The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-31 00:00:00

liato Intelligence.

DUCHY OF CORNWALL COURT.
His Royal Highness Prince Albert, is virtue of his office
of warden of the Duchy of Cornwall, held • court on Saturday
in tits ceiniedchamber ofguyrivy Conseil-offioe, Downing-

street. Besides his Royal Hipbone, the part iienalieTrof
the Lard Chancellor, Lord Lyndhunt, end mariber sable
and horsed lord.
Bursar e. REYNOLoB.—Arrski.-31finso Swain.—
This use involved the ownership of 16 shams in a certain
mine in Cornwall. The mine was divided into 124 shares,
and it was alleged that Mr. J. Beset, eeeessed, had
purchased these sham, and an snip to this effect was
found in the books of the mine. This entry was, however,
erased (not in ruck a lamer es to obliterate what had been
written. nor did it appear that any intention of the kind bad
existed) and
that the * and it was enneaded ea the put of Mr.
...4.. Reynoldas not of any validity as a
proof of the shares Mr. Beast's, or Oat, if
they had bees bit, had beta re-tramderred
bask la Mr. Reynolds, of the entry and allegation
stallei that Mr. Resat bed peeineut them In support of
this amnion it was nil that, wabseqesstly to Mr. Barnet's
dssab, Mr. Reynolds miaow' Isr mem years to pay the
lonm attendant or dins awe, width at CM time wive
emaldheabM sod whisk le entaidp weahi net have ass if I
be bad net MOWS Mat they wen MN ma led lisped ts romp
*ma them amid thisiat ray tiew, as bed since
abbsesiallirM aam peeve a seem 0 posit. • trial before •
jury had tikes phew under thew abeamismas, at which,
however, the Ames were decided to be the property of Mr.
Basset, or his loin and assign. The present me was as
appeal spirt Use millet of this jury.
TM Led Chancellor smeased up the Mb and arguments
of the me, mss his Borg Highness delivered the judgment
of the court, wide It missed the decaion of the lower
court, with COIL

EQUITY COURTS.
'Are the Medea at the Batts.

.......,..... —.—
WILKINSON O. CIIAMLIISWONTIL—PIIONITT 01 CLAIMS
ON WIPIII Cam nr Acnoze.—Harriett Tbestoton and
Roosilia, her sister, were entitled in equal maths under
ere will of a Mr. Edw. Manners to a Ispq et 12,0001.,
charged by his will on his estates in Yo talaW smi Loberstar-
attire, subject to a life interest in a Mrs. thallsed. • Mr.
John Byng Wilkinson married Harriett Is 1" end they
were subsequently separated. John Byte Willaman ago-
wards became ipaymsater of the 10th Hither; oil is that
isogon his brother, James Wilkinson, biome tool to him
so sirsty, and in 1813 J. B.W ilkinson executed la soksoent
st ble wife's share in the legacy of 12,0001. be treekee, to
indemnify James Wilkinson from liability in tweet of his
hee
d, and as to 2,0001., part thereof in trust kw his wife
for life with remainder to kis two natural children,
Mirka Wilson and Frances Wilson. In 1821 James Wilkie-
thia was called upon to payloool. to maks mood J. B. wain-
ma's detteiences as paymaster, and he dieddiertly afterwards.
I Is 1824 Herriott Wilkinson sold bar .thia reversionary M-
imed to the legacy of 12,0001. to Mesas Thompson, Hell,
nil Chapman, as trustees of the Basualonary Interest
Ordeay, for 3,330/., to whom she ropesessied that she m a
id* woo& Asti the suds an @Mob of OM foot, sad
anasedid as ealgssmot to Ikea Is bos sadden moms. This
gad woe gtorruda sisfirsod b' PAIR Syse Wilkinson,
her lodised. In 1827 kn. elsffood Mod, sin[ 10s interest
of Mn. Wilkinson in the lasso Doom an Wort in pu-
ssies. And this suit wet ~NS* instituted by the
morosstatios eit James Wilkinson, to have the benefit of
the beater et the deed of 1813 as ea bdmnity in respect of
the T,/ W. is lad for John B. Wilkinson. 1,, 1836 a
sigi
demo err oak the plaintiffs the benefit of this in
thandtp, without edits to the right of Mrs. Wilkinson
to a Insimt out the ftusd, and to the riOts of the
intend daughter of John B. Wilkinson sad the Reunion-
s:, Imiereet Society as to the rest of the fend and certain
somilMill and inquires were directed. John Byag Wilkin-
son Mel paading the proceedings in the mid s oBloe end
the manta, bay.ag in 1846 mad. his genera report" the
saes new pass on tor Parther directions. The pia:stiffs
had teen sedillsl Asir claim, and the question now wu
between go wilethadatits as to their respective claims.
Messrs. Minn end Mason for one of the t antral children
of John B. WMdenset claimed the benefit of the deed of
1813,50 fuse Mated is the 2,0001. settled on them, in priority
to the Reversiomy Interest Society, and they contends
that the court having already_partiell acted on that deed,
mast fully carry it out. Mr. E' y for Mrs. Wilkinson

said that she tad arranged to give up hereldris tothe Rene-
'Jemmy Interest Society, who had agreed to give her a sum
of 3001. and pay all her coats of the suit. Bat be thought it
right to state in justification of that lady, who bad been re-
presented to pare mede a false affidavit In hand of the Re.
verdonuy Society, that she bad been meet cruelly used by
her husband. Be had induced her to run away from school
at the age of fifteen, and married her at eau church in •
remote part of London, and then carried her over to the
Continent, where be deserted her. And be afterwards re•
presented to her that their marriage was Invalid, and had
made • deposition before the Mayor of Calais that she was
not his wife. In conesquence of this conduct, Mrs. Wilkin-
son fell into great distress, and re-rimmed her maiden
name, and she nude the affidavit in question
under the impression that the marriage wee in-
valid, although it had afterwards tinted out to be
a per:ectly valid marriage.—Meson. Turner and Sidebottom,
for the Reversionary Interest Society, contended that they
were entitled, in priority to the natural daughters of J. B.
Wilkinson, inesmuesi as the deed of 1813 was a mars volun-
tary settlement by a husband of a reversionary chose in
action of his wife.

Before the tire-Chancellor at Regbad.
WHIRLDON v. THE NORTH STAITORDSHIRII RAILWLY
COMPANY.—Mr. Bethel% in this case, stated that the rail-
way company had paid into the Bank the sum of 2401., being
the value of the timber on the plaintiff's property.
The Vice• Chancellor said, under such circumstances, he
would not grant the injunction applied for to restrain the
company from continuing in possession of the plaintiff's land,

Beene Vire-Chancellor Knight Bruce.
Taw e. DODROM.—RAILWAY CONTRACTOSIL—An in-
terim order had been obtained in this case, on an ex parte
i veppeared inn
,t theh mPostrirn
application,
3l• ,ocantrilsony'lasat. reCiceotiawrihnigchb:en now
for an injunction was renewed. According to the affidavits
filed in sappnrt of the motion, it appeared that on Oct. 11,
1846, the d fendanto, who were contractors for a portion of
the weeks on the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway,
entered into a sub-contract with the plaintiffs, whereby the
latter undertook the whole of the excavation of the deep
cutting No. 5, from the temporary bridge to the South Tunnel
(including the atone) for Bd. per cubic yard, finding Amy-
thing needful for the purpose, except waggons, rails, chain,
and sleepers, which were to be supplied by the defendants ;
the work to be completed in fifteen months from the date of
the contract. The work was accordingly commenced upon
the footing of the contract, but as the first part of the cutting
was through a solid masa of stone, some delay Dammed, and
• supplemental contract was s,gned, whereby, after stating '
the necessity for greater expedinon and for the employment
of as many hands as possible night and day, the defendants
to pay an additional au of 2d. per cubic yard on
agreed aunt
rock excavations, in the months of February and March.
In February, 1817, it being found that the stone exeavated
was of so good a kind that it might be employed in the con-
structions for the railway, the defendants gave the plaintiffs
notice to get the stone out in as perfect a state no ponible, as
was done in quarries, instead of blastins in the ordinary
way of making excavations. This alteration in the mode of
working had, according to the plaintiffs' statements, much
retarded the progress of the undertaking, besides rendering
it inure expensive. On May 13, 1847, the defendants gave
the plaintiffs notice that, in consequence of the slow pro-
reel of the work, the defendants intended on the following
Monday to take the whole work into their own hands. Ac-
cordingly, on that day the defendants' men came upon the
line, and, as the plaintiffs alleged, took possession of Aso
plaintiffs' materials and implements, and prevented the further
progress of the work. The present motion was for injunction
is restrain the defendants from entering upon the portion of
the railway comprised in the contract. and from removing
the plaintiffs' materials, appaeatue, and implements. Mr.
Russell and Mr. Hetherington were for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Hare for the defendants. The Vice.
Chancellor asked whether the defendants would consent to
the plaintiffs bringing such action as they should be advised,
and would, during three weeks, allow the plaintiffs to inspect
the defendants' works, and, on the defendants agreeing to
these terms, his Honour refused the motion without pre-
judice to any question in the cause, and reserved the ques-
tion of costs.
SIESON v. EDGEWOILTH.—LIABILITIES OF RAILWAY
P aomore as. —Th is case came on, upon the demurrers of some
out of thirty-seven defendants to I bill, seeking an account
of the assets and liabilities of the " Wrexham, Nanterich,
and Crowe Junction Railway Company." Alter Mr. Wit rum,
Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. J. H. Palmer
had been heard in support of the demurrers, the case was
adjourned till Monday.

Breve Vice-Chaacenor WI ram.
Ex PARTE ST. VINCENT AND OTWERS.—IN THE MATTER
OP THE BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY ACTS.—Costs
PAYABLE ne A RAILWAY COMPANY.—Thos. Symons, by his
will, dated in 1825, devised his real estate to his daughter
for her life, with remainder, after her decease, to Caroline
St. Vincent, and her sister. Marianne Capron, a married
woman, in fee. In April, 1841, the company, under the
powers of their act, took part of the devised premises for the
purposes of their undertaking. The purchase-money having
been paid into court, and invested in the purchase of 6341.
bank annuitia, the dividends were paid to the testator's
daughter till her death, in July, 1848. In April, 1847,
Marianne Capron and her husband executed an indenture,
which was duly acknowledged by Mrs. Capron,
under the provisions of the stetute for the abo-
lition of fines and recoveries, whereby Mrs. Capron's
interest in the fund was transferred to C. W. Cooke
upon trust for Mr. Capron absolately. The present
petition was then filed by Caroline St. N'incent, Mr. and
Mrs. Capron, and C. W. Cooke, praying for a transfer of the
fund in equal moieties to Caroline St. Vincent and Mr.
Capron ; and that the costs of the application and incident
thereto might be paid by the company.—Mr. Osborne,
for the petitioners, referred to the Lands Clauses Consolidatios
Act, 8 and 9 Vic., is. 18, see. 80, by which the court ts em-
powered to order payment by railway companies of the coats
incident to purchases of lands by them, 1. e , "the costs of
taking the lands, of the investment of the purchase or com-
pensation monies in government securities, and of the re-
investment thereof in the purchase of other lands, to-
gether with the costs of obtaining orders for those
purposes, as well as for payment out of court of the divi-
dends or interest of the investments, or of the principal
of such monies, and the coats of ALL proceedings
relating thereto." The learned counsel submitted that the
deed of April, 1847, which had been executed for the pur-
pose of facilitating the transfer out of court, was a proceeding
relating to such transfer within the meaning of the art, and
that the ccmpsny were bound to pay the mete thereof so
part of the proceedings for getting the money out of court.
He cited " Ex part Marshall," (1 l'hili. 500), in which the
Lord Chancellor bad said that " where a public company
takes a person's land without his consent, for their own pur-
poses, it is right they should pay all the expense incident
to it."
Mr. Eourdillon, for the company, resisted the claim for
the expenses of the deed,of April, 1827, on the ground that the
execution of the deed was not properly a proceeding relating
to the payment of the money out of court.
His Honour refused to allow the costs of the indenture of
April, 1847, against the company but in other respects
made an order in conformity with the prayer of the petition.
He observed that, in cases like the present, it was not to the
interest of public companies to resist the payment of costs,
and that the result of a general adoption of that course
would be an increased demand on the part of vendors corre-
&pending to the anticipated amount of costs. It seemed,
moreover, but right that parties who were deprived of their
lands by the compulsory powers of an act of parliament,
should not be put to unnecessary expense in the completion
of the purchase.