The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-02 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 2. 1851.

VW, intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YrnenDAY.
Bowes rum MArren aP rna Hou.s.
roomer r. BUDD.
The Master of the Rolls gave judgment in this eau,
which was heard a few days ago on demurrer overruling
the demurrer.
BLARKNKY O. DUPAML—RECKITER.
Mr. Roupell and Mr. Elderton applied in this ease for a
receiver, to get in theoutatanding assets of the partnership
lately earned on betwieen the plaintiff and defendant, as
solicitors in London, and for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from interfering with them. The ground of the
application was, that the plaintiff had been improperly ex-
pelled and excluded from the partnership by the defendant.
Mr. Walpole and Mr. Smythe, for the defendant, con
tended that it was not a proper case for a receiver. The
plaintiff had neglected to attend to the business of the
partnership, and the defendant bad proceeded under the
powers contained iu the articles of partnership, to expel
him. The partnership was, in fact, dissolved on the 4th
of March, 18.51. It was sworn by the defendant, and not
denied, that the partnership was greatly indebted to him,
and that the outstanding assets would not be sufficient to
pay his debt.
The Master of the Rolls thought that in the present stage
of the cause, and having regard to the imperfect materials
before him, be ought to interfere to protect the partnership
property. The rights of the parties would have to be deter-
mined at the hearing. lie should, therefore, make an order
referring it to the Muter to approve of a proper person as
receiver, to get in the outstanding partnership assets, with
liberty fur either party to propose hunself.
Barna, Vir.Cnmscat.t.o• Emote" flavor.
Tux RUGBY, WARWICK, AND WORCESTER RAILWAY
COMPANY.—PRLECE'S CASE.—WINDINO-UP ACT:.
Mr. Russell and Mr. Field moved, by way of appeal, that
an order of the Muter, making a call of 4s. per share upon
the appellants for payment of costs might be discharged, on
the ground that the 83rd and 103rd sections did not au-
thorise the Muter to direct the appellants to pay this

amount.
Mr. Swanston and Mr. Daniel, for the respondents, were
not called upon.
The Vice-Chancellor said he thought the Master had ju-
risdiction to make the order for costs, and that he had exer-
cised a sound discretion in making it. Although there had
been no taxation,there was nothing to show that the amount
was improper, or that the parties were not liable.
Boma LOEDFaAsyrosam tries.enaseszinal.
IN RE TILE IMPERIAL BANE Or ENGLAND, Ew PASTE
WooLLET.—WINDINO-UP RuT.--CoNTECHCToRY.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Prior moved on behalf of the official
manager that the decision of the Master charged with the
winding up of the above company,whenthy he had excluded
the name of James Woolley from the list of contributories,
might be reversed, and that Mr. Woolley's name might be
inserted in such list.
It appeared, from the evidence before the Master, that
Mr. James Woolley hail taken fifteen shares in the com-
pany, and had paid the deposit of one shilling per share ;
that his father had also taken forty shares in the company ;
that subsequently Mr. James Woolley told his father that
he did not wish to have anything more to do with the
shares • whereupon his father took them upon himself, and
paid the deposits and received the dividends upon the shares
allotted to his sou, as well as to himself. Ilia father also
signed the subscriber's agreement in his own name, and in
his son's name. Ilia father afterwards died, and Mr. J.
Wuolley became his executor, and executed a transfer of all
55 shares to a third person in two separate deeds ; but this
transfer turned out to be informal, in consequence of no
notice having been given to the directors of his intention ot
disposing of his shares. Upon the order being mode for
winding up the company under the acts, the Master de-
cided that Mr. J. Woolley was nut liable as a contributory
fur his 15 shares on the ground that his father was the per-
son who had taken the shares and executed the deed, and
he himself had incurred no liability by the mere payment
of the shilling deposit.
Mr. Bethel' and Mr. Selwyn appeared for the company.
Lord Cranworth said the real question was whether Mr.
James Woolley had signed the subscriber's deed. Ile
thuught, upon the evidence, it was clear he had nut done
so, but that his father bad signed it for him. lle at first
agreed to take the 15 shares, but afterwards thought that
he would not like to hold them, and his father thereupon
took them himwlf, and dealt with them in the usual man-
ner. His lordship's opinion was, that James Woolley
never had become a partner in the company, and never
became liable in equity in respect of the fifteen shares. The
Master's decision must, therefore, be confirmed.
IN RE THE IMPERIAL BANE or ENOLAN• ET PASTE
ASYIN•LL.—CoNTRIHUToRY.—PAYMENT Or DEPORIT.—
ALTERATION OF PROSPECTUS.
This was another case arising out of the same company as
the last. A great number of contributories were awaiting
the decision, and Mr. Aspinall was selected as representing
the others in the same position. It appeared that Mr. Aspi-
nall had taken shares in the Imperial Bank of England
when the company was first formed in the year 1836.
lle had paid the deposit of one shilling per share, but had
not signed the subscribers' deed, and had never paid any
calls or received any profits. 'the Master, upon winding up
the affairs of the company, had decided that Mr. Aspinall
and all those in the saute situation were not liable as con-
tributories.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Prior appeared in support of an ap-
peal from the Master's decison; Mr. Bethel and Mr. Sel-
wyn contra.
The Vice-Chancellor said it appeared Mr. Aspinall had
taken shares and paid the deposit in 1836, but had done no
other act to render hinissif liable as a member of the com-
pany. The other shareholders hail signed the deed and
d received dividends, and hail, in fact, continued to carry
on the business of the bank without once calling upon the
holden of shares who had done nu more than pity the dep..
sit. 'Phis would be sufficient reason for saying that Mr.
Aspinall could nut now he declared liable to contribute.
But there was another ground for strengthening the case as
it appeared that Mr. Aspinall had taken shares in pursu-
ance of a prospectus which was subsequently altered so as
to form a new company altogether, consequently Mr. Aspi-
nall had not become a shareholder in this particular com-
pany. The Master was quite right in excluding his name
from the list of contributories.

■ Vic.-4.3.•,•cam0s Seim.
S411:11tE r. Foul).

Ilia Honour delivered judgment in this case, which was
argued net Tuesday last. The plaintiff, a registered judg-
ment creditor, had with other persons registered judg-
ments against the debtor, signed a deeil of composition ex—
ecuted by the debtor for the rateable payment of their debts
out of the proceeds of sale of the nail and personal pro-
perty of the debtor comprised in the deed. the question
was, whether the plaintiff by executing this deed had rea-
lised his general charge under statute 1 and 2 Viet., c. 110,
upon the lands of his debtor, so as to give priority to the
judgment subsequent in point of date belonging to the de-
fendant. Ili* honour commented at considerable length
upon the terms of the deed in question, and concluded by
holding that the plaintiff, by signing it, had nut lust the
priority of judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII-YESTERDAY.
811713 W, Pi la,su C iy Ma. Anis, Pans.
an Ma. Jimmie Wisoinsas all Ma. Jiniss Pas.
. .

-
Lonl Campbell said that iu the following cues, in which
motions had been made for new trials—

DoE DEM. LORD ASIIRERNRAM v. Mutant.,
EATON r. SWAN IA WATERWORKS CoXIVANY,
Due nem. JoNES v. WILLIS,
The court thought that rules should he granted.
PRETTYMAN r. COLEGRAVE.

The learned judge who tried the COO was satisfied with
the verdict, and therefore there would he nu rule.

SUZILLUCI C. FrLLAGAIL

In thin case, which was one for seduction, and in which
the defendant obtained a verdict, and a motion was made
for a new trial on the ground that that verdict was contrary
to the evidence, we have consulted the learned judge who
tried the ease, and he says that, although he should have
been better pleased that there should have been a verdict
fur the plaintiff with small damages, yet he cannot say that
the verdict was afrolutely contrary to the evidence • we
agree in that opinion, and therefore there will be no rule.
ldmvaiN r. CassavErri.
_

In this ease titquestionturrii4UP; the meaning of the
term " pressed bales " in a hurter party. On the appli-
cation for a rule, we expressed our opinion that " pressed
bales" was a mercantile term, the meaning of which ought
to have been left to the jury. Upon consulting the judge
who tried the ease we find that that question was so left, and
that he is not dissatisfied with the verdict, and therefore
there will be no rule.

hence the action for false

The rule fur a

new trial, which had been obtained by the defendant, was
argued the other day by Mr. Lush on the one side, and Mr.
H. Hill on the other. The ease was then adjourned at the
suggestion of the court, in order that the learned counsel
might direct their attention to two points. First,
whether a discharge by the Insolvent Debtors' Court
prevented the judge of a county court sending a
party to prison for not paying a debt which he had been
ordered to pay; sad, secondly, whether it was • good de-
-1 fence on the part of an execution creditor to plead not guilty
to an action for false imprisonment, where a party was
illegally committed to prints without being summoned in
the first instance, before the judge of the county court, to
show cause why he had i.ot paid the debt as he was ordered
to do. It was now agreed that the second question should
be abandoned, and to-clay Mr. Lush, on the part of the
plaintiff, and Mr. H. Hill, on the part of the defendant,
argued the first question at considerable length, and the
court took time to consider their judgment.
WHITE r. GARDSER.—TROVZR.

This was an action fOriroverFOr certain iron which it
was alleged the defendant had improperly taken away from
the possession of the plaintiff. It appeared that the defend-
ant was an iron dealer, and that a person named Parker
came to him and purchased a quantity of iron, for which
he paid a small cum in money and gave two bills of exchange
for the remainder. These bills it was afterwards discovered
were utterly valueless, one of them being accepted by a
carman, who described himself as a seedsman carrying on
business at Rochester, and the other being accepted in the
name of a person who could not be found out as being in
existence. When I'arker purchased the iron he directtd it
to be sent to the wharf of the plaintiff, to whom he had
sold it. The iron was accordingly sent to Mr. M'hite's
wharf, but when the defendant became aware of the fraud
which had been practised upon him with respect to the bills
of exchange, he sent his servants to bring back a portion of
the iron, which they accordingly did. Upon this being done
the present action of trover was brought. The jury found
that l'arker had not feloniously obtained possession of the
iron, and whether he had committed a fraud upon
the defendant they were nut prepared to say, but
they were of opinion that he bought the iron
never intending to pay for it. The Chief Justice
upon this finding entered a verdict for the plaintiff, with
74. damages, leave bring reserved to the defendant to move
to enter a verdict. During the present term, Mr. liumtrey
moved to enter the verdict fur the defendant, and obtained
a rule nisi.

Mr. Serjeant Bylea and Mr. 11. JIM now showed cause
against the rule, and contended that it ought to be dis-
charged, inasmuch as, although Parker obtained the iron
by fraud, vet the plaintiff had given value fur it. and his
tido to possession could not be affected by any deception
which might have been practised upon the defendant when
he originally sold it to Parker.
Mr. Ilumfrey, Q.C., and Mr. Wines, in support of the
rule, argued that as Mr. White had derived his title to the
iron from l'arker, who had no title to it, he (Mr. White)
had nu better right to retain possession of it than Parker
would have had, and therefore the action for trover could
not be maintained against the defendant for having taken it
away from the plaintiff's wharf.
The Court, however, were of opinion that as the plaintiff
had given value for the iron he was entitled, notwithstand-
ing the conduct of l'arker in the transaction, to maintain an
action of tracer ; and the rule to enter a verdict for the de-
fendant ought therefore to he discharged.
Rule discharged accordingly.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-YESTERDAT.
tha.a. TISK UNDILLSII.orrr er Maosuawx.
EVANB F. SeittvENEft.

This was an inquiry to assess in an action, the plaintiff
in which sou ht to recover damages for false imprioniment.
The facts set forth in the declaration we e, that the de-
fendant, who stood in t e relation of sister to the plaintiff,
had wilfally caused his incarceration in Bethlehem Hospital,
as a lunatic, knowing at the same time that he was in a
state of perfect sanity. The reason assigned for this was,
that the plaintiff• was prosecuting an action at law against
certain members of his family, in which the defendant was
concerned, and that the object of the defendant' was to pre-
vent the proceedings being carried on. The plaintiff, it
was stated, had been in business as a mercer at :Nottingham '
and Sheffield. The defendant had suffered judgment to go
by default, and did not now appear in mitigation of• da-
mages, thereby admitting the allegations in the declaration.
Sir Alexander Morrison was called, but he did not appear.
It was stated that his evidence would have shown that,
though in Bethlehem Hospital for three months, the plain-
tiff was a man of sound mind.
Mr. Horry (plaintiff's counsel) thought that as the alle-
gations in the declaration were admitted by the defendants !
nut appearing, and by having suffered judgment by default,
it was sufficient.

The learned Under-sheriff, in leaving the case to the
jury, remarked that it was fur them to say to what damages
the plaintiff was entitled, although the cox had been laid
before them in a very bare DlMlller,
The jury awasscd the damages at 501.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YESTERDAT.
Ms. C MM•1•40/0.• EVAN&
Ix me IMILMIN•ON AND DICKINMON.

These bankrupts, warehousemen, of
LOllllOll, and laValt, came up on the nuiwtion of certificate.
The balance-sheet, prepared by Mr. Butler, Basinghall-
street, showed the debts to be 2,9561. ; liabilities, 1,0011. ;
the assets consist of good debts, 1941.; doubtful, 091. ; pro-
perty realised, 0771.
Mr. Ashurst opposed fur the assignees. Mr. Linklater
supported the bankrupts.
'lke principal grounds of opposition were extravagant ex-
penditure, recklcvs trailing, and obtaining goods by false
reprewutation. The bankrupts had commenced without
capital. The gross sales were upwards of 22,000%; the
prutits on those sales being KM,. or 4 per cent.; the trade
expenditure had been 1,102 L. ; personal ditto, /ca. ; kisses,
4001. The books had been kept well and regularly.
Mr. W. Gibson, town agent for the house of Alexander
Henry and Co., of Bradford, proved that the bankrupt,
Thomas Dickinson, obtained credit from him for various par.
eels of goods by exaggerated representations of their capital,
and by stating that they had orders from large houses well
known in the trade. Atter the failure, bankrupt said that
he and his brother never intended " to let them in" fur
mute than 4001.

Mr. S. Storey, the manager of Messrs. Henry and Co.'s
house at Dradiurd, and Mr. Hese!dine, the cashier, were
also examined. The latter proved similar statements by the
bankrupt Robert Dickinson to those made by his brother,
to recently as the IGth of December last. In consequence
of this representation further guoas were delivered, and
they stopped in February.
Ihe bankrupt T. S. Dickinson deposed that he had been
in Ine.iness ten years at lards, and in London since A ugu.t
ISIS, basing commenced with a capital of 1,0001. He en-
gaged two travellers, and was led to expect a return of
14,0001. a year. if, to February last they were in good
credit ; their stoppage was owing to the failure of Mr.
Evans, who owed them 8000. He immediately went down
to Leeds and offered an assignment to his principal cre-
ditors. He denied having stated to Gibson that their
capital was more than 1,0001.
His Honour deterred judgment for a week—grant-
tag protection in the meantime.
LNSOLVEN"r DEBTORS' COURT—YESTERDAY.

kit FOUR NR. Gnrl.•tmLx rtfiLLIPA.
IN HE JOHN (iILOHON EVLLEH.

This insolvent, an elderly person, applied to be discharged.
It was stated by the learned counsel that the insolvent
had been proprietor of Boodle's Clubhouse, in St. J antes's-
street, for nearly fifty years. Ile was a bankrupt sonic time
buck, and since then had renewed a debt, which had occa-
sioned his present insolvency.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips made some remarks on the
folly of men, who, after they were discharged by bankruptcy
or insolecney,:rene wed debts. If a man was abk4he could pay
his debts, but it was foolish to bring about a second insol-
vency by renewal of debts.—The insolvent was discharged.
_ _

IN HZ ItZtBES

This insolvent, a commission agent and railway share
dealer was opposed by Mr. Dowse fur dr. 11. Donaldson,
wine merchant, Mark-lune.

The cam! W33' before the court in November, and a per-
son named Alves, a bill discounter, was required to attend.
Mr. Donaldson had given wines to 2501. on a hill accepted
by the insolvent, who gave it to Mr. Alves. Alves had
been discharged under the act, and there was a great dis-
crepancy between the insolvent and Alves in their evi-
dence. The insolvent had in another instance become
liable to 2,500/., when he said the railway mania was
strongly upon him, and he wanted to go further into the
market.

I His Honour required the attendance of Alves,.and the
case was aljourned for that purpose.

THE POLICE COURTS.
GUILDHALL.

David Rhoads, a youth about 18 years of age, was
charged on suspicion of stealing a large quantity of books,
the property of his master.
Mr. David Watson Martin said—l am a bookbinder,
at 1, Trinity-square, Old Bailey. Prisoner is an apprentice
of mine, and has served only three years of his time. He
has sow been absent from his v;ork about three weeks
without leave. I have no indenture by me, as he absented
himself in a similar manner last Christmas, and then de-
manded his indentures, which I gave up to him, being
only too glad to get rid of him. I have missed books from
time to time, and on one occasion I had to make good an
order that was deficient to the amount of about 41. I
made inquiries, and from information I received my suspi-
cions rested on the prisoner, whom I shortly after gave
into custody.
George Pearce said—On Thursday night, after all Mr.
Martin's workpeople had left, I saw the door open vet 7
gently, and prisoner come out with a glued cap on his
head and a bundle, apparently a large parcel
of books, on his left shoulder. I called him
by name, and be called out " all right," and went
away. I gave information to Mr. Martin the same
evening. (Prisoner here began to cry, and accused the
prosecutor of taking an undue advantage of him by not
communicating with prisoner's sister, his present position.)
Mr. Martin said—l went to his sister in the first in-
stance to get prisoner's address, but dm gave me a false
one. I only found out where he lived bra a fellow ap-
prentice, who told me that prisoner lived at •
house in Old-street, that did not open lull dgierick
in the evening. I found one of the books at • basit•atall
in the neighbourhood the same night that I pre Opener
into custody, but oa going there the meat siondos k had
been sold. I missed on Thar_ohsy sight 11
_vein of
" Adams's Antiquities, and " mama% ^ efY ex-
pensively bound. Nothing was food et Ms
on his mesa relating so tie nimbi peepeny, none of
which has as yet been trued.
The pima was Asa reseended /se lhtAtiapallgetfsat