The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-13 00:00:00

davit., made by the defendants, showing that there was no
actual deviation iron% the original line injurious to the hotel.
—The Lmd Chancellor, after hearing cutinsul n both ei,!es,
without the reply. said he had sti I the impres‘ion he had
when the motion first came beton) him, that the plaintiff hod
not made out his one by the evldet.oe. lie was, therelore,
of opinion the injunction sh tad be di-charged, but would
not make the osier until he looked our the allegations in
the bill and the stficluvita.

before the Master of the
hlaeTaßa tt. The Mangum he 08.01,44,003 —CuNSTRUC.
TION ta, SIITTLIOIaNT.—The Mailer ut the Roll+ gave judg-
ment in this cash, which was heard in November lust. In
December, 1822, a marriage took !dace hems, n i phi► Lye'',
an English-born subject, and Cheri,a Louis, Martinis de
Cruismare, a French suniect and on that occasion a sum ii,
the *tucks, to which S One Lyer was entitle d in r, version.
and the proceeds of certain landed prop, rty which
was directed to be sold, were at tiled on the parent.
for life, with a power of at'll'etlllll *mutest the chil-
dren, and in default of appointment to the children ;
►nd at the end of the settlement there was a declaration
by all partite, and a covenant by tie marquis', that he o iLk, r
alum) or In concurrence with his wile, would do ell ine,
nary acts fur settling upon the 1,11110 trusts as contained in the
settlement respecingthe Teti rsionary hart. rest lit the *twits,
all the estate and inte•eet of his wire and of hinbelf m ro
speet of any property, real, personal, or mixed, which should
at any time during the marriage be given, deemed, or be.
queathtd, or in any manner vest in the wile or the mar-
quis, in her right or hi his own right as her tousloand. Th.
marquise inherited some real estates from her sitter, and
in 1812 a large ri.al , state descended to her from her untie,
who died intestate, and the question in this suit was, vine
ther these descended teal estates were anti, ct to the clan.e
or covenant in the settlement for settling her future pro-
poly. There were issue of the marriage six childre, ; the
two eldest. being born in Etighind and alien., and therefore
unable to take of the real estate, were nctrl, d iii sp. tie.—
Ilis lorthhip said the qaestione were, whether these . since
were comprised in the settlement. and of they were, how ti.,
trusts we're to be sx, cuter', and whether the estates o re
be sold. The propert) could not h.. mitt, d m specie without
the children, who were aliens, being deprived or liable to Ise
deprived art their share. It was clear that the henehi 01 the
property could not he secured ler all unless Buhl. Consider-
mg the position of the parties, i. must here lie, n intended
that after acquired lands should he sold, in Ottitsr that all
mi ht have the binctit of them. 'Torre was a common ob-
ject, and to secure that, one party coon IlltOttell to du certain
thless. The court could not allow the common hldect to
fail, but would hold tbet all steps must be taken which wire
necesmry to secure it. There must be a declaration that the
lands wire subject to the anrci meld, and on order to slide
perlurmauce id it Ili.) must be sold and the proceed* settled.

Before Vice-Chimeenee Knight Bruce.
DeltßYBllllte, STAErottunntne, AND WutteleiTettelltat:
RAILWAY CuKrAne V. ThltitELL.—DEMUltiteit.—Thil se.”
a demurrer to a bill find by the above railway tvrnlpany, for
the delivery up and cancellation of a cho quo: drawn an favour
of ono of the defendants, a dirt c'or of the compauv, es ► re.
muneration for his service. in that cli .ranter. Tne eho quo
wae drawn by three of the directors, and count, ni.ord
by
the secretary. Thu p.oyment of the cheque having been ro -
fused, the clefenoluot, is. who se favour it was drawn, Minded
it to the defendant Terrell, who had commenced all action
upon it in the C mat of Common Pleas. A nil for the for.
no.otion of the railway had passed the liou•e et Cummoms in
1846, but was throws. out in the 11-mse of Lords. It 'mound,
however, in the following session At a hoard meeting, bile
on July 27, 1817, resolutions were pain.' to the effect that,
in pursuance sal a clause in the subeeroliers' agreement,the sum
of 2,290 g mums s'iould be appropriated fa remtion rate the see
vices of the live directors I etween Aug. 124.15, and July 1817.
The cheque is questoon was drawn in pursuance of these re.
solutions, and we, is. the f llo.wong form : '• London, Aug. 13,
1847. Mews. Ilankey. Pay Daniel Tumor% Johnson. li•q.,
or Mater, 4201 J. M. Math..., W. King, E. J. Spiers,
It. S. hlackecrie, secretary.—The cue made by the boil was,
that the cheque was void as against the ouinpany, in equity.
—Mr. Caine, in support of the do murrer, contend. d that
the plaintiffs bud no equitable grounds fur resisting the p uy-
aunt of the cheque, and that all the gnat:l46 rolled upon
were availab.e (if at all) at law.—Mr. Itua..ll and
Mr. Amphlett, for the plaintiffs, contended th it the
Companies CLnuses Consolidation Act, 8 Viet., c.
16, sections 90, 91, and 97, might render the
ehtque binding on the company in a court of law, although
a court of equity would hold that the directors haul in this'
cam used their legal powers improperly. It was clear that
in equity they had nu right to remunerate themselves under
the clauses of the subscribers' agreement, which wo re super-
seded entirely by the provisions of the act. The Vice-Chan-
t:olm said his impression we.. that the document stated in the
tell, and upsn whicb the action wca bruoight, no other made
the plaintilis liable, nor purported to nisi.: tnem listde, and
that therefore a case ars not stated on which a court of
equity ought to interlsre. Ti e demurrer must hi, allowed,
but the pluintoffs might have liberty to amend if they thought
tit. Leave to amend was given accordingly, the plaintiffs
'o) b the coots.

Dews Vice.( hanorllor %Vier Am.
MOODT V. 1114.11hahli.—MIAultinl. nr Alit t-ITT.—llis
Honour delivered judgment in has case, whieli was argued
same days since be Mr. Wood and Mr. S. Bell, Inc the plain-
tiff, cad Mr. W. Itte'all, for the defendant. The bll was
tiled to set aside &Is annuity granted to the defendant, on the
ground that the memorial which had herd enrulltil of the
annuity did not state that part of the consideration had been
applied in paying off a prior charge upon the household pre.
miles upon woich the annuity was secured. The question
was whith. r it era. 11V(CIVotitj that the in. woriol should state
that eircoats. antra under the words 01 the Attitude Act, AI
Geo. 11l . c. 111, requiring that tho memorial should state
the consideration of the annuity, and how paid. His Honour
thought that the mote meet in the in. morial of the amount
of the colloid, ration, and whether pad iii cash or note.,was a
sufficient compliance with the act, without the additional
statement cent* ruled for by the plaintiff. Tho bill was
therefore dismissed.
MAJoa v. WARD.—SVECIFIC PE 14701111ANCES.—TITI.T.
—The maser haying reported in favour of the plaintiff's
title in Vas case, winch was a suit by a vendor fur the spe-
cific performance of en agreement to purchase land, the
matter VMS brought before the court on the Gth instant,
upon exc. pious to the report. Quit of the olijeetrons to the
title was, that Ito evidence was given of the fact that there
was no widow living of a party who had died seised of the
premises in question ; and that consequently the land might
he liable to a claim fur dower. The objection was met by
the plaintiff by showing the eat tence et an outstanding
t••rm by MOMS 01 which the purchaser might protect him-
sell trent any thaw of dower to which the fond might other-
wise have been subject.— His 'honour now avlicctrdhi•
opinion upon the case, tend held that avid, nee of the death
of the aidow should, it possible, he produced; and that
the purchaser was entitled to proof that the title was Irce
from any claim in respect of dower, indepcmlently of the
protection to be derived from the term.
STAN ILAND V. WILLOTV.—.BILL TO narr AS 11:1? THANSTEV.
OYDIIAILID4 ON TH6OI4OUND UY MINTAL INCoM ILMAt 1:4
TUT THANaTEREa.—Mr. Wood and Mr. Game, tor the
phattiff, who hail be. n found a lunatic sad cued by his
committee, slid that in November, 181:1, the plaintiff was
!Yetlcti with a fit of apoplexy, which, alter a jartiol iecovery
of the patient, ultimanly resulted in lunacy, and that the
Jay lollowing the seizure he (the plaintiff) i.nd transferred
to the defendant 8.5 igiaresthen standing in the plaintdranotne
in the Eon London Waterworks Company. The presentsuit
was instituted to set aside the transacti..n on the ground of in.
c impetency of the plaintiff at the time, or in case he should
be held to have hems then of comp.itei.t mind on the ground
that the transfer was ni.de in centemplw ion of approaching
death, and was intended only as a douatio movie causil
Mr. Holt, with whom was Mr. Selws is, contended that the
fairness of the transaction, and the competency of the plain-
tiff's mind at the time, were fully estiffithlicd by the evidi rice
in the cause. The tranmeti .0, moreover, tlu y alieaed, bad
since been confirmed by the plaintiff, at a time when no
doubt coual be entertained of ails power of eirreising is dis-
cretion. The argument in support of the defendant's case
was not minclud,d at the tiaina of the court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
halloo to Rance.
Ex PAWNS WALTON.—NROLEcTING TO MALE A RETURN
Ti) A W air oP MADRAS CORPUP.—In thin CAN, a rule had
been (obtained fur a writ of habeas corpus to he directed to
Major Gavin, of the 16th Lauchra, csl.iag on lain to hying
up the holy ut WIC oLohn Walton, alleged to he unlawfully
in his custody. It appeared that Walton had enlist. d on a
Butoday, and having afterwards d. sent d lie was (alien into
custody, and UMW!. .1 to the bethinks at lionwieh. where
Major Gavin wan stationed in command of the 16th Lancers.
After h.vitig been detained there some time the writ ahoye
alluded to was sued out, upon which the uroj or proceeded to
London. and wan tend at the War-Witco that an order had
suortb before been sent to him at Ipsow eh to discharge
Walton ; whereupon lie went back to his barracks, and Im-
m. diately obeyed the directions from the Wat-ollive, but
fiegiecnd to noise ,uy return to the writ, imagining that he
could not ,:ta nu when the body of Walton hull ceased to be in
Air t ustudy. A rule for ne attachment 'limiest M-,j r Gavin Mr
contempt was nu bequeutly obtained. The Atter.. y 0 nend
now sho•Ftli canoe serin,4 that rule, and contend, d on the
ut Major Gavin that be had acted in igonn once of the
law and without ally intention of b Mg guilty of cuitempi.
of the court. lie (the Atturnt yGi nem!) old nut Under-
stand the oboict of the moti ,n, usoleie it was to get the costs
of so unnete,astry en application. The man toad been
dis-
charg,d out cf custcdy, and what more could he have ob-
tain, a by the writ of habeas corpus ? —Mr. Da.int in sup-
port of the rule, said that itlnj ir Gavin had taken upon
hiugult to obey the War-vtlice robe than the Court of
I Queen's Bench. His client had a right to know why he
was taken into custody in the first imtauce, and why he was
afterwards detained until the major thought tit to diseherge
him. There was no doubt about his enlistment bring quite
illegal, aid Major Gavin ought to have made some
roam to the writ, ev.n if it were that the man
had been discharg, d. If the taking was bad in
the first ingance, the Going an act of grace would
nut sure the original errs.. Thu taking could not be
justified by the offending party Raying aiterwards that he
had let the man got and public policy rtquir.d that the
writ in habeas corpus should not he evade. loy such a course.
—Loin. Denman said the commanding officer had had toe
man in custody, and had every reason to supposi rightly.
Ile was nut bound to it,quire tutu the cause co the mart's
detention until the writ issued. when he consulted those in
t authority over him, and was told to tlig,large the man
immediately. lie ought, however, to have made a return,
so) ing be had discoarged the man, and could not therefore
obey the writ. But when the court was asked to is-ue a
pretties for contempt in respect of slice a proceeding, they
must inquire iota the motive of the party ; and they saw
nothing in this Cabe that would warrant their ceitc.uding
that My. r Gavin had wilfiilly been gu-lly of contempt in
nut snaltog the necessary retura.—Rule discharged.