The Express.
London, England, 1851-03-12 00:00:00

Raba intelligence.

HOUSE OF LORDS —NIAReO 10.
PIIMINT: TUE Lou CHASOILLOII, 14..11 lINMULAK, IWO OTRIIS
P...
TUE LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANY
v. LETTs--TITREs IN LONDON—How TO RE AIDIVARSII.
This appeal against a decree of Vice-Chancellor Sir James
Wigram, was opened last Monday, the 3rd inst., when Mr.
Wood and Mr. Bigg were heard tor the appellants, and Mt.
Speed (in the absenee of his leader, tho Attorney-Oeueral.
through indisposition) was heard for the respondent. The
nature of the ease was stated in our report in this journal
last Tuesday, and it may be remembered that the principal
question was whether Mr. Letts, the rector of the parish of
St. Olare, Hart-street, London' was entitled to payment
from the appellants in respect of tithes fur the various
houses and premises taken or demolished for the pur-
poaes of their railway, at the rate of 2s. 94. in
the pound, assessed on the actual rent or value
of such houses and premises as the rector insisted ; or " as-
sessed," that is "charged," as the appellants contended,
" according to the lust agreements between the rector and
the occupiers of the houses as to the amount of payment,"
which the appellants sold was at the rate of 2s. in the
pound on the agreed value. The question depended un the
true construction, first, of a decree made by the Archbishop of
Canterbury and others on the '2lth February, 161.5, and
confirmed by act of parliament of the 37th Ilenry VIII.,
" An Act for Tithes in London," which gives the rectors
and vicars of all the parishes therein is. 9d. in the pound of
the usual rent; and senindly, of the 33n1 section of th, act
of 2 and 3 Viet., cap. 9.5, one of the Company's acts.
The Attorney-General was now heard for the rector, and
he contended that he was entitled to payment at the rate of
. 2s. 9d. in the pound of the value of the houses, accenting to
I the last assessment or agreement of value.
Mr. Wood, in reply, contended that all the rector was en-
titled to under the art of the company was indemnity for
his Ims, until houses should be rebuilt in lieu of those taken
down, and absolute indemnity for those on the site of which
the railway passed ; and such indemnities were of course to
he equal to, and not to exceed the 144 payments received
by the rector from the occupiers of the houses. These pay-
ments were, and were admitted by the rector to be, 2s. in
the pound on the agreed value. The evidence showed that
aome at least of the occupiers agreed to the value put on
their premises, on the ground of having to pay only 2.. in
the pound ou such value ; and if the payment were to be
Is. 9d. in the pound, they would nut have agreed to the
value put on them.
Judgment was postponed.
THE. EDINEUROM AND GLASGOW RAILWAY COMI-• %NY
C. THE MACHSTRATEs AND ToWN COUNCIL OF LINL: I 11-00W.—BURGII
00W.—BURGII CUSTOMS—BRIDOE T 01.1.5.
This appeal from the Court of Session was heard in a former
session, and the house remitted the case to the courts in
Scotland, for the opinions of all the judges there upon the
points in dispute. Those points were two—find, whether
the respondents were entitled to receive the burgh customs
or tolls on all the cattle carried by the railway carriages
through the town of Linlithgow ; and, secondly, whether
the respondents were entitled to bridge tolls on each cattle
as the railway carriages carried across the river Avon,
which passes through the said town. The great majority of
the thirteen consulted judges were of opinion Butt the re-
spondents were entitled to both the tolls.
Mr. Llethell was in the course of opening tho appeal on
behalf of the railway company, when he received an ac-
count of the dangerous illness of one of his family, and
was, of course, allowed to withdraw.
Mr. Hope (with whom is Mr. Denney of the Scotch bar
on the same side) took up the arguments, and had net eon•
eluded at the rising of the house soon after four o'clock,
when the further hearing was adjourned.
Mr. Bolt, Mr. J. Anderson, and Mr. Inglis (of the Scotch
bar) are fur the reapoudents.
"%Tanen 11.

Mr. Hope and Mr. Bethell having concluded their argu-
menta for the appellants,
Mr. Inglis proceeded on behalf of the respondents up to
the rising of their lordships; at four o'clock, when the fur-
ther hearing was adjourned to nest Monday.

EQUITY COUItTS.—YEsTEmmy.
RUM'S TOSS at Or TKO Route.
IiOnGBON LL EARL I'OWI/I.—INJI:NCTION DIISHOLVFI).
Mr. Turner and Mr. Willeock moved on behalf of the
defendants, the directors of the Shropshire Union Rail-
ways and Canal Company, to discharge an order laud the
10th of January 18.51, rts,training the defendants from de-
claring the plaintiffs shares forfeited for non-paym.nt of
the several culls of U. 11. 10s. and IL, and from taking
any proceedings to (tarry such forfeiture into effect until.
they had answer." the plaintiffs bill. The defendant. had
put in their answer.
Mr. lt. Palmer and Mr. Wcstoby opposed the mot: on.
The Master of the Rolls was of opinion that upon the .tate-
ments contained in the answer the injunction ought to be
dissolved with costs.

Baroze Loa* Cusgwentrw (Tice CRAMMLIAR).
METAIRIE r. WISEMAN AND OTHERS.

Mr. Itolt, in resuming his arguments, said the ease oft
which the plaintith relied by their hill was this, that at
the time of signing the documents on Thursday Mr. Caere
supposed that he was signing two powers of attorney to'
receive the dividends upon the two species of stock, and
nothing else; that those were the only documents he had
directed them to prepare on the Monday, and that in the
interval the priest and Cooke had in concert concerted the
deed and power of attorney to transfer the stock and the
will, and substituted them during the confusion of Thurs-
day for the two powers of attorney which the testator had
ordered. One circumstance inconsistent with this case wan
this, that Cern:, shortly after executing the documents, had
requested Hamilton to obtain a power of attorney too receive
the dividends then due upon his consolidated stock. If he
had supposed himself to have signed a power for that pur-
pose on the Thursday, why direct Hamilton to procure
another power the the same object ? Another circumstance
still more inconsistent was that on proceeding to obtain the
power from Mr. Cromipton, the broker of the testator. Ha-
milton made uo mention of the transaction of the Thursday.
Crompton was so doubtful of the testator's deputing
to another a duty which he had invariably performed
himself, that he had thought it right to see Carol
before complying with Hamilton's request. Was it con-
ceivable then that Hamilton would leave the broker in
ignorance of the execution of the deed, if he hail tilt any
misgiving as to its fairness? The whole tale was so impro-
bable that it could not have been credited upon the evidence
of third parties however respectable. Much less, therefore,
could it be received on the evidence of parties themselves
mixed up in the transaction. It was equal in absurdity
with anything which had been received at the time of the
Popish Hut, and would never have been put forward but
for the similar infatuation of the day. He was4happv to say
that in the present day no such feelings were likely to be
met with in a court of justice. The learned counsel
then resumed his criticism upon the affidavit and litter of
Hamilton. Ile characterised those documents as so full of
discrepancies as to discredit the evidence of the deponent in
any court of justice. The letter treated the whole transac-
tion of Thursday as a perfectly fair one, while the affidavit
cast every imputation of dishonesty upon it. Brown, who
bad deposed substantially to the same effect tug Hamilton,
was equally unworthy of credit. If he believed the execu-
tion of the documents to have been improperly obtained,
why did he consent to attest them? How could him evidence
against the fairness of the transaction, throughout which
he had been present, and consenting, be received
after that? lu the time of Lord Holt a man would
not have been permitted to deny his own testi-
mony. The rule excluding such evidence had since
been relaxed, but the evidence was never cons Mered
es entitled to much respect.
. . .

His lordship said it was to be presumed that when
a party signed a document as a witneas, he bad wins-
fied himself that the act was properly done; for it
was the duty of a party not to attest unless he be-
lieved that the party executing was of sound mind, and
free from imposition. The witness might, however, have
been deceived at the time, and it would therefore be cony—
ing the doctrine too far to exclude him altogether from
afterwards disputing the transaction.
Mr. Holt said his affidavit reprisiented that, on the even-
ing of the same Thursday, he felt regret at having signed a
deed which he believed to have been obtained by unfair
means. He had not, however, communicated that fart to
the relations of the donor, and the affidavit stated
that the moon why he had neglected so obvious a
duty was, that he thought it better the commu-
nication ehould be made to them verbally. and not in
writing. Upon the publication of the plaintiffs bill in the
°Owner, an article had also appeared in that paper, stating
that the writer had received a letter from Brown, in which
he expressed his regret at having signed the documents, be-
cause they were written in a foreign tongue. This state-
ment was untrue, and must have been kaown to he so by
Brown.
Mr. Kinglake said he could furnish the defendants with
a copy of the letter actually written by Brown, and ob-
jected to the statement in the newspaper being offered in
evidence, when the letter itself could be produced.
Mr. fait said the letter tendered had not been verified
by the writer's affidavit. It could not be received unless
verified on oath, and even then they would be justified in
diaregarding it. For the letter thus referred to the de-
fendant's solicitor had applied to the editor of the paper.
j The editor had been unable to find the letter, hut ad
vouched for the correctness of the statement in the paper.
The evidence of Brown, therefore, appeared to be iu the
same situation as that of Hamilton, and both those wit-
news must be regarded us altogether unworthy of credit.
,ahe
ase
win.terprek:ie known,
to
andh is
This evidence was also contradicted by that of other parties
more worthy of belief. Angier, an old friend of Cared,
and Spencer,
and
who
to hail
whom acted
Oaaquet and others, deposed that he freirently ex-
pressed an intentien to leave part of his property
for charitable purposes, and in particular for the benefit of
the girls' school in Somers-town It appeared, moreover,
from the evidence, that he had had but little communi-
cation with his relative',l in France. It wan not till they
obtained information of his wealth that they had written to
him. The evidence went to show that as he grew older
Calve became less indifferent upon religious matter.. He
became ii regular attendant at the chapel, which eventually
became the object of his bounty. Holdstnek had become
his spiritual director, or, if the plaintiffs pleased, his eon teaser.
To him he had, notwithstanding his penurious and miserly
habits, entrusted v.uious sums for dintrihutioa amongst the
poor. With this growing change in his religious feelings how ,
could it be said that any unfair influence had been exercised
over him? The whole trauaaction, as disclosed by the
plaintiffs' affidavits,
appeared to be perfectly fair. The
priest had been summoned by (Isaquot. He had gone to
the sick man in performance of a plain duty. The dying
man had proposed to leave part of his property to charity.
At all events the gift was shown to be in confonolkwith
his intaatioa. If It wen first in4Nlestelin.Ww dote
11.! ' .....-is
ei!!.6'. .411,N.
:1-
51,a.)
%./Ves;:t, • ... i'
vs`—f46%.