The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-01 00:00:00

lab) Ent,Mania.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
MORRIS O. MOkuta.—TENANT FOX Lt►l.—WseTa.—ltt-
auStcrlox.—Thu wu an appeal motion to discharge an
order made by the Vice-Chancellor of England, to restrain
the defendant, Sir John Morris, from cutting down orna-
mental timber on a property called Graisebrook, in the
' county of Glamorgan. The plaintiff is defendant's eldest
son. The defendant's father took a lease of this property
from Mr. Vaughan, the owner, in 1770, fer a term of 99
yarn, built a mansion and other houses, and planted the
farm with young trees. He occupied the inanuon and pre-
mises until about the year 1816, when he removed to the
house of his son, the defendant, at Bketty, which was his

own estate, where he died in 1820. By a deed of settlement
executed by him shortly before his death, he conveyed his
property, including Onosebrook, to trustees for the use of
his son, the defendant, for his life, without impeachment of
waste, remainder to that son's eldest son, the plaintiff, for
I his life without impeachment of waste, with other re-
mainders not necessary to be mentioned. The defendant,
soon after the *color's death, took down the mansion-house
at Oraiscbrook. The plaintiff was then only seven years of
age, and no objection was made on his part. The defendant
lately began to fell the trees, when the plaintiff objected,
and filed this hill to prevent him; and on his application
the Vice-Chancellor issued the injunction as shove- mention ed.
Mr. Bolt and Mr. ltssch, in support of the motion to dis-
charge the injunction, said it must be assumed that the
settlor had abandoned Oraiacbrook as a place of residence.
That property being held under • lease which would expire
in • few years, and which, it wee well known, Mr. Vaughan
would not renew, there was no reason for keeping up the
house or the timber. Supposing the senior had originally
planted the timber for ornament, he could not have intended
at the execution of the settlement that ornamental timber
should be kept up after the plane became unfit for residence
and that it had become no in consequence of the approach of
the excavations for mines belonging to Mr. Vaughan and
his lessees or assignees, and of the smelting furnaces that
grew up in the neighbourhood, was fully shown by the affi-
davits which the learned counsel read. On these grounds,
and also on the ground that the defendant was made unim-
peachable of waste under the settlement, they submitted that
the injunction ought to he dissolved.
The Lord Chancellor, without hearing the counsel on the
other side, said he agreed with the Vice-Chancellor in lament-
ing the unhappy differences between the father and his son, and
also in the propriety ofgruntingthe injunction. The defendant
had no right to cut the timber or to take down the house,
being only tenant for life of property of which the legal
estate was vested in trustees. This cies fell fuliy within the
rules of courts of equity in the preservation of property for
the persons entitled in remainder. His lord.hip dismissed
the motion with costs.

BUTCHART I.• DRRESER.—JOTNT-RTOCX BANILS.--Pt MAC
RKOIBTEREI, OrFICRX.—The bill in this case was tiled
against the defendant, es the registered public Meer of the
Yorkshire Joint•stack Banking Company, to restrain him,
as such officer, from proceeding with an action at law against
the plaintiff. and also for discovery of certain accounts in aid
of the plaintiff's defence to the said action. The Vice-
Chancellor had granted the injunction, and on the defend-
ant's answer afterwards coming in, admitting that certain
documents and accounts called for by tie bill were in his
possession, and that be was ready to produce them if the said
bank permitted him, he added a list of the documents and
accounts to his answer, by way of schedule. A motion was
then made before the Vice-Chancellor, without prejudice to
the injunction, for an order on the defendant to produce the
scheduled documents for the inspection of the plaintiff and
his agents. That motion was resisted, on the ground that
the defendant WAS no longer the public officer of the bank,
and that a Mr. Scott was substituted in his place. And the
Vice-Chancellor, on these ground., refused the motion
with costa.

Mr. Rolt and Mr. Begvhawe now moved the court to re-
verse the Vice-Chancellor's decision, or to make an order
that Scott be substituted as a defendant in place of Dresser.
The Joint-stock Banking Company were the real defendants
here, and for their and fur the public convenience, they
were represented in this and all other courts by their regis-
tered public officer. Dresser had been-that officer at the filing
of this bill, and he put in his answer as such efileer. That
answer extended to 2'.11 folios, and it would be a great hard-
ship if the plaintiff was obliged to proceed de nova against the
new public Oki r.
The Lord Chancellor: And so tonics quetie►
Just so. If this subatitution of a new officer were to be
allowed, a wit against the bank, the substantial defendants
here, could never be brought to a hearing unless such new
officer wu also substituted as defendant in the suit

Mr. J. Stuart, (or Dresssr, said that the plaintiff wm
informed by Dresser's answer, that he wall no longer the offi-
cer of the hank. He had no control over the documents that
were called for. They l*longed to the banking company,
who were not served with notice of this motion. The
learned counsel having made reference to what the Lori
Chancellor did in a case of " Mostyn r.Burdeken," a pub-
lic officer of the Manchester Joint-stock Bank, the further
bearing waa adjourned until inquiry could be made as to the
order made by the court in that ease.

Before the Vice-Eaancellor of England.
WATSON O. BIRCII.—STATUTZ OP LIMITATIONS 4 AND
5 WILLIAM IV., C. 27.-• In this ease it appeared that a
bond had been given in 1793, by a person named Samuel
Birch, for 13,0001., to a solicitor named Rudd, in payment
of a bill of co.ta for professional cevices. There were two
endorsements upon the bond, one wan a receipt for one
year's interest on the bond, dated the 20th of April, 1794,
and the other was • receipt in 1798 for 3181., " in respect of
costs taxed under • decree." Judgment had been entered
upon the bond. This suit was instituted in 1817, by in-
cumbrancers upon Samuel Birch's estate, for the production
of certain documents. The obligee of the bond died in
1826, and the present petition was subsequently presented
by hie representative, that he might be declared entitled to
the sum so secured by the bond. Various proceedings bad
taken place before the master, who had reported in favour
of the claim. The matter now came on upon exceptions to
the master's report.
Mr. Bothell, ..nr. Spurrier, and Mr. Ellis, in support of
the exceptions, contended that the claim was barred by the
statute of limitations, 3 el 4 Wil. IV., e. 27, by which it was
provided that no action or suit, or other proceeding for re-
covering ary sum of money secured by any bond, judgment,
or other security, should be effectual, except within twenty
years from the time of such debt being contracted. unless
there should have been payment of interest in respect of
such sum, or an acknowledgment thereof in writing.
Mr. and Mr. J. Parker appeared in support of the
Master's report.
The Vice-Chancellor said it was evident from the words of
the statute of 3 and 4 Will. IV., the legislature intended
that there should be no proceeding upon &judgment after the
lapse of twenty years ; and this matter would therefore be
concluded unless there had been something in the proceed-
, hags under this suit, which was filed in 1817, to AOw that
the party bad an incipient right. The decree asked was that
directions might be given for taking the accounts of the estate
of Mr. Birch, and for the administration of the same in the
usual manner; but there was no acknowledgment in the
Emings under that decree of any right in the petitioners.
opinion, therefore, was, that the language of the statute
was imperative, and wee binding in the case ; and conse-
quently that the Muter was wrong in his report.

Before Plea-Chancellor Knight Bruce.
GILLAY O. LONDON AND NORTH Wessex RAILWAY
Comr•xtr.—laJunc-riox.—Mr. Temple and Mr. W. R.
Bigg moved ex parte for an injunction to restrain the defend-
ants from using a road made by them over part of the plain-
tiff 'a land, or using or passing over any part of the same land.
It appeared that the defendants require, for the purpose of ex-
tending their railway to Navigation-street, Birmingham,
four houses and a piece of land near Canal-street, Banbury-
street, Birmingham, forming part of some property in which
the plaintiff had a term of 75 years. On the 30th of Decem-
ber the company gave notice of their desire to purchase, but,
before any agreement had been come to, they broke down •
part of the bank and boundary, and formed a road across
the land, which road they had since used, much to the an-
noyance of the plaintiff's tenants. The Vice-Chancellor
suggested the propriety of an interim order being taken, but
as the plaintiff's counsel pressed the granting of the injunc-
tion, it was granted in the terms of the prayer of the bill.

Bober Via-Chancellor Wigram.
KIRWAN V. DANIEL.—APFROPRIATION OP CONSIGN-
MENTS IN THS HANDS OF CONSIONREE.—Matthew Kirwan,

the plaintiff, claimed to be entitled to en annuity of 3001.,
charged upon estates and plantations at Montserrat, in the
West Indies, of which his nephew, the defendant, T. F.
Kirwan, was the owner. The Means. Daniel, the other
defendants on the record, were the consign, es for sale of the
produce of the estates in question, and the object of the
suit waa to obtain payment of the annuity out of the con-
signments in the hands of the defendants. The hill stated
that, in March, 1841, the estates 1111011 which the annuity
was a charge, belonged in equal moieties to the plaintiff;
and the defendant, is nephew, and that, in that month,
the former conveyed his moiety of the premises to the latter,
is otuederation of the annuity in question, which was
made a charge upon the property and its produce by
Use deed of conveyance. Soon afterwards the plaintiff
came over to England, and, in October, 1841, signed
an sgreernent as agent of his nephew, by which tho
Mews. Daniel, merchants in London, were appointed con-
signees of the produce of the states in question, in consi-
deration of which they undertook to ship the nerceteary sup-
ple. for the management and cultivation of the estates, and
to provide for the payment of the rent thereof, and of the
plaintiff's annuity. From that tens the produce of the es-
tates at Montserrat had been regularly consigned I. the de-
fondants the Daniels, who had paid the plaintiff's annuity
down to the month of October, 1842, but had then ceased
to do so, alleging that the consignments in their hands were
not more than sufficient to provide the supplice wee-wary
for the management and cultivation of the estate. The
bill prayed an account of what was due to the plaintiff foe
the arrears of the annuity, and that the defendants (the
Daniels) might be decreed to pay what should be found due
to the plaintiff on taking such account, and also to provide
for the future payment of the annuity. The defendants
(the Daniels) demurred generally to the bill for want of
0,1,,iY•
Mrt. Itch and Mr. Dickenson, for the demurrer, con-
tended that upon the face of the agreement the plaintiff
tohave acted merely agent ofhis nephew, and
appearedthere u
was consequently no privity between him and
the Daniels, rendering them liable to his demand • nor had
such privity been created by any subsequent wet on the
part of the defendants. No consideration had passed be-
tween them and the plaintiff, so as to render them liable
at law • nor had an act been done by the creditor, uin
Ouriiird o. Lord • ••3 Simons ; and eases of
that class, to render the defendants liable in city.
Mr. RemMy and Mr. Headdiebt, he the tiff, em-
teetted that the natere et the tramastien sly 'hewed
that the spsement wee mete en WWI tidtito 4dstlff
who bei mid the meets in embiseatlem et the ,iii
condgmemets had ban essehel soder the teethe
Danish, who bad mmensmieeeed the het the p*INME, •
That me eatheisse to meals • hut he the pleitiWte the
extent, at all manta, deg aessignmante them iOn Use
of the dafedente vdi tie lilt alleged te be eglident
meet the payments prayed. Km Mama In mg*.
His Hamer mid that i temetlene ilhe he preesst, tt Tag
often difileult te whether there was a trust he el
parties, or atm* the authweetthe deed. The eseetima
before him to fall roam the mead dam; and the
question was whether the meaty had • Mght te see t The
decision upon that yeadien, when again* the meditee, Lore-
, needed generally upon the ground that the *men bed •
right to object to exeunt to an 7 but the author elthe Myst.
In the present ease the plaintiff appeared to ham bed Mall
authority to enter into any agreement he phased. Bain

i;

the power to make himself a party to the agre.,ment, he had
not done a, bat had described himself as the anent of T. F.
Kirwan. It was not impossible that the Daniels might have
refused to allow the plaintiff to be a party to the agreement,
and that they had preferred contracting with T. F. Kirwan,
tip= whom they would hate a cheek. Another point was,
whether the 01:11[1444 by T. F. Kirwan to put an end to the
agreement, though he had the power of doing so, was a dr-
cumetance which affected du question ; and the answer to
that =old depend very much upon the construed= of the
agreement. Iffis Honour then observed that the question
was of too difficult a nature to di side upon demurrer, and
made an order dimillowing the demurrer, and reserving the
oosts till the be acing or till further order.
Mar:maws r. Bowtsit.-1. 'arr.—The plaintiff, by inden-
ter* of amignment, dated Jan. 1832, assigned her life
interest in certain leasehold premises in Weston-street,
Southwark (producing an annual rental of 1251.) to the
defendant, in consideration of a covenant by the latter to
keep the premises in repair, to observe the covenant
ordained I. the original lame, and to pay to the
plaintiff during her life a weekly sum of 181. The
weeklpayment had been regularly paid till March,
1844,but disputes basin.: then arisen between the plain
tiff and the defendant as to the validity of the assign-
ment, the payments were stood= The bill was filed
to recover W arrears due to the plaintiff, and to have it
declared that the plaintiff was entitled to a lien upon the
premises la respect of the weekly sum.—Mr. Whitbread
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. 11. Palmer for the
defendant.
His Hamar, upon the authority of " Tardiffe v. Seraph= "
(1 B. & C.), held that the plaintiff was entitled to the lien in
question, and referred it to the master to inquire what was
duc in respect of her demand.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Ocierinaii.
Before Lord Denman and a Special Jury.
TNa Qvaan, ON The PROSECUTION or 141811 BURDETT
Courra, v. DUNN —PILRJUItY.—Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., Mr.
Clarkson, and Mr. Hawkins were counsel for the prosecu-
tion ; the defendant acted as his own counsel. The prose-
entrix, Miss Burdett Contra, is a partner in the banking-
house of Coutts and Co., and preferred this indictment
against the defendant, Mr. Dunn, a member of the Irish
Oar, for perjury alleged to have been: committed by Aim in
swearing an affidavit in the Court of Bankruptcy with the
ostensible object of obtaining from that lady, under compulsion
of the bankrupt laws, payment of the sum of 100,00 W.
The material part of the affidavit, which was sworn under
the 6& 6 Viet., c. 122, s. 67, before a registrar of the
court on March 30, 1846, when the court was not
sitting, wan in these words :—" Richard Dunn rnaketh oath,
and with that A. B. Coutts is justly and truly indebted to
this deponent, Richard Dunn, in the coin of 100,0001.. b
virtue of a certain bill drawn by this deponent on the bank
of Messrs. Coutts and Co., by the especial authority in writ-
ing given by the said A. B. Coutts to this deponent, which
was expressly given by her as compensation for divers inju-
ries and lint r.sonments inflicted, and for which injuries this
deponew. It]t..l commenced legal proceedings against the said
A. B. Courts, and which sum she promised in writing should
be duly paid, but which said bill, although duly presented,
was not paid or honoured, and which said bill remains wholly
due and owing to this deponent and this deponent further
maith that the said A. B. Coutta is a partner in the banking-
house of Coutta and Co., and is a trader within the statute,
as this deponent verily believes." The " bill " was in fact
an order thus worded :—" 4th March, 1846. Messrs. Coutta
and Co. Pay myself, or order, one hundred thousand pounds.
R. Duna (by authority of Miss Coutm)." The " especial
authority in writing,', alleged is the affidavit to have been
given by Miss Cants, consisted of the last two stanzas of a
copy of doggerel verses which the defendant held himself out
to have recaved from Miss Coutts by post, in the year 1844.
They were in the form that Wows :
bend to Couttee sour bill—
There are lota In. the 1111-
1117adve the clerk orders to do it,
Then get your &wham,
Your dear body enlerge,
And in ntnittonotrect do let me view it.
And, by the bye, love,
My affection to rice,
For your long cruel incarceration,
Pill a good round sum in
(As I've plenty of nal,
lb make you a fair compensation. A. B. C.
In addition to the formal proof that the affidavit had been
sworn by the del, ndant, wit nexus were called to show that
it was wilfully and corruptly false. Miss Burdett Coutta
swore that she had not written the supposed authority, and
bad never in her life written to the defendant. That she
had forwarded all letters sent to her within the last few
years by the defendant, to her iolicitor, unopened, when his
handwriting was recoanised on the superscription' and
unread so soon as others, not so superscribed, were found
to be his, and that her solicitor had general directions that
every legal measure to protect her from the defendant should
be taken; that the had not given authority for paying the
sum in question, or any other sum to the defendant ; and
that she never was indebted to him in any way. Mr. Mar-
joribanks and Sir Edmund Antrubus, who are partners of
Slims Coutts, Mr. Humphries, her solicitor, and two of the
clerks is the bank of Coutts and Co., deposed, in substance,
to the effect, that the defendant had :wire presented the
order for payment, and had each time ueen refused ; that on
each of these occasions he had produced the supposed autho-
rity, and bad been distinctly told that it was not in the hand-
writing of MiseCoutts ; and that he had written letters, the
object of which was to induce Miss Coutts or her partners,
under the pressure of an abuse of the bankrupt laws, or a
reluctance to encounter the sumoyanos of legal proceedings,
however ill-founded, to compromise his alleged- claim by
payment of the sum of 100,0001. The cross-examination of
these witnesses was directed towards creating the inference
that Miss Coutts, by not writing herself to the defendant, or
authorising others to write to him, for the purpose of saw-
ing him that she had not written the supposed authority, bad
confirmed the defendant in the delusion that it had been

written by her: ;Miter partnen had in like manner,and mho by
not giving the defendant into custody when he presented his
order at the bank. neengthened his belief that the authority
to draw on the house had tome from her; and that Mr.
Humphries had likewise contributed to this error by the
hostile beariag which he bad exhibited towards the defend-
ant. In the course of his crose-esamination of Miss Conn.',
the &Want put into the hands of that lady a letter written
by bee /other, the late Sir Franeia Burdett. Her struggle
with the motions which the ht of the handwriting
caused, meted the sevegest of the audience
spine the tiebeiont, seal, e k eppol d of the noble and
kesaed led whhzetreided-]—Thet Mewed the
jury Mame leen the pine Wined by the cross-
extuelastim. pretestieg his belief deaths waning, and
which he bed net with &cm NW Ceuta and
her bed led to the belief that she bed been nt blurb
indeed te soaks hint eanopeneti end lnd termites sent
hire the erdbeeity whisk his bad weed. Be den celled
winsome W pram that be bed received the allege& entierity
py
teal et aid that be bed mespered the handwrites with
Was Code, sad Ilea the result of that seoapa
rime w jeolilled Is evolving at the aensfeiea
whisk ha fambill Ids eatwequent conduct.—Lard Dann
having oneni_nptthe jury et win returned a wait of
guilty. Ile deiondost then moved in arrest oljedgemed se
two seem& ant. Hat the elidarit did not asp a pollee
debelsy Mho NEW bet• hypothetical debt oily, bps dies
at tbe bet wberlast or not the authority bed been signal by
bee, eeillireellare bed art given to the Court of Baalteaptcy
jealeloa eimbehtee the oath; secoedly, that them was
• written Hereon the affidavit set forth and that proved.
Ind Thema tiled adainat him on both points, and then
Innieneei W le be dace in the Queen's Prison for
eigheann mendm, and atm that until he should enter into
seeepienees for geed behoodettr, himself in 1001., and two
sureties, welt In SOL

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Idore Mr. 01113ablkale Gagbant.
BIIITINSION or CISTIFICATIA. BONDIDOI AND
Buzau:Km—The bankrupt', who were fancy cabinet
makine, applied far disk eertileates. It appeared that the
amperes wen 1,11641., end the bankrupts had drawn oat et
the ONNISEIN, de la. a Walla et is years, 1,1031., the Fe-
ats bag este I, 1. The debts sad liabilities avestatted
to UMW, awl a eyeball of ninepinse la the paled bad
les& paid, but web se eapeetatioa ef a farther ewe. They
had bps no orb leek, sad the other books were very
badly kept. Above three maths being the t
setae of the wallow 1111111.411 ea in the pawed, wel=
awes Cosmaisisaw I:toolbars said that there
vas la Yds sees whet he always leaked to, and whey he
head It he would nark*, INNYNIPIII of the court upon
it—
ealmeeeppat lapiaMliitauNK,e awl ast bespiag proper basks.
The swam woe &swim eat 1,101., sad had
the beelovple or less wands with Ask
anareads;=weeld bow pereebed that the prole, were
of the .ftwia Had there ha July
be (the emee) would have seipseded
E4411.1.18ee11s tee a basdraell pwiod ; but =NW mil the
eirmaeleerra of the ease lte imeet Illipead the oweilietee of
both beahrepa be twelve wades.