The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-14 00:00:00

A " STARTLING EFFECT."

Mr. Wyndham, the manager of the Theatre Royal
Edinburgh, announced a "startling effect" last week. It
seems (says the Caledonian Mercury) that for some days
several new mechanical contrivances had been in prepara-
tion for the opera, and on Saturday night it was determined
to try a new plan lately invented, we suppose, for the arti-
ficial production of thunder, a commodity in frequent
request on the stage. For that purpose, the last act of the
"Flowers of the Forest," in which a thunderstorm is
introduced, was performed. A preliminary rumbling sound
behind the scenes portended a tremendous peal, and imme-
diately bang went something in the further end of the
upper gallery, which, [undoubtedly, if we had been in
July insteadof December, might have passed for the genuine
original. As it was, its success was too complete. For some
reason, perhaps from the resemblance of the anise to a falling
wall, a panic got up in the gallery, shrieks and cries of mur-
der were heard from all parts, and with the contagion of
fear and the instinct of self-preservation, there was appa-
rently about to be that overwhelming rush to the doors,
which, in the Dunlop-street Theatre in Glasgow in 1847,
was attended with so great a destruction to human life,
Mr. Wyndham, aided by some of the company, vociferated
that there was no danger, and implored the people to keep
their seats, but the pit was rapidly emptying itself, and
some adventurous youths were sliding down the pillars from
the galleries into the boxes. Happily the maaager's appeal
was successful, and a loud cheer from all parts of the house
conveyed the assurance that nobody was hurt, and an-
nounced at the same time the unparalleled success of this
extraordinarily " startling effect." By the way, Mr.
Wyndham seems to be atteaded with singular fortune in
this way. There was to be a " startling effect" one even-
ing in May list at the Adelphi Theatre, and sure enough
the public who went to witness it at the usual hour were
soon apprised of the truth, for they found the theatre in
a blue.

NEW PUBLIC CEMETERY FOR ISLINGTON.—Thei
burial board of St. Mary, Islington, have aimed an address
to the parishioners, in which they say that, after mature
deliberation, and personally inspecting several sites, they
tburialwoilththtihretyaemt r
of land belonging to them at Finchley, and adjoining gale;
own ec purchaseo ut
own cemetery. Of this land they propose to ap::,eariate
boardhave eonftseredr.
pa intoe ra :
twenty acres to the members of the church of T.;esimia andpro parish,y I
ten acres to the nonconformists. Icon-parishioners will be
on the payment of So. annual rent
allowed to bury in both ftroundS, On payment of ext:,a fees.
The St. Pancras burial n°,ard have agreed to s:.iem them
thefor theus So7f.:thetirwell:tiPeyiels, after which tlyy will be free.
An outlay of 4,0001. Is thus saved to the T.arish of Islington.
The board have agreed to pay 3001. per acre for the land,
or 9,0001. for the 30 acres. The estimate for enclosing and
laying out the ground, thoroughly draining it, making
sewer-, and erecting the requisite buildings, will irobikly
amount to 11,0001. more, making a total of P.l 1 If, the
whole to be under contract and competition. It will be,
therefore, necessary to raise, the first Instants, 1,800/.
annually-8001. for interest, 0.n.1 1,0004 fot paying off the
principal borrowed. A penny rate will hts sufiletent ter
this purpose. In the course of four or fire-yeem, theft is
every reason to expect that this rate willie slued to a
halfpenny, the amount required for interestlessellinsteri
year; and the profit arising from the cemetery; minus* In-
creasing. The probability is, that in eight or ten year(
time, no rate at all will he required; tha whole charge
being covered by the cemetery returns, while at the expirer
tion of twenty year', when the loan has been entirely paid
off, a large annual profit will accrue, which will perm*.
uenUy reduce the perish rates.

Law katelltactice.

EQUITY couitTs.—YESTERDAT.

b.1•.1.1 MAY CIIIM-11,Looa Vll9 TIM UMW+ 11411CIII.
PAULI: IN at 1.1111.61N119.

This ease was originally heard by Sir .1. L. Knight Bruce,
when Vice.Chaneellor, sitting its bankrup•cy. Ilis lord-
ship theft gave his opinion on the points involved, but the
case was not decided, as the parties wished a case to he
amt fur the opinion of a court of law. This was nut, bow•
ever, dose; and the ease has not berm proceeded with un-
til it was recently brought in its first shape berme the Lords
Justices, who directed it to be brought before the lull court.
It was a petition of Moan. Nie:iun, share brokers, ut
Liverpool, praying that the assignees of William and
Thomas Edmonds, bankrupts, might be directed hi join in
and execute to the petitioners or their tit-moue..., a transfer
of 80 shares, 60 shores, and 26 eludes in the Royal Assu-
rance Company, contracted to be sold by the petitioners fur
William Edmonds. It appeared that in June, 18.63, the
Royal Assurance Clll3ll/111 was formed in Liverpool, and
was completely registered on the Mich of Jonr. On the
7th of July Willman Edmunds applied tar and obtained 200
of the 20f. shares of the company, on which he paid a de-
posit of 11. and a premium of 155., and took a receipt on
the letter of allotment. On the 3rd of December, 1844,
William Edmonds went to Bombay. leaving a power of at-
torney with his brother Thomas, authorising him to act in his
&Gins and in the pale of his shares. On 9th December,
1815, Thomas Edmonds paid a knew, call of If. per Alan
ea the 200 charts in question. William Edmunds did not
execute the deed of settlement nor receive the scrip of the
shares before he went to India, and although Thomas
Edmonds' proposed to smite it under the power of at-
torney, it was thought that he had not the necessary
power to do so. Its 1816 the petitioners were directed by
Thumu Edmonds to sell the 200 shore', and they sold 160
of them in portions of eighty fifty, and twenty-fire each,
and transfers were eseeuted by Thomas Edmonds and the
purchasers, but the compsny's solicitor thiuking that the
transfers could not be registered until William Edmonds
heel metaled the deed or sett meat, the registration was
postponed. In March, 1816, William and Thomas Edmonds
became bankrupts, aud their assignees refused to concur
in the meets, 01 the shares. Mr. Commissioner Skirrow
derided that William Kdroonds net having been a duly re-
gistered shareholder in consequence ut his not having
estimated the deed of settlement, all that had been dant was
iroperetive, and that the assignees were entitled to the
shares as part of the estate. The question now tam on on
appeal from this decision, sad was whether on Alone* .t
shares could sell his interest without executing the share-
holders' deed of settlement, and being duly registered,
and whether such a contract to sell could be sus-
tained consistently. with the 26th section of the
Registration Act & 8 Vittoria, c. 110, which
provide* "that with regard to subscribers and
every person entitled to any share is any joint stock
company, the formation of which shall be commenced after
the Ist day of November, Mt that until such joint-stock
company shall hays obtained a certificate of complete regis-
tration, and until say such subscriber or person *hull have
been duly registered es a shareholder in the said registry
office, it shall not be lawful for ouch person to dispose by
sale or mortgage of such share or of any interest therein, and
that every contract for, or isle or disposal of such
share and interest shell be void, and that every person
entities Into such contract shall forfeit a sum not exceed-
ild 1r 1. J.
11;. Russell and Mr. Eddie appeared for the Testis
boner* ; Mr. 11 icon, Mr. Smythe, end Mr. 'Tomlinson of
the common law bar for the assignees.
Their lordships postponed: their judgment till Thursday
bent.

■ATV V. BROTHRIPAI.

The plaintiffs in this suit were Sir Jobs Dean Pail and
Co., baoken ; the defendants were the Rev. James Bro-
thers, Mr. Dzsgerfield, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
This was a mutton by the plaintiffs as judgment creditors of
du defendant Mr. Brothers, under t. judgment, of which a
sni usorandens bad ben duly ente red up on the 25th of Js-
Dusty, 1851, that a receiver of the titherents, charge, and
premien belonginer to the eeerory of Monk's Horton and
the vicarage of Brabourne, in Kent, of which Mr. Roberts
was nem and vicar, might be appointed.
Mr. W. D. Lewis was in support of the motion ; he relied
on " Hawkins v. Gethereole" (1 Simons, new series, 63),
and submitted that the plaintiffs' title under their judgment
was preferable to that of the defendant, Mr. Dangerfield,
who had obtained a judgment in December, 1851, subse-
quent, in date to the judgment of the plaintiff., under
which he had sued out a writ of sequestration facies, in pur-
suance of which the Archbishop held the livings in severe
tration. He submitted that the effect of the statute ef
1 and 2 Via. e. 110, sec. 13 and 19, was to give the *WWI
this preference and entitle them to the receiver ais mind.
Mr. Olen and Mr. Prior, fur Mr. Dangerdeld, submitted
that the plaintiffs' judgment was invalid. The defendant,
Mr. Roberts, intemporaneosuly with the warrant of attorney
on which the plaintiffs judgment was obtained, signed an
agreement charging the ecclesiastical benefices expressly
with a debt of 3001 , which was the identical debt in respect
of which the plaintiff.' judgment mom. The cue which
the plaintiffs had cited had given treat diseatisfaction in
the profession ; but, without entering on the principles 01
that decision, it was enough to say that " Long v. Stories"
decided by the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, when Viet/-
Chancellor De Gez and Sonde, 308) Jpreciaely met dee pen.
sent case. There, as here, the parsuo's "preeminent
so particularly to a charge upon the benefice, that mart
could not give validity to each a transaction without word.
ing its aid to simony. The analogy of the law on wary, is
" Lane v. 'Unlock " (1 Drewry, 587), was also against the
plaintiffs claim. They also submitted, that the defendant,
Deagerfield, having been mere active, and having obtained
legal possession through the sequestration, was not to be
disturbed at the plaintiffs' suit.
Mr. Lewis, in reply entered into a review of the various
case, on the subject, at considerable length.
Mr. Do Gel appeared fur the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and mink the court, in whatever order it might make, to
provide tor the due administration of divine service in the
parishes.
The

said he could .ot reconcile the ease

of " Hawkins v. Oathereole" wids the decision in " Long v.
!Rorie," but it was not necessary for him to determine on
those grounds. Ile thought that the ground on which he
must decline to appoint a receiver was well established in
the court—it was this, that if there were several persons
having equitable incumbrancee, and any one of them,
although a subsequent incumbraneer should, by greater
activity, acquire a legal possession in aid of his equitable
right, this court would not disturb his possession at the suit
of any other equitable incumbrancer. The defendant, Mr.
Dmagerfield, in this case, had acquired the benefit of such
legal possession, and the court must decline to make the
order asked.
The cost' of the defendants were ordered to be costs in
the cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-TESTERDAL
ASTMS/ AT PM PUTT AT GITLDBALL.-11E71111% LOMI. CLIIPOILL WAD

TONLINS V. OAURETT.

In this cm, which was tried yesterday, and molted in a
verdict for the plaintiff,
His lordship, on the application of Mr. Serjeant Wilkins,
ordered execution to be stayed until neat tem.

STEDIBIRO V. DYNES.—ALANDIS.
Mr. Serjeant Whim., with Mr. Hawkin., appeared for
the plaiatiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Shire, with Mr. Petendorff,
for the defendant._ __ _ _

Both the plaintiff and defendant in this sae an attorneys,
and the action was brought to recover damages for certain
slanderous word. alleged to have twin uttered by the de.
feedant reflecting on the plaintiff's character. The
defendant pleaded "Not Guilty. '
It appeared that the plaintiff had been articled clerk to
Mr. T. Symms, a brother of the defendant, and on his death
had become the attorney of another brother and a sister of
the defendant. Proceedings had been taken in Chancery
with regard to the will of Mr. T. Syntex, in which the
plaintiff acted for the defendant's surviving brother and
sister, to whom the defendant had said, in conversation,
that he was " surprised at their employing Mr. Steinberg,
as he wee a rogue and a thief, and would rob them through
thick and thin."

The defendant'. brother and sister having proved that
he had mrsdo erne of the wards complained of, and denied,
in crow gamagstion. Ihfit they had previously asked hie
advice with regard le the mast r in which the plaintiff con-
ducted their affairs.
Mr. &titans Shoe addressed the jury for the defendant,
submitting that woods spoken by one brother to another re-
garding family transactions ought clearly to come within
the category of a privileged communication.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, told the jury that it
memed to him upon the evidence that the words alleged in
the declaration had been uttered, and that there was no
privilege atteuding the occasion when they were spoken.
If this was their opinion, they would find for the plaintiff.
The question of dulness was entirely for their considera-
tion: . _ .

The jury nturned a verdict for the plaintiff—deranges 601.