The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-23 00:00:00

THE RUSSIANS IN WALLACHI.4.

A gentleman, who has just returned to Paris, from
the Danubian Provinces, speaks of the Russian is/my of oc-
cupation by no means flatteringly. If the entire urmy be
like what he has seen he thinks there iE not the slightest
reason for alarm at the numerous hordes the Csar is said to
have under arms. The regiments he saw were, with one
exception (he bad not seen the Guards) of the most
wretched kind. Most of them young lads, siee:y looking,
1 haggard, feeble, badly clad, and badly red. tt ll rry may
stand to be killed," he says, "but it is astontsb.bes to me
, how they can kill any ono.- The numbers the Emperor
of Russia can draw upon are to be sure almost unlimited,
and in a service where neither the conifrrt es tt e men is
I cared for nor the slightest value set on their Eves, there are
always thousands upon thousands dragged to fcppli the
I places of those who perish by the neglect •.f their e see
and the rapacity of their commissariat, who have more re-
gard for brute beasts than fur human beings. The corps of
CossJeks are, uccordinz to the same auther:ty, ; rincipally
complied of young men about 16 or 17, whom the hope
of plunder animates. Otherwise tie soldiers rob in all di-
rections ; and the gentleman mentioned states an inbtanee
' of a serjeant-mjor who was flogged by or,':er of 'n'oi cm.
mindirg officer, not precisely because he robhoil, but be-
cause he robbed beyond what was permitted to 15:s rank in
the army. The condition of the Waliachten peasonts he
fiCiel ibex as most deplorable, plundered as thy dre by Be
ards as well as Russians. A party of thrower-fear French-
' men happened a short time ago to make aa occasion for
sue purpose of examining timber fife the government. As
' they approached a village, they were surpr:ssd to find
' nearly the whole of the inhabitants runniag off us fast aa
they could to the woods, and apparently in tie greatest
terror. One of the visitors galloped after them, 1.2.1 hold-
ing up a purse fief of money in his barn!, cried out that
pclutes:ritviewee.dyianiistophhgantyr,bli!peeenanysyuth.n cons.oll'f thil;el4t;e:::wir
idt
wort,
el
le rotatealreletaeat
sa
a 4 andal4 1lat:
wit
ire:H4
of the
no
veAt biuhrimtn travel-
lersefioloTnr
etn a:
to the tender mercies of • soldiery and . rpression,
is melancholy beyond description.

fiLaw *ntelitetilte.
EQUITY COUHT3.—YrarrEs ti.

11.1.11411111.1 111/RIM ?II:
.1111,1NIN(1% AND JEII,IINI.,

;;;;.I;;;pl7t.tr.r. of ear
b mni J PY bus, and J. nniogs, pluars and batter
aalesuss carrenw on busines. in Newaate•Strect. The
plaintiff. Mr. J./ba William nnings. sought to dissoise
the yar:nership. ant ti obtain the usual deep e for
the acc-unts. It was all. ged on the part of the plain tide
that by the partnership deed it was agreed that no 1110111v5
of the firm should be used for any but the pl.:airship par.
poets. In Ls 4 Mr. James Jennings became coonected with •
the Patent Alkali Company, in w ...eh be was a director,
and the other defendaut, Pylsus, also held • num-
ber of shares in the same company. and they
also entered into speculations in railways. In May,
1947, d. readmits borrowed 0! ltibarts and Co. 1,0001.
They also subsequently leoroseed another sum of
e. from M SSSSS . Aueth, and SUM of UM!. from a
ff orntald, in both of which eases they gave bills of
*Waage is the name of the tiriu ; and the bill alleged that
these sums were appli, d by Mr. Pests and Mr. James
Jeaningi to their owe. purlieus.. sad not to the purposes of
the partnership. The. was ookisow• to the plaintiff until
April, 1"42, and he then eowolstned, and discussions took
place to .tween him and his partners, and at length, in
December, he, thr ugh his soliciton, demanded the partner.
ship actuante, which were fornidwel to him. and in which
the loan from Mr. Worms!! was omitted. Os the part of
the defendants, it was alleged that the two latter sans. bad
hums burrow. d solely 1,4 partnership purposes, and had
he.. arm repaid, and that in the first sum of I.OOW. the
ilefeadaut. Junes Jennings, deposited ea collateral security
the tide deeds of property betimes' eacla•ively to himself,
and hal also repaid that soot. Also that plaintiff had
neglect, d to attend to the business, stopping away for days
at a tint... and that the other partners consequently were
obliged to take the whole management on themselves.
His It our said plaintiff aas clearly entitled to a decree
for the diseolution of partnership, which was decreed ac-
aordingly, and that the accounts be takes.

TOWN AND MONTH MIDLAND /AMWAY A. MANION.

Oa On application of Mr. K Palmer, on Wulf of the Sr
lierlDr-Oefterlll sad Mr. Moat, this car, the hearing of w►ich
was Gard for this day (Wedni stay) wu deferred to come
as alter the petitions ea Thurrlay.
Mr. K Palmer. Mr. lissoen. Mr. Loyd. Mr. Sbibbissr,
Mr. Ilitebeack, and Mr. Jolla. were counsel fur the dif-
(meat parties mustard.

%VALLS/10 PIZTORMANCIL
This was a auk fur the speo lie performance of an agree-
ment f..r a limo of West Lodge, Putney-common. This
agreem-nt was written is a pocket book up.in one page,
soil the name or signature of the defendant was written at
the top the neat page. The amanita% embodied certain
terms in respect of rep►ir,, and ■poa a draft lease being
prepared, the defendant coo•idared that these tarns had
sot been followed, he therefore objected to sign the leas.•.
He elan contooded that then was, in addition to the
written memorandum, a verb il &greenest that the plaintiff
thesld do certain repairs, which liability Mr. Waller
denied. This letter point wa, a men question of evidence.
Upon the former point an argument arose ea to whether the
sane of the defendant, written on the neat page of tne
pocket-hook to that in which the *greenest itsel was cap-
tained, could be considered al a signature. The name was
written. thee, " Mr. 1.. Vigor. " and was followed by that
geotteu.se's address; it was said by the defendant that he
merely wrote it in reply to the requiem of the plaintiff, to
be fornithed witb.his place of residence.

TUC %%cc-Chancellor 'wu of opinion that it was unnecessary
to go jive the question as to whether the defendant bad
signed the agreement or not,, nutmeat us he had entered
int) poa.essioa of the premises; which, being in part per-
formance of the contract, pat an end to his right of object-
Lien. On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff was
open t the objection of vagueness, and ou that ground,
alth,ugb he should decree a specific perennials et the
agreement, there could be no meta on either side.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YratzsDAy.
lIITTUMS II BANCO.-111/0111 LORD C 41111111.14 UM 1171=1111 COLOIDOt

AND &ILI.

11.1.A1l F. SOTRIILLAVII ....THU ROYAL SANK OF AUSTIALTA.

The court was occupied the whole of the day in bearing
t►e continuation of the argument of Sir F. Kelly, on the
past of a shareholders of the Royal Bank of Australia,
some of whom are defeodsn•s in this case. It was com-
menced on Friday last, when the case was reported in the
Deily News, and was not concluded when the court rose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAB.-YESTEROAT.