The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-06 00:00:00

13CsINESe VY THY. COURT.

His Lordship alio said: I have to intimate to the bar
that my brother Erie uel be on the bench to.morrow, and
that all motions fur new tiials in causes heard by him must
be then moved. It may not be in his power to remain
here the whole day, and therefore any such motions for new
trials must be inured at the sitting of the court.
HALL C. Dvisins.—Tns INsOLVENT ACT.
This was an action tried at the last assizes at Northamp-
ton, before Mr. Justice Maine, when a verdict was found
fur the plaintiff fur .11.1 f. It anpeatist that a person called
Bryant became insolvent, and, having petitioned the court
fur relief of insolvent debtors, came up fur his examination
no the 'Nth of May last hewn the Judge of the County
Court. The plaintiff, who was a creditor, had given notice
of opposition, in consequence of which an arrangement was
entered into between him and the defendant, who was the
solicitor of 'frying, by which the defendant agreed in
writing to give the plaintiff MX it he would withdraw the
opposition, which lie consented to du. Immediately after-
said, another creditor, also called Hall," appeared to
oppose the insolvent, upon which the defendant claimed to
have the agreement cancelled, but the plaintiff refused to
do so. The opposition of the second creditor was unsuc-
cessful, and the plaintiff was appointed assignee to the
estate. Subsequently the plaintiff sued the defendant
upon his undertaking, and obtained a verdict fur the amount
claimed. . . _

Mr. Sevyeant Millar now moved for a rule calling on the
plaintiff to show e.u.e why 4 nensuit should not be enteral,
or why the judgnit nt should net be arrested, in pursuance
of Move given at the trial, upon the ground that the ar-
rangement between 111, plaintiff and defendant was op-
posed to the spirit and policy of the insolvent Act. The
' learned serjeant quoted the ease of Murray v. Reeves ••
(ts barn. and Cress., 421) in support of his argument.
Rule granted.
BAUTLETT v. EVANA .-..SIAII:FATRATION OF A LIVIXO
111IIANT THE INCUSIBAXT WAS IX PRISON.

This was au action for money had and received, tried at
the last p at Guildhall before Lord Campbell, to which
there was a plea of never iudebitd, and the plaintiff was
nonsuited. It appeared that in 1516 the plaintiff, who was
the incumbent of a living in Ilerefordshire, was convicted
of a libel on his sister-in-law, and sentenced to two year.'
insprisuniutut. The bishop of the diocese, whilst the plain-
tiff was incarcerated, issued a monition requiring him to
live on his beuelice, and he being unable to du so the living
was sequestrated and pi...cutest to the defendant. The
sum of 139 f. fis. bad been paid over by the eccle-
siastical commissioners to the defendant, and the action was
bruught to rceuver that alaaaal from him as the sequestra-
tes, a notice leasing been given to him in December, ISA
that the •equestratton was Waal, and demanding an account
of the prefits which lie had rt.. cived. 'lke learned judge held
at the trial that until the contrary was proved, the seques-
tration must be taken to be legal, and that the money was
nut paid to the use of the defendant. The object of the
action was to try the validity of the sequestration, and his
lordship was of opinion that there was no evidence of money
had and received to the defendant's use, it having been
paid to him as the sequestrator ; the plaintiff was conse-
quently nonsuited.
Mr. Prentice now moved far a rule, calling on the
defendant to show cause why the minuet should not be bet
aside, and a new trial had; and submitted that the evidence
proved a prima facie Calls un the part of the p!aintitf, and
that the defendant was bound to put in the sequestration,
and show it to have been legal. It did nut follow that be-
came the defendant received the money as sequestrates,
that lie was so iu reality, or that the acquestration was one
which the bishop had authority to issue.
Lord Campbell said the question was, whether the law
would not infer the sequestration to be legal, until some
evidence was given to the .unirary. There was presump-
tive evidence that it was legal, and the plaintiff had not
made out any case. The plaintiff had not sued the person
prima facie liable.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTERDAY.
&minis ix BMOC°. -11"11)ilt Cult, Juntas Jun*, MIL JUSTICI
Maln 11, I. Jrnit %%111.LIAW., %IL inTICI TAIJOUPO.

PRACTICE o' TUE COVILT.

The court oat this n g at half past ten o'clock, and
the CAivf Justice at once calm' upon the members of the bar
in attendance to move, but u no motion was made their
lordships remained for about feu minutes with nothing to
do. _ _

The Chief Justice then addressed Mr. Sergeant Manning,
as head of the bar, and reminded him that notice bid
been already given that motions fur new trials would not be
heard after the first four drys of tern, and the result would
probably be that some motions could not be made. It
would be most unjust that the whole of the first day of term
and of to-day should be wasted, and then that the special
paper should not come on in order, merely because gentle-
men did nut choose to make it convenient to be in court.
Mr. Serjeent Manning said it frequently happened that
instructions to loose were not delivered until the third or
fourth day of term.
The Chief Justice.—Then a very good action would lie
against attorneys for negligence.
Mr. Serjeant Manning—They thought they had until the
fourth day.
The Chiof Justice—Yes; but everybody could not have
until the fourth day or the business would not commence
until that time.

Some few minutes further time was wasted, and Mr.
Serjeant Bytes then came inta court and moved fur and
obtained a rule' to reduce the damages in the case of
Wickins T. Goatlef,'• and afterwards business went on in
the usual way.
LANCASTIII r. C .—THE PLAINTIFF Is Passes.

Mrs. Lancaster, the plaintiff in this ease, applied to their
lordships for a new trial upon the ground that the jury had
given her a verdict for 4415. on!), an amount inadequate to
the injuries which she had sustained.
It appeared, however, that the ease had been tried during
the sittings in last term, and that according to the rules of
practice the time for making the present application had
aspired.
The Chief Justice said that the rules of court, whisk bad
been made for general inconvenience, prevented the court
from hearing the application, which should have been maple
last term.