The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-09 00:00:00

Katy Intelligence.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—YESTERDAY.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cianworth, and other peers,
funned a house at half-past 9 o'clock, for the purpose of
giving iudg m
the course the
offollowingthe
p
session past
Ire TUN MATTER OF THE DIRECT BIRMINGHAM, Ox-
FORD,asronal : eases, which
were
READING, AND BEIGHToIe RAILWAY COMPANY,
inargued.n"i
AND OF THE WINDING-Ur ACTS OF 1848 AND 1849.
lltTrox v. BRIGHT AND BRIGHT r. Ilutrox—Puo-
VISIoNAL COMMITTEEMEN WHO PAID DEPOSITS ON
SHARES, HOW FAR LIABLE TO CuNTI/lIICTE TO EN-
F
Esses ?
These two appeals against an order of Vice-Chancellor
Lord Cranworth, confirming an order of the Master (W.
Brougham, Esq.), were argued as one caner last Wednes-
day, and the facts and points of the arguments were stated !,
in the report in this journal 011 Thursday. It may bo re-
membered that the order of the Muter, a. confirmed by the I
Vice-Chancellor, directed Mr. Bright—among several others
in his position of provisional comanitscemen—to pay 10/. on I
each of his 100 shares in the company, is discharge of
expenses incurred by the promoters of the company from
the pith of October, 1813, the day on which Bright ac-
cepted his shares, to the 30th of November, 1843, the day
on which the undertaking was supposed to have been
abandoned, as the company had not, on that day, complied
with the rules of parliament for getting an act of incorpora-
tion.
Mr. Ilutton, the official manager, by his appeal against
the said order, insisted that Mr. Bright was liable to con-
F tribute to all the expenses incurred by the promoters of t: c
company, both prior to the 14th of October, and subsequent
to:the 35th of November, 1813, while Bright, by his appeal,
insisted that he was not liable to contribute to any of the
expenses. The only acts he had ever done in respect of the
undertaking being, that he consented to have his name put
on the provisional committeemen's list, and paid the
deposit of :21iP. 10s. oa the 100 shares allotted to hem.
The Lord Chancellor now statetl the facts of the cases,
and said that, on account of the importance of the crises,
inasmuch as there were many similar cows pending before
the Masters in Chancery, who were desirous to obtain the
decis:ou of the house on them, so that they may be guides
to them in disposing of the others, three appeals were nit.
sauced out of their place for hearing, and they were heard
at the bar on Wednesday The judges in the court below,
as well as the Masters in Chancery, were anxious fur lead-
ing decisions in these cases, and with tied view the
order made by Lord Cranworth was a mere formal
order, without any argument, to enable the parties to
come to that house. Ile and his noble and
'earned friend tl.ork, Cranworth), who attended with
lain the (Lord eh:mentor) at the argument, considenal
the questions involved in the cases, but found it impossible
from the short time since the urgumeut to come to any
conclusion un then which might be useful to the Masters,
which was the object of hearing the appeals nut of their
proper order. It appeared that Mr. Bright took 100 shares
of the 80,000 shares into which the project was divided.
His interest, therefore, was as 1 to 800. that is, he held the
800th part of the whole, and to that extent he may be said
to be a partner in the concern. Large expenses were in-
curred in getting up the concern, and to such of these ex-
, 0011.01 as were recurred from the 14th of October to the
130th of November, 1813, the Master thought Mr. Bright
' was liable, and he made an order on him to my 101. fur
each of Ids 100 shares, that is, 1,000/. towards these ex-
penses. Considerable expenses had been incurred by the
' promoters before the 14th of October, and expenses have
been incurred since the 30th of Novi. nibs r, but the
Master di l not consider Mr. Bright liable to any
ex ptIISCS before Ito aceeptssl shares nor after the
company was considered us abandoned, in consequence of
net being able to apply to the legislature fur an act. Mr.
Bright says he is nut liable to any of the expences. Now,
besides the question, whether this association or company
fell within the Winding-up Acts at all, there was, in this
case, the other important question, to what proportion of the
expenses is Mr. Bright liable ? As In partner tat a concern,
l.is liability would be according to Ida share in the toner •
he had an interest of eight-huntiretla 'tart only iu chi
undertaking. His noble and learned friend and himself,
after heuristic the argument the other day, looked into the
Acts of Parliament, loth the Registration Act and the
Winding-up 'ccts, and finding it impossible to dispose of
the case before the clues of the cession, they agreed to
advise the House to postpone the judgment; linked they
were of opinion that the opinion of the learned judges
ought to be taken' on the questions involved in the case.
Coder the circumstances, his lordship moved that the
further consideration of the cases be postponed.
Lord Cr:my/mai said he concurred. Ile and his
noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor con-
sidered that the importance of this case did not rest
merely on the decision fur the sake of the parties, but us
laying down a rule fur the Masters in Chancery to enable
them to dispose of the vast number of eases ' Tarty cir-
cumstanced, and to come to a decision laving down such a
rule W.L'i quite impossible for them in the short time that
remained for consideration since the argument. It may be
:eh:, interest oyhr tec:tet,nmhtxda itn(hl ceor,io,e,awf share,.; Basle
But
ut
otf rewoothun,lttr
maybe
bt
to
htr,e} took
the
that Mr. Bright's prossortiou of the expenses is only equal
re-
sulte
of a proper consideration of the case it is impossible to
foresee at this moment.

The farther ew .:lonstion of the case was then postponed
to next syssiun.

IN THE NIATTEII. OF THE WOLTELLHAMFTOY, CHEA-
TED. AND DIME ENH KAD JENCTION RAILWAY COM-
PANY ; AND TM: IJOEMINOHAM, OXFORD,
READIND AND 11K1011TON RAILWAY COMPANY, AND
OF THE WINIONU-UP Acts OF 1848 AND 1819.

Nonists r. CooPER, AND Ilv rrox V. THOMPSON.—
ALMA.' VV.. ShAREA IN AIIORTIVE UNDEUTAKINI.S
NOT LIABLE To CONTltitirrE To PAYMENT Or THE Ex-
I.EN4ES INCURRED, IN PRDMOTING THE UNDEUTAKINO.
Both these appeals were brought against orders of Vice-
Chanc.llor Lord Cranworth, directing the names of the
two respondents to be removed from the lists of contribu•
tories in the respective companies in which they had been
inurbd by Mr. Brougham, the Master charged with the
winding-up of the said companies. The difference between
the two caws was this, that both respondents having shares
allotted to thein at their request in their respective com-
panies. Mr. Tkumpson paid the deposits on his shares,
Mr. Cooper paid nothing. The two appeals were argued
together be.hre nine of the cot iiiii on law judges, on the Bth
and 9th of July, and full reports of them were given fru
this journal on the 9th amt 10th, and the opinion of the
judges to the effect that neither of the respondents was
liable to contribute was in our paper of the Ilth.
The hord Chancellor now moved the judgnlellt of the house
in both the cams, and alter stating the circumstances of both,
and the difference between theni as above mentioned, said
the point on which they were to be decided was the same.
The respondents had applied for shares in the respective
companies, and the secretary of use in his ;comer to Thump
son—his lordship took his as the stronger case—said,
" the committee of management had allotted him 20 shares,
and I em directed to request you will pay the deposit of
2/. 1'25.01. per share into the undermentioned bank on
or before the 21th of October, 1845, or this allotment
will be null and void. This letter, with the banker's re-
ceipt, will be exchanged for scrip upon your presenting it,
and executing the parliamentary contract and subscri-
bers' agreement." Thompson paid the deposit on the twenty
shares, but did not attend any meetings, or do any
other act in respect of the undertaking. The shares were
to be 80,000, of which 70,000 were allotted, but deposits
were paid only on 4,295 shares, so that the promoters not
being entitled to go to parliament the project was aban-
doned. In Dec., 1849, an order was made by the late Vice-
Chane,llor of England fur winding up that company, and
the Master charged with the winding-up inserted the
naine of Thompson in the list of contributories. Thompson
appealed against the Master's certificate, and the \ ice-
Chancellor Lord Cranworth reversed the Master's decision,
and ordered the name to he removed front the list. The
question was whether the Master was right in putting
Thompson's name on the list of contributories. That ques-
tion was argued here very ably at the bar. (Ills lordship
stated the outline of the argument on both sides.) The
argument to make Thompson liable turned upon various
sections of the Joint Stock Companies' Registration Act,
7 and 8 Vie., c. 110, hut the conclusion drawn by the
learned counsel did not appear to his lordship to follow
from that act. Thompson, in fact, never became a partner,
he never became liable in an action at law to any creditor
of the company, or to any one in n.spect of his acts, nor
would he have any claim to profits in the company, if pro-
fits had been made; on the contrary, lie would bei entitled
to receive bock his deposit according to the case of
" Walstab v. Spottiswoode," and numerousothcr cases.'His
lordship mentioned some of the cases cited for the appel-
lant, and said they appeared to him to make rather against
the appellant, and that was the current of the decision
from the case of " Nockells r. Crosby." Ills lordship then
read the short-hand writer's note of the opinion given by
the learned judges at the close of the argument before re-
ferred to, and said he concurred in that, on unanimous
opinion of nine judges, and be came to the conclusion that
the appeals ought to be dismissed.
Lord Cranworth concurred with his lordship in the opi-
nion oFthe learned judges. He had not given any opinion
on these cases—indeed, they were not argued before him,
but several other cases similarly circumstanced were argued
before him, and his observations on them he would not re-
peat here, because they were recorded in several books of
reports. He would only say that he entertained no
doubt whatever on those decisions. By the law as
it existed prior to the Winding-up Acts parties
in these circumstances would not coma under any
liability. What did a party do when he agreed to take
shares in those undertakings ? After hearing the promo-
ters' statement of the nature of the undertaking and the
prospect of gain from it, he says, " well, if you go on to do
so and so, I agree to take shares." But in six months he
is told that the promoters are not able to go to parliament,
" well, then," says the subscriber for shares, " I ant sorry
for it, give me back my deposit." No deposit is returned,
but he is asked to pay expenses. Why should he be
bound to contribute to expenses ? The acts relied on in the
argument to hold the allottee of shares liable to contribute
were the Joint-stock Registration Act (7 and 8 Viet., cap.
110), and the Winding up Acts of 1848 and 1849. The ex-
penses of registration of joint-stock companies are very
small, and aro coafined to the registration only. That
and the other acts have not altered the law of liability of
shareholders—they merely provide for arranging expenses
according to existing liabilities. His lordship read the pre-
amble, and the 4th and 231 sections of the act 7 and 8 Viet.,
esp. 110, and in observing on them said the matter up to regis-
tration lay between the promoters and the acceptors of shares,
" for until registration there was no company and no partners.
The expenses therefore incurred up to that period were the

exprwes of the individual paoranters, and not----..rof the csi'.
i patty. But the expenses incurred after registration leid 4,0
j relation to the act, and there was no new liability ell
by the Winding-up Acts. On these grounds his hinlsltio
saw no reason to dissent front the opinion of his nom ".
all.l
learned friend, and concurred in the opinion ibis, n
judges. Nothing ItAd yet occurred to make him
correctitesa of the dccibions made by himself in the Nun
below.
. . . . .

-•
The orders appealed against were then affirmed, with
costs.

(Lord Cranworth then left the house, to to to Ilk court in
Lincoln's•inn.)
TII6 LONDON AND BLACK WALL. RAILWAY COMPLY
V. Tll6 REV. JOIIN LEITI.—TITIIKII IN ru6 t;LTs or
LONDON. - . .

This was an appeal against en order of Vits.-Chane,llw
Sir J. Wigram, and WWI argued on the 4th midli of
March last, before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Brougham.
IThe nature of the case was stated in the reports in this
journal on the MC 111 ;on. The decree complained of, it soy
be remembered, was made in a suit instituted bs.
the re-
spondent, as rector of the parish of it. ()lave, Illart-strtet,in
the City of London, to recover from the appellants tithes
at the rate of Is. lid. in the pound sterling on the actual
value of certain houses in the respondent** parish, taken by
the appellants in 1810 and 1811, for the purposes of tic,
railways. The respondents claim depended on the eonr
struction of an art of parliament, passed in the 37th Ilcore
VIII.—" an act for tithes in London"—confirming a ilecreo
made by the then Srchh,shop of Canterbury and other dig-
nitaries of the church, by which it was ordered that ail
rector, of parishes in the city should have tithes at the
rate of 2s. 9d. in the pound tram oecupiers of houses on tle,
annwil value of their premises. The principal question is
the cause was whether the tithes should be terses.:d on the
actual annual value, or on the usual rents, or whether,
when there was a less Will, as 2s. in the pound, talo it by
agreentent between tinier rt etors and occupiers, the re-
spondent was not hound by such agreement.

The Lord Chancellor now in giving his judgment, stated
the circumstances under which the question% came before
the house, and utter observing, that nothing was less fixed
Mid ecrtain than the value tile house in the city of blll-
don said the qtustion for decision was, by what rule or
mode of computation compensation was to be made to
the reepondent for the house% tali( n by the appellants
under their acts for the construction of the railway. The
rector claimed against the company 2s. m the
pound of their actual annual value ; the company alleged that
thereW-cre agreements between the rectors and the occupiers
of the houses by which, up to INI9, the rectors agreed to
accept 2s. in the poand, on the then assessment, and they
insisted that they were not liable to pay more than that fir
compensation. Ili, Lonkhip had smite difficulty in adopt-
. Mg the principle of that arrangement. The Vice-Chant, Ilic
was of opinion that the poor law assessment was not a cri-
terion for conmencition, and decreed payment according t
the actual value. That did not appear to his Lordship to
be warranted by the statute, and he was of opinion that the
VicteChanceilar did not pot a true cons:ruction on it.
After noticing another point on which his Lordship thought
the decree erroneous, he moved that the eau:, he r mitred
to the court below, with directions as to the variant.... to be
made in the decree. lie was authorised by Lord lirourhant
to state that he (Load Brougham) c incurred in remitting
the cause with directions.

It %Tu. accordingly ordered that the decree lie r
in the 111411,4;C pointed out, and that the caitai Le retniticil
with direction% to the Court of Chancery, the considi. ration
of costs to be re+erved to the emit ts.:ow.

EI.I.COVK V. MAPP.--GIFT or• REAutry: OF PI:11
ESTATE TO EXECUTORY HEFOIt.F. TUE AIJ 1 \V'i. I

40: EXECUTOIIa AltE TUUSTEES Fol 4 Ntri.
TE,T.lTultlf.

-
This was an appeal against a decree of Lord Chancellor
Cottenham reversing a decision of the late Vice-tham Uor
of England. The appeal was argued before the Lord Chan-
cellor and Lord Brougham on the 24th and slmth of February
last, and the nature of the Me was the'. stated in oar re-
ports. The question arose on the will of Mr. Pare. a bar-
rister in Barbadoes, who was entitled, us well in Eneand
as in Barbadoes, to considerable real and personal est de.
le died in England in 1789. By the will made in Earl,-
does in 1;84 the testator proceeded thus:
. .

Imprimis, 1 ',rive all lily estste, both real anti pt•r-onsl,
in thin island or elsewhere, to Ella ard Eiltotek, of the par...lt
of St. George, in the island abiresaid, E.... Loire, his ea., u-
adininktrators, and ar-igus, to anti for the searrst
uses, intents, anti purpose.; following ;.(that k to ...at'. out
•

•
of the rents, issuer, anti prolim, and iiitcrestr of ul! debts
due to me, to pay unto my deur wife Anna Maria tPI../.
yearly andevery year, in addition to her own t;ortune which
survives to her, and in trust likewise to permit and suffer
her to have the full enjoyment of the us, s ;ind mrvie, s of
all my negro slaves except Jackey, whom I direct to be
freed at the expense of my estate, and in trust also to per-
mit and suffer her to wre all my household furniture and
plate during her natural life, and in frost also to receive
the interest only of the debt due to me tram John Prot,
Mho, Eaquire, during the lives of the said John Prettejoha
and the Elves of his son and daughter, Charlotte Prettejohn
and John Prettijohn, juu., and in trust likewise to discharge
the raid Juhn Prettejohn from the sum of which
sum I bequeath unto his two children, the ufuremid Char-
lotte Prettejohn and John Prettijohn, and in case of their
death* unto the aforesaid John Prettejohn himself, and in
trust also to divide the remainder of the interest of debts
due to me in the following manner in equal proportions be-
tween F,— Holder l'arris, Margaret Ellcuck, and
Anna Maria Elleuck, daughters of the afitresaid Jeldward
Elleoek ; and in Cabe m • said wife AUlla Maria should in•
termarry :mil have chilydren, in trust to divide the prineipe'
sums among such of hl r children as -Mall be livino at the
death of the alio-emit! John Prettejohn, senior, Charlotte
Prettijohn, and John Prettejohn, junior and in the mean-
time to divide out' principal sum of 1,1061., part of the debt
due to me front the estate of the Honourable Samuel Mous,
deceased, among and between the aforesaid E
Ifulder Parris, and alnrguret Elleuck, and Anna Maria Ell-
cock, on the death of the aforesaid Anna Maria, my mid
wife. If there should be any doubt of the legality ut the
above trust fur the use of the children of the present wife
by a future marriage, I then give such sans or sums as
would have been their share or allures unto herself, own
such events as are before mentioned. Lastly, I nominate,
constitute, and tippoint the aforesaid Edward Ellrock ese.
maim of this my last will and testament. In witness whereof
I have hen unto set my band and seal this 2isil day of
Jule WM."
Mr. Elleock proved the will in Darbadors, and got in the
testator's estate and effects. exeept the 4,11 If., the ry,iilay
of a debt of 6,011 t, day from John Prettejohn, and a hired
on his estate, called " Constant," in Darbailiier. The see•-
cutor paid all the testator's debta,rmil died in 1795, appint-
ing Mot. Merck his executrix. She also obtained adm;,,,_
tration of the twat° of Mrs. Pare, wide, of the timater. in
182 Land also of the unadministered estate of the testator
fare. Considerable property, the residue of his estate after
paying the debts, annuities, and legacies, remained in the
hands of ten. Elletiek, which she, and her perainal repre-
sentative on her death, claimed to he entitled to nor her
own use absolutely under the said will. This salt was in-
stituted against her by Eliza Mum,. the respondent, sole
next of kin of Pare, claiming the residue, and insisting that
the appellant was u trustee for her, and so thought Lard
Cottenham, and he therefore reversed the derision of the
Vice-Chancellor, who held that the executor and his repre-
sentative took the UntIiSVOSC4I of residue beneficially.
The Lord Chancellor now giving his judgment, read the
will as above, and after observing the couflict of (million
between the late Vice Chancellor and Lnrd Chancellor,
referred to the several cases that were cited in the :Iron-
mem, particularly that of " Dawson v. Clark " (11 Vysey,
419 ; and 18 Wavy, 217) in which it was stated that there
was a difference, of opinion between Sir W. Cfmnt and Lord
Eldon, the former deriding in favour of the caecutur as
taking absolutely, the latter holding that he was trustee for
the next of kin of the testator. Ills lordahip (Lord Truro)
agreed with Lord Cuttenham that there was no real diar
tinetion between that case and the present. Mir 1(4610
next referred to the decision of Lord llardsicke iu the
case of " the Bishop of Cloyne r. Young " (2 Vemy, mn.,
96), to passages in Mr. Justice Story's Equity Jurispru-
dence, section 208 ; to Jurman'a edition of Powell's hook.
and Williams' Executors p. 1266, and said that upon prin•
ciple and authority the decision of Lord Cottenham was
right, and it ought to be confirmed. His lordship moved
accordingly, and the decree was affirmed with costs.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
&WOW! Tea YA•raa or TIM XILLII.
DOPE OP DlMONaltlitli D. ELOI.N.—ItIOILT TO WATER-
COUKSP.
The bill in this raw prayed a declaration that the plain-
tiffs were entitled to the use of a watercourse elicit
run through the defendant's land at Grassington, in York-
shire, and fur an injunction to restrain the defendant from
obstructing or in any manner interfering with the now of
water through it.
Mr. lt. Palmer and Mr. Currie for the plaintiffs.
Mr. lilmsley and Mr. Prendergast for the defendant.
The Master of the Rolls directed a reformer to th•'
Master, to ascertain what amount of compensation ought
to be paid to the defendant for the use of his land in
respect of the passage of the water through it. And to
settle a proper deed of covenant between the parta,
interested in the watercourse.

Bayou VfmeNmecal.tos Kmoirr Bates.
BultNEN.i OF THIS COUKT.

The Vice-Chancellor said he wished to know the opinion
of the bar as to the expediency of taking short causes and
consent petitions on the tirstdays of Michaelmas and Easter
terms. In consequence of the formalities usual on those
days, the court only sat for two or three houri, and the
stilton were put to the expense of attendance upon all the
motions fur which notice had been given, although not many
of them could probably be made.
Mr. Swanston said that the arrangement suggested by his
honour would be of the greatest advantage.
Mr. Wigram, Mr. Bacon, Mr. James Parker, Mr. Mantic
and Mr. Daniell, concurred in this observation.
The Vicc-ChanceUor said that a notice would be given
in this branch of the court, according to the suggestion
which he had made.

His Honour then disposed of several matters involving no
matter of public interest, and rose for the vacation, men-
tioning, however, that he would sit in his private room to-
morrow, to hear some consent applications.

Barn Loan CALA:MOMS (Vin-CsAvrel.LOß).
VILLLIIII. V. VILIAMIL.—EvineNce or BIRTH I. VDEII

THI CODI•CIVIL

---- •
Thu was was a petition by a lady that a sum of 60,000 francs.
to which she was entitled upon obtaining 21, might be paid
to her. The petitioner was born in PAILS. and her father
was now residing abroad, and the only evidence that could
be obtained of her birth was that she had been registered,

I
• J

as required bv the Cede-Civil, triads tkree der SAW lie I
was harm, at the proper office for that purpose in Paris.
Mr. Nobler, iu support of the petition, read extracts
from the Coile-Civil, to show that the formalities therein
required had been strictly complied with in this case, and
it was urged that the evidence, which would be sufficient to
prove the birth in France, was euuugh for this court to act
upoa.
Lord Cranworth doubted whether he could make the
order, and suggested that it would be desirable to have an
affidavit front the father.
Mr. Mahler said as the father was abroad it would be im-
possible to get such an affidavit before the vacation.
Ilia lordship, .titer some hesitation, made the order.
Ig lig iota TniNiTv-iiin se or lit,iosTug-uttollt:lt..
Dloolittl-riuti tor Llneit
In this case it appeared that a charity at Kingston-on-
Roll was founded in IWO for the support of 211 poor per-
sons,
and fur the maintenance of the charity a charter way
obtained in the second year of Charliss 11 , under ,which
power was given to levy dues upon the shipping entering
the port of kingstou-upon-!lull. The clues now levied'
amounted to 211. per tun upon most of the merchandise
brought into the port, and it was considered that a diminu-
tion i• the dues would be likely to produce a larger sum
fur the charity by reason of the increase of shipping.
Mr. Betheil soul Mr. o°,lll now appeared in support 101
a petition for a reference to the Master, to inquire whether
it would be for the benefit of the charity that the dues
should be reduced, and affidavits were produced from the
commissioners of the Board of Commerce and other per-
lOW in support of the application.
Mr. Rult appeared fur other parties interested.
Lord Cranworth made the order as prayed.
RAU 'ANUS r. %HON.— Arri/hTIONMENT AMONGST
Cllll.loneN l':elorlt A SETTl.ellgter.
Upon tie marriage of Mr. William Wharton Rawlings,
in November, 11101, a settlement was mule, by whirls a sum
of 12,01101., charged upon We.t India property, was settled
upon trust fur the husband and wife for life, and after their
decease for such children as the parents, or the hUr‘iv,,r of
them, should appoint : in default of appointment to the
children equally. After the :VW of the wife, and there
being then seven surviving children of the inarliage, the
kustsurd appointed a sum of 1,:14/., part of the sum of
12,0110'., to William Augustus Rawlings, one of the suns.
The estate afterward, 11.vanie greatly ssened in value, noel
rndureol only 3,lSn'. 17,. Stollle of the other children then
Weil this hill ageing the trustee, and against William
Augustus Rawlings and the rest of the children, claiming
that William Augustus Rivaling% ought out to lie paid the
1,71.1 f. in full, but should abate and take only one-seventh
of the :I,lbed. lls.
Mr. Itaeon and Mr Ilagshowe, Mr. Itolt and Mr.Shapter,
Mr. Ilethell and Mr. Sp ,d, appeared for different parties.
Lord Cransvoith was of opiumn that Wm. Augustus
Rawlings was entitled to he paid the sum of I,ZIlf. in the
first plate, and he thought that hi, coots ought to be paid
by the plaintiffs. The rest of the fund must be appor-
tioued between the other children.

Batumi Tscs.esiw.caLusa T. ssn.
THE ATTORNET-IiENFI/AL C. THE 11l ItGESsI.S AND

CoN2IO.NALTV U) SHEFFIELD.

The facts appearing upon the information in this fan
were as follows: lac a charter or letters patent, dated the
lit of June, in 'the first year of the reign of Queen
Mary, certain rents, binds, mid bereilimmi nts l,carne
v•sacil in the 12 capital burg. sees and toinumnalty of the
town and parish of Sheffield upon trust, thereout to find
and pay for ever thereafter three chaplains or priests to aa.
alit the vier of the parish church of Sheffield in the cek-
bration and administration of the divine services and
sacraments at the said church ; and upon other trusts
for the repairs of the church and of the bridges and
highways of Sheffield, and for the aid of the poor
and needy inhahitauts of the parish The income
',Textured by the charity fund appeared to have for
some time past amounted to 2,1100/.. per annum, and out
of this the burgesses hail appropnated 1001. per annum
as the salary of each of the three curates appointed
under the trust. A vacancy in MC of the chaplainries
havinge mimed, it was filled up in May, It by the eke-
tion of the relator, the Rev. GIVO. Trevor. Upon proceeding
to Sheffield to discharge hisdutics as assistant chaplain .Me.
Trevor nweivial a letter front the vicar th dining to accept
his services in that capacity, and in consequence of 1,114:11
Opp/460110a the part of the vivr the informant had been
unable to uffiriate in the church, but bud confined fines-
sed to the discharge of the other duties in
the parish connected with the office of chaplain.
The amount of his salary had Iram paid to the informant
down to Michaelmas last, but since that time no payment
had been made' the informant living still unable, owing to
the opposition of the vicar, to officiate at the church. The in-
formation prayed, therefore, that it might be declared that
hr had been duly elected one of the T.:captains under the
chart, r, and that he was entitled to receive from the capital
burgesses and CULIIMIuIty the annual salary of 4041., and that
the defendants' the burgesses, might be ordered out Or the
income of the charity estates to pay the arrears noel future
payments in respect of such salary. The information
prayed also that, if necessary, the accounts of the charity
estates might he taken, and a scheme directed fur the future

applicatio;
thereof. --
The Solicitor-fitment! and Mr. Amphlett appeared in
support of the information.
Mr. Malin., for the defendant., submitted that while the
dispute between the vicar and the relator continued and pre-
vented the latter from performing hit duties, the burp:l44.w
could nut b,• a,sureil that the payment of the salary to the
relator would be a proper application of the charity fatal.
Nothing was allegi 0 by the defendant. against the personal
or spiritual 01,r:icier of the relator, Mr. Trevor. Ile had
done every thing he could except preaching in the parish
church.
The Soliiitor.lieneral, in reply, said that as the re.
lator hail officiated in all the duties of chaplain
except that of preaching in the church twin which h.• hail
been &barn il by the vicar, and, as he had been duly
rutted chaplain, he was entitled to Li. salary. Ile was
not removabie except for misconduct, and nothing was said
in the charter us to any veto of the vicar agabed preachisie,
nor was the consent of the vicar made a condition prece-
dent to the payment of the salary.
Mr. Malin. ..aid he believed the differences between Mr.l
Tn vor and the vicar were purely thioloaicid.
Ilk Honour was of opinion that, at Mr. Trevor had lien
duly elected and had performed all hit duties to the
parithioners a• their chaplain, except that of preaching in
the church, from which he had twin debarred by the vicar,
he W.e. entitled at once to be paid his name of 400'. per
annum, vu long as he• perlormed the other duties imposed
by the charter. The eusts of the information would he paid
out of the general fund.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—YrsrEnDAy.
Ilbroas Km 11. J. Fv.r.
r. eno,sLr.y. . .

The arguments in thin nsewere rcptrtnl in our journal
during last le rm. The learned judge gave judgment this
morning.
The l'ourt said it was a cause of granting administra-
tion to the goods and effects of Elizabeth Pickett, late of
Bridgentl, Colne, who died a spinster and intestate in
March, 1818. The parties to the suit were Mary Boys, who
claimed to he within the degree of 4:Linda-german to the
deceased, and Mr. Crossley, claiming as a cousin-german
once removed. The interest of Mr. Crossley had been
fully proved, and tlwrefurc, unless a nearer degree of rela-
tiouship coubl be shown, that person would be the party en-
titled to administration. The onlyywstionwaswhetherMrs.
Mary Boys had proved clearly as to satisfy the
court that she was within a nearer degree of relationship
than Mr. Crossley. After going through the evidence of
the several witnesses, the court said, although some degree
of possibility or plausibility might he raised by the oral
testimony 'diluted in favour of Mrs. Iloys, yet, it was quits
impossilik, upon such loose declarations, to defeat the ease
of Mr. Crowley, which had been proved, affirmatively,
beyond all dispute. The learned judge, therefore, decried
administration to Mr. Crossley, with Ildf. costa.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-YESTEIIDAY.
SAM= Mm. CP1111114.107..1
IN RE WAI.PULE.

The bankrupt, destribed as • mosey scrivener, was an
attorney practising at Neirthwold, In Norfolk. This was
the meeting for the last examination. Ilia balance-sheet,
prepared by Mr. Pettis, of It esinerhall-street, extended over
IS month. prior to the end of June last, and showed 1,522.1
due to unsecured creditors, 1,021/. to those holding security,
and liabilities to the amount of 110/. The assets in gold
debts and propertrwere put down at 1561. ; property had
~ereditors, 1,075/. ; profits, 600/.; looses, 501.; expenses,
, v.Mr. Lowrance supported the liankrupt, who was opposed
by Messrs. Pringle and Co. (or the assignees, and by Mr.
W. Cooper, for the devisees node r the will of one Barnes.
It 1..14 sought to es:mine the bankrupt relative to certain
deeds; hut his honour thought this could not be done at an
examination meeting: a private meeting might be held if
the requisite information weft not obtained before the cer-
tificate Meeting.
The bankrupt. on exaininatiun, stated that he had ad-
vanced 2001. to Mr. Barnes two veer. before the death of
that person : there was a writt, it mireement that • mart •
gage should he given, and em rtain deeds were deposited at
the banker's, •he retained them on the general account.
The deposit of the decd. was made before bankrupt became
'aerator to the deceased.
The bankrupt parsed.
Divot,' Ms. Cow Islam
IN ME Mt 'MAI

YAM

This was the last excunination meeting in the ease of
John Murray, builder, of Sheerness. His balance-sheet,
prepared by Mr. Thomas, of Gresham-street, extended'
over I R months prior to the end of June last. The bank
rapt owes to creditors 1,205/ , and gives up in good debts'
and property about 400/. His profits had been 46.1/.;
trade expenses 1697.; personal do., 195/.; losses, S3B/.;
deficiency at the commencement of the account, 3.i71.
,Mr. llagley opposed for an individual creditor. The
assignees offered no oppo.ition. and the bankrupt was
examined touching the items in hi. account of good debts,'
and also as to some deals and other property which it
was suspect, d had been removed from hie premises.
The examination was ultimately adjourned fur a fort-
night.

WESTNIINSERCOUNTY COURT.-YiSTERD.►Y.

•-•••• • •
lit RI. F. LO MAT, Er*. JUMP. •PD • JTRT.
MUMMA r. Stst EDMUND FILMER, BART.. M.P.—
A ASBAULT NY A BARONET.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Juaeppa
I)oam', on Italian courier, against the defendant, Sir
Edmund Film, r, Bart., M.P. for West Kent, and whose
town residence is No. 29, Eaton-square, to recover compen-
sation fat an alleged unprosuked assault. The damages

were laid at 54/. Plaintiff stated that he Was formerly in
Sir Edmund's service on two occasions, the last time for four
mouths, prior to June, Mid, when he accompanied hint to
Switzerland, Antwerp, and up the Mediterranean. lie
had since been in great want, and on writing to Sir Ed-
mund had been relieved. On the 30th of June last he was !
in Sloane-square, where he met Sir Edmund, to whom he
bowed, and who acknowledged the compliment. The same
, afternoon he saw Sir Edmund in a brougham in Sloane-
street, when he said to witness as he was passing, " I don't
want to see or speak to you any more." Witness replied, " I
don't know that I ever did anything to offend you Sir Ed-
mund," when the latter, who had stopped the carriage, said,
" Stop a hit," and, himself opciiino the door, jumpeil out with
&thick stick in his hand which lie belaboured him with user
the shoulders, arms, and hands, causing the blood to flow.
In this conduct lie continued till witness rushed in and
seizing Sir Edmund by the collar, endeavoured to wrest
the stick from him, but in an doing it got broke in two,
Sir Edmund retaining both parts. A policeman coming up
witness wished to make a charge fur assault, which, how-
lever, on consideration, he declined doing, saying he should
adopt other proceedinos, and hence the present action.
In crow-examination plaintiff denied having called Sir
Edmund a blackguard, pulling his whiskers, or scratching
his face. - _ _ _ - .

Several witnesses said they saw Sir Edmund, who'
seemed much excited, repeatedly strike the plaintiff, who
they did not hear make use of bad language.
Poliec-einstable Hutton, II 391, said on going-up Sir Ed-
mund was bleeding from the neck, and skin was off his
forehead ; he said he was willing to go to the station-house,
sand asked witty..+ to ride there with him in his carriage,
when plaintiff said lie should not then press the charge, and
that what occurred was only through his having asked Sir
Edmund to give him a ehameter.
Sir Edmund, in reply, denied anything having been said
about a character. He was riding along when the plaintiff
ran by the side of the carriage, and having heard some-
thing unfavourable of him, he told him he slit not wish to
see him again. Plaintiff, with an oath, called him a black-
guard, at which, feeling indignant, he got out and pushed
him away. Plaintiff bounded at him like a tiger, first
seising him by the throat and wits both hands on each
side of his face imprinting his nuibi. lle had been a good
friend to plaintiff, on account of his wife and family, and
within the last te•w months had given him abuse 301.
in cash. . . . .

Mr. Collins, jolr, router, Ilammersmith, who was driving
Sir Edmund on the occasion in question, gave testimony as
to plaintilfs violence, upon whit
The jury sai they had m id, up their minds. Verdict
for plaintiff--damago, one farthing.