The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-06 00:00:00

SPORTING.

BETTING AT YANCHEBTER—BoseT.
CHESTER Cup (enter or not).-1,000 to 15 agst Ws Eagle
(t),1,1,00to12 eget Bamoody(t), 1,000 to 12 aid Furfforrtae(t), 1,000.10
12 egg HAMM Hato, oolt (t), 1,000 to 10 offered against any other.
DERBY —6 to 1 araZilfilying Putehm .n, 7 to 1 agse
Tatham 12 to 1 tt. 1,1 10 1 313100101101. 2010 Ilirt
Oriel. 3 to 1 scot to I use any mbr.
LIVERPOOL eTZIPLE CREEL—ACCEPTANCES —PrOCeed,
list sib; Wolverhampton, list Mb; British Yeoman, list Mb ;
Paler Simple, list Sib; Si. Leger, list ; the Victim. 1 Ist 2;b,
Waiter Harm, Ilit ; Herman, list ; The Dories, lOst 101 b; Noe.
borer, Ihrt Mb iburgarton, lOat 910; Alexander, lOst Sib ; The
Knight at Gwynn', 104 710 ; Alfred, lOst Sib; Jortice to Fzglind,
lOst Mb; Kim Bursa, 104 Mb; Equinox. lOst 41b; Forest Boy,
lOst Mb; Venom, 10s ; b g by lout; Farnham, lOst; Spam,
But ISM; Bost or Three, 94 101 b; Gower, 9471 b ; Velocity,
Sat 106.
WORCESTER. STEEPLE CHASE.
WORCESTER HANDICAP of 20 *On. ERcb, 10 ft and 5 only

Ude:tared, with 100 added ; the mooed to rave his stake. Gentlemen
Mere Lc. 4 miles. (it Inds, 21 of wham declared )
Captain Maduck'n Proceed Sant reel) 1
lard ntratbseare's Red Lester
The following al o started bat were not rimed : British Teams.
Prime Gomm Atel4l-Kader, Vistim, lb. Bigler, Peer
Alexaeder, Repulse, Thorgirles, Linkb, Indite to England, Fare.
bans. Vindictive, Forest Roy, Term, °obeyed Malden,
Gower.-3 to I apt Proceed (t trial?), 6to 1 mist Alexandelk,rr,
east British Yeoman, 8 to l agst Pear Maple, 10 to I agetl
England
Rader, to 1 apt Rome,. Gower, 12 to 1 apt Justiceto
Oh 1010 I NMI ilsorgarten (t freely), 12 to 1 eget Vieille, 11 to 1
east Viefictive. If to t aptdy Red mid 20 to I We FeStetien
—Rolitoe Gower made nee all LAMM% .
till readied the
rills beyond the artificial mom, wherthee haTunnies declined. Red Lancer went
to the heft in the last field bet one, followed by Farnham, Prima
I Gawp, and several others, Proceed walling, t 11 over the artificial
Ism into the Nurse. whew be challenged Red Lancer, and won
Measly by a neck. Stun In 10 min. 24 sec.
NEWMARKET COURSING MEETING CONCLUDED.—PIuess.
Tun CUP.-Tbird Ti..: Frgaro beat Doroo ; Mainmast
beat Rosettii.
Deciding coarse: Mr. Fyson'e Figaro beat Lord Stradlicoke's
mart, and woo the cup.
Tan OAKS.— Deciding conere : Mr. Buekworth's Bramble
best Mr. Dobede's Duels, mid won the stakes.
Tan POST STA/LBS.—Third Ties : Lavender brat Drift.
Diamond ran a bye.
Deciding course : Mr. Dubede's Diamond beat Mr. Lender's Laren-
' der, and woe the stake&

Lab) Euttil tiltiltt.

EQUITY COURTS.—SanADAT.
_ Before the Lord Chancellor.

MOOED O. GRIFOGTI27I;
Mouroaos —A64lol4lll,l7.—Tbis was an appeal from an
order of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, allowing a demurrer
to a bill. The plaintiff bad granted a lease of a house and
premises, including a cotton mill, situated in or near Bolton,
to one Taylor, who received pecuniary assistance from time
to time from Gregg ai d Co., and to acute the repayment of
their advances, Taylor deposited the lease with them.
Taylor was unsuccessful In busicess, and gays up the pro-
mises to Gregg and Co . who enteredinto possession and
paid tome rents to the plaintiff. They afterwards removed
the machinery and abandoned the premises, refusing to pay
any mare rents or perform tht other covenants is
Taylor's lease. The bill was filed to compel them
to take a legal assignment of the lease from
Taylor, and to perform* the covenants contained
in it. They demurred to the biU,and the Vice-Chancellor
allowed the demurrer.—Mr. Role, in support of the appeal,
argued that the defendants were, in this murt, in the peti-
tion of legal mortgagee*. They teak possession of the
mortgaged property, and submitted to the covenants of the
lease until they found the property WAS no longer valuable—
being made so by their own acts—and then they refused to
take an assignment of the lease, although they. bed before
that entered into a correspondence with the plaintiff to take
a new lease. This court compels persons in the situation of
the defendants to take a legal assignment of the lease, and
then the plaintiff has his remedy at law to enfurce the pay-
ment of the rent and performance of the other covenants.
They cited in support of this argument a great number of
cases from " Lucas v. Comerford" in 1790 (reported in
1 Vet, jun., 23d; 3 Brown, 198; and better in
S Simons, 499); to " Flight V. Bentley" 1835
(7 Simons, 149); and distinguished this ease from
Morris v. Cheat" (8 Simons, 608), which broke in on
the prec2ding long line of authorities.—Mr. R. Palmer, for
the defendants, contended that they were not liable to the as-
ceptance of the lease. It would be the greatest hardship on
persons with whom title deeds were deposited to make
him liable to whatever covenants they might contain. The
case of "Lucas v. Comerford " was overruled, and se, in
, effect, were all the cams that rested upon the ruthority of
that cue. The right doctrine was hod down in "Morrie
v. Cheat." The common sense as well as the equity of the
case was with the defendants, who, even if they were to be
compelled to take an assignment of the lease, might re-assign
It next day to a uper, and so get rid of the liability.—
Roll replied.—Thepa Lord Chancellor said he would leek into
the eases before giving his decision.

Before the Muter of the Bons.
Rs TIAOUR.—RZEUSAL TO DISCHARGE ORDER TOE
TAXATION.—TES Master of the Rolls gave judgment in this
ease. He said it was • motion to discharge an order obtained
by Mr. Fiestel for taxation of his solicitor's (Mr. Trager's)
bill of costs. Two grounds were alleged for the applicati en.
First, that the order directed the taxation of one bill of costs
only, whereas Fiestel was liable to pay Mr. Teague another
bill of costs for tininess done for another party, on the re-
tainer of Mr. Fiestel; and, secondly, that the order directed
Mr. Testae to deliver up all papers in his possession, not-
withstanding he claimed a lien on them for the other bill of
weds. He thought the motion must be refused, with costa.
First, because there was no evidence that Fiestel was liable
to pay themes for the other party ; end, secondly, because
if Teague had a special lien on the psperc, he would be pro-.
Meted, on applicuton to the court, from deliveting them up.
PEACOCIL O. PENSON.--SPECIFIC PERFORMATICIL—Ter
Mester of the Rolls also deliver. d judgment in this PHI.
The bill was Men for the specific pirformonce of a contract
which the plaintiff had made with the defendant Penton for
tke purchase of a plot of ground situat, at Upper Holloway,
Middlesex. The property formed Lot 17 of a larger quan-
tity, consisting altogether of shout twenty air thirty acme,
which the vendor had laid out arcordhig to a certain plan,
with a view to houses beteg erected, with convenient roads,
&a. The sale took place in July, 1844. the whole of the
property being put up in l 8 lots. The 12th condition pro-
vided that the vendor should, at his own expense, within a
certain time, make and plant with lime trees the roads
marked on a plan referred to by the conditions, the expense
of which :as to be repaid hint by the respective purchasers,
in proportion to the value of their respective lots. There was
no question of title between the parties; but the
plaintiff insisted on the defendant making a par-
ocular road marked on the plan. The defendant
objected that be could not make it without incur-
ring • forfeiture of a piece of leasehold land through
which it would run • and, secondly, because the plaintiff had
no interest in the road. Looking at the map, it appeared to
him that the purchaser of Lot 17 could not have much in-
terest in the road. But, neverthelces' he could not, under
the circumstances of the contract, be treated in this court as
having no interest in it. And he was inclined to think that
if there was no difficulty about it the plaintiff would hays
had a right to require that the plan shoeld be adopted. But
the road could not be made without a risk of forfeiture, and
he therefore thought specific performance ought not to be
decreed. But the plaintiff might have a reference if be de-
sired it as to the damages he h 0 sustained by not having the
road. Compensation was offered before the bill was filed,
and he regretted the correspondence which had taken place.
He should dismies the bill as against the defendant Ward
with coots, and,ss against Penton without carts up to the
hearing. But if the plaintiff chose he might have • convey-
ance of the land he had purchased, with a reference as to
empensation.

Baton the ViceeCaancellor of lagland.
RIMY O. BElTlL—Dumukaan TO A BILL POE AX
AccounT OVIRRULED.—This was a demurrer filed by three
partners in a backing company at Hull, carrying on business
under the title of Smith Brothers, to a bill tiled mint them
by Mr. abeam, the secretary of a joint-stock company esta-
blished at Hull, for the purples of founding a preparatory
school, called the Hull College. It appeared that an account
was opened by the plaintiff as a shareholder and secretary of
the company with the bankers, to whom .he company be-
came indebted to the amount of 1,0501. The banker
brought an action against the plaintiff for payment of this
money, whereupon the plaintiff filed his bill in equity
against the bankers, one of whom, Mr. John Henry Smith,
was a holder of two shares in the College Company, for the
purpose of having the affairs of the company and up, and
for an injunction to re-train the action at law dntil the &s-
-ecants between the parties should have been brought to •
settlement. In support of the demurrer to the bill,
it was contended that the plaintiff had no right
to associate as defendants to the bill the three
other partners in the backing firm who were not interested
in any w►y in the College Company. The fourth partner
had only two sham, and it would be moat unjust to defer
the settlement of the claims made against the company by
the bank, until the affairs were wound up.—The Vioe Chan-
cellor said, where a partnership of A and B bscame indebted
to another partnership of B and C, this court would not
allow execution upon on action by B and C agaictt A and
B, unless for the whole amount of the debt. It had been
ingeniously suggested by cones,' that there might be an ap-
portionment of the as+ete until the d, bts were got in, but
that was no answer to the ease aa naw stated. He should,
therefore. overrule the Seamier,

GRANVILLE 9. BETH.—Tae harat or SELTZER Wiens.
—This suit was inatitutill by Dr. Granville, the author of
revers' works upon the mineral springs of Germany, against
Mrs. Bette, the wife and personal representative of the late
Mr. Bette, for the specific p•rfortnanee of a contract entered
into between the plaktiff and Mr. Beth, he which it was
awned that the plaintiff should use his influence with the
Duke of Nassau to obtain en' exclusive consignment, to the
said Mr. Bette, of a certain quantity of oalisar water every
year, and in consideration of the nouh!si to which the plain-
tiff would be put in the matter, he was to receive, during
his life, from Mr. B tta 61 per dosen for all the bottles ex-
ported to him, and that Mr. Betts or his heirs should pay,
after the death of Dr. Granville, to his heirs or adatinidraten
the sem of 31 per dozen, a. long as the contract should last,
which was for the term n. 21 years. The plaintiff, after various
negotiations with the Duke of Ewan and his minister',
obtained for Mr. Beth whit he desired, and a contract was
prepared and signed by the chief °facer of the Duke
of Nemo, securing to Mr. Bets the exclusive
right to all the shier water which should be
exported to England upon condition that none of the water
should be sold to any other persons than the EnsrEsh, and
that Mr. Bette sh,nild take 200,000 bottles the first year,
.500,000 the second year, and a million the third year. This
contract wu sinned in January, 184.5, and had ever sines
been acted upon, but Mr. Bette, during his life, and his rs
presentative subsequently, had refund to render to Dr.
Granville any account of the number of bottles imported, or
to pay him the per tentage agreed upon. This bill was con-
sequently filed for specific performance of the agreement,
and a demurrer was put in by the defendant, on the ground
that the contract entered into was not such a one u a court
of equity could enforee.—Mr. Bothell for the bill contended
that as the agreement between the plaintiff and Mr. Betts
was for a continual payment of a per oentage, the only
means by which it could be enforced, wee by coming to a
C.Aatt of Equity. Another objection was, that ea this wu a
hill of Tremor, the defendant was precluded by the steps
already taken in the suit upon the original bill from any
right to put in a demurrer.—The Vies-Chancellor said what.
eves diSculty there might be in a court of equity enforcing
an agreement of this nature which provided for the payment
of a sum of money for series* rented, still that might be
got over by this means. The agreement provided that a
deed should he executed for the purples of carrying out the
terms of the contract, and the court had power at any rate to
dir et that a deed in conformity with these terms should be
exec.ited, and that would give the parties an opportunity of
trying the question at law. There was, however, another oh-

lIIIMF'--