr. Bennoch, Mr. T. Hawkey, Mr. J. W. Petty, the exce • of Sir F. Pollock, who retained the opinion
Mr. John Dixon, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Donald Nicol, Mr. ex by him at the trial, that notice at the office did
Rawson, Mr. R. L. Jones, Mr. Gladstanes, Mr. Cohen, Sir not suffice' where goods were received by the servants of the
E. N. Buxton, Mr. Dallas, Mr. David Salomon*, M.P. for carrier on the rftd. In such cases it was very easy for the
Greenwich, Mr. B. L. Rothschild, Mr. Twining. Mr. C. servant to make a special contract for the carriers, and
Mills, Mammas Wire, sad Sir J. F. Me Leon. The cam- when that was omitted, the ordiani7 liability of the car-
mine* passismiai seen after the chair was taken to ballot, • Tiers must attach. The plaintiff would, therefore, have
sad the eassawfal candidate was Mr. Behnes. After a judgment, but as the defendant might wish to take
abort. pon the motion of Sir J. W. Hogg, the . the rate to a court of error, ho might, under a bill of excep-
elMansion-honor sad King William-street ' Cons, as though this judgment had been given at the trial.
sad ?deem...met was decided epee es the mast eligible by Mr. Peacock, on behalf of the defendant, asked for a
• large . It was eakiegesealf lasted that Mr. I week to decide what course he should queue, to which the
Boluses bad that it his mkt tali obtain the I court mematelts and it was further intimated that the quo-
Lief=it wed& lie Wskit an the statue tion of oasts should be mewed du:wards.
k Inks et Ifs a had &ow. Rule absolute accordingly.

iiii:Johtiliollings;itTrils was then called, and said he
was unable to account for the tire. The rags and paper he
had on the peemiees were dry and clean. Some of the
linen rags had been two years stowed away, but he %erasure
they were free tram damp, because he bad examined them
all himself.

Mr. Braidwood here informed the coroner that the fact
of the rags having been two years in stock would confirm
his opinion as to spontaneous combustion.
Other witnesses having given evidence, the coroner sug-
gested an adjournment, with a view of getting further evi-
dence. Ile thought that if a reward were offered, it would
probably bring some individual to justice.
Messrs. Wigan and Co. said they should offer a reward of
4001 for the apprehension of the supposed incendiary ; and
after some further conversation, the inquiry was adjourned
until the nth inst.