The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-25 00:00:00

lain Intelligence.

EQUITY COURTR v EIITERDAT.
SOOtil TIC LOWS MINIM 07 Al NUL
EXPARTE NI/ILION IN EN EDMOND, A NANILItCPT.
In this case, which was an appeal from the decision of
Lora. Justice Knight Bruce, made hy him when Vir
e-
Chancellor, in 1850, the principal question was, whet r
the bankrupt, who had become proprietor by purchase o a
number of shares in &registered joint stock company, could,
before executing the suWeribsn' agreement, make • valid
tale or mortgage of such shares. The Vice• Chancellor had
held in the negative, bat had given liberty to the parties to
luke a case before the Court of Exchequer. The parties
had not availed themselves of this permission, and now
brought the matter again before the court by way of
ellPe•L
Mr. J. Russell and Mr. Eddie appeared in support of the
appeal; and Mr. Bacon and Mr. Smythe contra.
' Lord Justice Turner said the question, affecting as it did
11 the right of all unregistered shareholders to deal with their
see .r, was of great importance, and should, :if possible, ba
determined by the full court.
The case was accordingly directed to stand over, in order
' that the Lord Chancellor's permission for a hearing by the
full court might be applied for.

SIMMS THI NAFTER Or TH I NOLL&
THE EARL OF OLINGALL F. 11 kRNATID.

This was a petition for the payment out of court of a sum
of 110,0001., in order to pay the purchase money of estates
which had been sold in the Encumbered Estates Court, and
which had ,been purchased by the trustees under Lady
settlement under the sanction of the court.
Mr. Cairns appeared in support of the petition, which
was unopposed, and was granted.

DIDOZZTICE-COANCIOLOZ ell W. eons WOOD.
BILENNAN V. PIirSION.
Thia CAMS was called on, but the further hearing was
postponed till the filet cause day after term.
The facto are shortly as follows : In the year 1861 the
plaintiff, Captain Brennan, entered into en arrangement
with other parties, and among them with the defendants
Preston and Watson, by which a screw steamer called the
Flambe was built at Dumbarton, and of which the plaintiff
Brennan and the defendants were part owners to the ex-
tent of one-eighth each, the remainder belonging to the
onus plaintiffs ; and by an agreement between the parties
for certain consideration therein mentioned,lit was agreed
that Brennan was to be the master, at a ct stain salary, and
the defendants were to be perpetual ship's husbands,
brokers, and agents. The agreement contained the terms
of remuneration to which they were to be entitled, and
amongst other things they were to be paid 5 per cent. by
the charterers on all charters effected, and 21 per cent.
ea the amount of inward freight. Aod the agree-
ment further provided that whenever " freight "
was mentioned it should be taken to mean "gross freight
and passage money." Brennan was to find provisions for
himself and the crew on the usual terms, and the owners
were to pay all the steamer's expenses. And there was a
clause in the agreement providing that if Preston and
Watson, in their capacity of ship's husbands, brokers and
agents, should be guilty of negligence, or do any act giving
just cause of dissatisfaction, the owners should be at liberty
to dismiss them upon "mein them with notice, signed by
those who represented two-thirds of the shares, and paying
them the value of their shares, but if they were dismissed
contrary to the agreement, then they were to be entitled to
1,600/. as liquidated damages. Under this agreement the ,
steamer was brought round to Liverpool, and offered to
Messrs. Burns and APlvor, who ultimately agreed to
charter her for the Mediterr trade, at a sum of 1301.
per week. The defendants had asked a much larger sum,
but agreed to take 1301., sad stipulated for a further sum
of 41. per week, to be paid to themselves as commission, but
which did net appear on the face of the charter party.
Alter some time this fact came to the knowledge of Brennan
who communicated it to the owners, and they thereupon
served the defendants with notice to i.isc:mtinue them as
ship's husband', alleging; that:the stipulation for a sum for
themselves beyond the freight was a fraud. The
plaintiffs then applied for an injunction to restrain the
defendants front acting as ship's husbands which was
granted, and the defendants brought actions against each of
the plaintiffs for the sum of 1,6001, on the ground that the
agreement was improperly put an end to. The proceedings
in these actions were staled by the court upon the plaintiffs
undertaking to give judgments to be dealt with aa Use coat
should direct at the bearing of the cause. Upon the ser-
vice of the notice to discontinue the defendants in the office
of ship's husbands several communications took place,
in which the defendants at tint alleged their intention to
account for the cum of 41. per week. But they ultimately
rested their case upon their right to retain that sum,
alleging that they were entitled under the agreement to
commission on the gross freight, that/ the 1301. appearing
on the face of the charter party was net freight, and that
the reason for drawing the charter party in that way was
because Burns and Mem did not wish it to appear that
they were chartering this vessel at a higher rate than they
were paying far other verde ; and that the 4/. was an
approximate calculation of what would be the difference
between the commission on the 1301. per week, which they
would receive under this charter party, and what they
would have been entitled to as commission on gross freight.
Upon this part of the case there was a great masa of evidence
taken. And upwards of 60 witnesses bad been examined
from different ports in England and Scotland, to prove the
custom of the trade with respect to the right of charging
commission in the way they proposed to charge it ; and the
defendants further alleged that they had not concealed the
fact of their receiving this sum, but that Brennan was
throughout aware of it, and was himself receiving a bonus
beyond the sum which he was entitled to under the agree-
ment. The defendants also raised objections to the notice
served on them, alleging that in law it was not signed by
two-thirds of the owners ; because one party signing it did
so is respect of shares belonging to hip:welt and his brother
as partners, and that he did not sign for the partnership
hut only for himself ; and that his partner, in fact, had re-
fused to sign it, and that his signature was therefore of no
avail. They also relied upon the fact that one of the part
owners, who was joined as a co-plaintiff, gam
evidence in favour of the defendants, and stated that he
did not consider that what they had done was any fraud at
all ; and therefore they argued that an that plaintiff could
claim no relief, the bill must fail as to all.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Follett, Mr. James, and Mr.
Cairns, appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Bolt, Mr. J. Prior,
and Mr. Burnie, for the defendants.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.

:rote LORD CRIMISLL AND nOTICIR COLUDIDUR,
WIORTIWL ARD LILL

TILE QUEEN V. THE MLYOII 01,

.31/i NDAM US

TO RIMINI A OUZO= LIST.

Mr. Serjeant Bieglake moved for a rule to show mute
why a mandamus should not issue, commanding the mayor
and assessors of the borough of Dartmouth to bold a court
for the purpose of revising the burgess list of the parish of
Townetal, in that borough. He applied under the 15th
sec. of the 5 and 6 Wm. IV., c. 76 (the Municipal Corpora-
tions Act). The burgess list of that parish bad been re-
jected, on the ground of a variation in the description of
the place of abode of the voters from the schedule in the
act. Instead of the " parish " in which the voters resided
being mentioned, according to the schedule, the name of
the " borough" had been inserted. He submitted that
this was a mere informality which would not justify the
mayor and assessors in rejecting the list, hut which they
were directed by the act to correct by a revision.
The court granted a rule nisi.
THE OMITS V. THZ 11018THAZ OP THE PHAZ.VACIIVTICALL

Sir F. Kelly moved fora rule for • mondial= directing
the registrar of the Pharmaceutical Society to remove cer-
tain names from that association. By the 15 and 16 Vie.,
c. 56, it was provided that no person should be placed upon
the register of the society who was not already established
as a chemist and druggist, and who had not become a MM.
ber of the meaty, or who had not undergone an eiamina-
tion and obtained • certificate of qualification. The govern-
ing body of the society had, however, framed some addi-
tional bye-laws, by which any person could be placed
upon the register and become a member who was practising
os a chemist and druggist, and who could obtain •
meslisses of qualification from two members of
tile Misty. The effect of these bye•laws was that 650 per-
implmsl been admitted as members of the society, and
allsoroil to share in the privileges to which all members
wen entitled who had no other qualification than that re-
quired by such bye.laws, which bye-laws, he contended,
were so direct contravention of the sot of parliament.
Lord Campbell said the court would not grant • rule to
strike the names off the register, but would direct that
under the mandamus • complete register of the mambo's and
associates of the society should be made in the terms of the
act.
Rule accordingly.
LEE AND ANOTHER V. 11011THOATE AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Knowles applied for • rule to show cause why the
plaintiffs in this and four other actions which had bean
brought against the tame defendants should not appear in
court and state their claims to certain property, the subject
matter of all the actions, with the view of their being di-
rected to interplead. The defendants were book auctioseers
in Fieetstree ,t and on the 6th of January, 1847, had been
directed by Mr. Laycock, • bookseller at Oxford, with
whom they bad had previous dealings to sell certain books
of his which were lying in a home in Great Queen-street.
The defendants accordingly had the books removed to
their warehouse, prepared catalogues, and made arrange-
ments for the sale to take place on the sth of March and the
five knowing days. On the morning of the sth they re-
ceived three notices, one from an attorney who repre-
sented the assignees of Mr. James Bohn, formerly a book-
seller in St. James's-street, a second from Messrs. Gregory
and Co., as representative' of the Bishop of Landaff,lldr.
Scarisbrook. and Mr. Anstrutber, and a third from Mr. J.
H. Bohn, each laying a claim to the books in ques-
tion. The sale did not take place, and the books
had since remained in the custody of the defen-
dants. In 1635 Mr. Laycock commenced an action in
trover, but ne proceeding had been taken in that action
until the May of that year. In the same year another
notice was received from Mr. Long, who claimed the book'
as assignee of James Bohn. Nothing was done until
November, 1652, when the defendant received a notice from
Mr. Daniel, wh) also claimed under assignments from Mr.
Bohn. Four =ions had now been commenenderdneetthe
defendants . one at the suit of Mr. James Bolln,`-suosluer
James Bolues assignees, a third by Jnkm M. •
brother, sad a fourth by Mr. Daniel, fax.rt • „., • ' .•
The defendants had act yet pleaded to 1011 - ' :71
The cart granted a rule nisi. "
" ;. -7 'st
i 4.
r‘' - :.'../..,•,. ir. Ilk 't
!. \ ......) -17
..-;:1-,:y) It
iLs \ttri.„....,: ::.

$;.