The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-08 00:00:00

was deposited merely as a security for • debt due to them
from the lessee might be compelled to make themselves
legally liable for all future rents,by taking *legal asaignment
of the lease from Taylor. The rents, it appeared, wen paid
up to November, 1847, so that none was duo when
the bill was filed in May, 1848. The bill prayed
that these parties, who were only equitable assignee*,
might be decreed to take an assignment from the lessee, and
that he might be decreed to execute such assignment. The
ease, in short, was that these defendants took a deposit of
the loess as a security for a debt, and the bill preyed that
they may be held liable to the rents and to take a kgel
assignment. There is no doubt that it that was done they
would be liable at law to the rents and covenants. Then the
first question that occurs ia, what privity is there between
the lessors and the defendant's depositaries of the lease ; end
what, if any, liability have they incurred 1 They bays
accepted a deposit of the lease for the purpose of securing
their debt, and it is asked that they be made legally liable to
the rents and covenants in the lease. That, it allowed,
would prevent any person from ever taking a deposit of
deeds. Ills lordship said be could not think a court of equity
could exercise its jurisdiction to place a party in that situa-
tion, which he never contemplated at the time the deed was
de/salted. the present case is not one in which the'
court is called upon to deal with the equitable as-
signee to compel him to become a legal usignee. The :1
whole question raised by the bill was whether a party hold-
ing a deposit of a deed was to be put in the place of the legal
sasignee. His payment of rent on behalf of the lessee
amounted to not ring. He paid the demand for and on be-
half of the lessee, and it was contended that that was an&
dent to make him liable. The argument used by t-.e
plau-
tids on this point would put an end to the distinction be-
tween an assignment of a lease and an under-lease--an
under-lessee was never held to be liable to the covenants in
the original lease. Ns point in the cue, taken separately,
could be held to subject the defendants to the liability con-
tended for ; and, if not separately, they all jointly.could not
subject him then to it. Then another important
point to be considered wan the applicsbity of the
cases to the point, and it was said that " Lucas
v. Comerfurd " (3 Bro., c. c. 166) was a distinct
authority for the plaintiffs. That case was subject to a great
deal of observation ; and it was agreed by all that the report
was defective. His own opinion was, that after all the
searches that were made as to the facts, something was still
lett out. It. did not feel he was at liberty to say that the
ease was wrong ; but it appeared to him, in the report, that
the point raised in this cue was not brought before Lord
Thurlow in that cue. The prayer of the bill there, as ap•
peered in the report, was to make the defendant Friona
covenants to build a house, &c., and not, as in this don' to
accept en assignment of a lease. Lord Thurlow said he
would not compel the party to perform the covenants ; and
said, all be could do was to compel him to accept an
with That was not the relief prayed by the bilrVo
ca-s in point was referred to in the argument. That of
" Flight v. Bentley " (7 Simons), wan on a differ-
ent state of facts; and the Vice-Chancellor, in
" Moores v. Choat," expressed his surprise how
he came to make the decree in that case. His lordship, after
referring to the Vice- Chancellor's observations in " Moores
v. Choat" (8 Simons) observed that his Honour very properly
disclaimed the doctrine laid down in " Flight v. Benthi."
lie not only disclaimed that doctrine, but decided the case
before him quite contrary to it, and d.ssistently, as he said,
with the grounds of " Lucas v. Comerford." Anothercese re-
ferred to was " Close v. Wilberforce." His lordship stated
that ease, and in conclusion laid, in this state of the authori-
ties, and as " Lucas v. Comerford " was n followed, be
was of opinion that the demurrer in this case was properly
'newel, and, consequently, the appeal should be dismissed
with costs.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V.WILBOEL—LADT HRWIRT'B
CHARITT.-1 he hearing of the sppeol from the Vice-Chan-
cellor of Hithland in this case, was, cn the applicotinn of Mr.
Bethel!, and with content of all arties, pat uff to the first
-v of Hilary Term.

Wore the Vioe-Chencellor of Fagland.
Kr tout O. MOKHALL.—PAILTNE3BIIII. Amor Nre.—
STATUTII OP LIMITATIONS.—It appeared in this case that •
partnership had been formed in the year 1814 between seve-
ral persons, for the purpose of working certain coal raises in
Shropshire, and a person named Thomas Jones, who was
one ot the partners, was appointed the manager ot the
works. In 1823 the undertaking turned out a failure, and
was discontinued. Janes became • bankrupt, and his
assignee Sled the present bill against his copartner' for the
usual partnership account•. The defendants set up the
Statute of Limitations, and also contended that as there was
no agreement in writing to prove tho partnership, the
plaintiff was not entitled to have the accounts against them.
—The Vice-Chancellor considered that the partnership had
been sufficiently proved, and that being the case, it followed
that there was an obligation on the partners to contribute,
which could only be avoided by a special arecraent. There
must therefore be a decree for the ordinary partnership
aeoonnta.

Before vioaChanciettor Wigram.
Gum e. Pillt.Liroun.—BlLlSAell or Till:ST.—His
Honour delivered his judgment in these:suiu, the hearing of
which took place previously to the long vacation. The
original suit was instituted by one of several cestuis que
trust, complaining of a breach of trust, alleged to have been
committed by the trustees by landing 2,0001., part of the
trust-fund, noon the personal security of one of the cedilla
que trust, and also by advancing 2,3001., other part cf the
trust fund, upon the mortgage of certain houses at North.
&lepton, whicn had proved a deficient security. The bill
sought to charge the trustee with the loam arising
frees such investments. The cross bill was filed
by the trustees against the cestuis qua trust of the fund,
aiming acquiescence on their part is the investments made
by the plaintiffs in the cross suit, and praying that the mort-
gage security might be realised, and the trustees indemnified
Ikea less.—Hil Honour directed that the mortgage should
be realised, and the proceeds, together with the 2,0001. lent
to the cestui qua trust, should he brought into comet, and
that the income arising therefrom should be paid to the
tenser for life, at whose death theparties were to have
liberty to apply.
HOLLOND V. TEZD.-130aaaNTEE.—Ilia Honour made
an order in this case, the facts of which appear in the Ex-
press of Monday last, to the effect that the exceptants were
entitled. to prove for the 1,9751. which they had paid
after the death of Mr. Felix Ladbroke, on the four bills
accepted by them prior to thabevent, minus a sum of 1,2201.,
which had been paid to them by the testator in his lifetime.
The executors of the testator were not to be credited with
the balance standing to the credit of the Messrs. Carruthers
at the expiration of the guarantee, but such balance was
held to have been discharged by paynien's eub.equently
made by the bank on account of the Messrs. Carruthers.

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH.—Tzereanasw.
Sittings In Banco.
BUBDTROS Or Tan COURT.—Lord Denman stated that the
court did not intend to take the special paper until after the
term, and that the new trial paper would be taken on the
days usually devoted to the special paper during the term.
JRNKINS AND °TRIM 17. BROWN AND OTHIIRO.—LIEN.
I —Mr. Watson, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict for the defendants in this case, which was tried at
the last maims at Liverpool, should not be set aside, and •
new trial had. It appeared that the action was brought
to recover three cargoes of corn, which had been
shipped at New Orleans with bills of lading delivering
to the order or assigns of Messrs. Brown end Shipley, of
Liverpool, and sent by the house of %Engender and Co.
for Jenkins and Co., of London, the plaintiffs, by whose
order the corn had been purchased and ahippsd. Annexed
to the bills of exchange drawn by Klingender and Co. on
the plaintiffs were the kills of lading, which Mesas. Brown
and Shipley, as their agents, were to hold until the bills of
exchange had been duly honoured ; hut the invoices were
sent to the plaintiffs,and stated that the corn was consigned to
the order, and ter the account and risk of the plainuffA, which
showed that Klingender and Co. had purchased it with their
own money. The bills of exchange were duly accepted by
the plaintiffs, and placed by the defendants with their
bankers, lawns. Denison and Co., until they arrived at ma-
turity. The bills became due on the 17th June, 1847, and
on that day the plaintiffs tendersd the amount due, via.,
2,6131. 9s. 4d. They were first told that the bills [had been
tent to the calling house. This, however, was subsequently
discovered to be au error, and payment was again
tendered twice, but it turned out that one of
the partners in the house, who was out of town
for the day, had locked up the bills, and they
could not be found. The cargoes were afterwards sold by the
defendants, to make good a claim which they had on Klin-
gender and Co., for advances made to them. The learned
counsel now contended that the verdict for the defendants
must be set aside, as after the money had been tendered to
meet the bills of exchange, the lien which the defendants
had on the corn was divested, although the debt might not
have been extinguished. The effect of the tender of the
I money was the only question for the consideration of the
court.—Lord Denman said they would take time to con-
' eider it,

BAIL COURT—YEatuuDAY.
nittlap in Banes—Before Mr. /canoe Putteson.
Tna QUEEN V. HADLIT.—LIBEL.—The Attorney-Gene-
ral moved, on behalf of a gentleman named Heaney, and
seven other magistrates acting for the Cheltenham division
of the county of Gloucester, for a criminal information
against the defendant, as the proprietor, printer, and pub-
lisher, of the CAeltessisani Journal. When his lordship had
heard the libel read, he would be of opinion that the charges
were of ouch a nature, reflecting as they did on the conduct
'of the magistrates, as to call or the intervention of that
court. The libel appeared in the newspaper in question on
the 31st of July, and was the report of the speech of a Mr.
Linwood, an attorney of Cheltenham, which was delivered
at a meeting of the Cheltenham Conservative Association.
He would now read to the court a portion of the speech.
Gentlemen,—lt is not maiden.. to return a conservative member
for the town of Cheltenham. We must have a few of our ogees here
filled with men of our own colour. We have bad the yellow Wei
long enough. ( Llughter.) And I think, lf sou owe to dimwit
them, you would find that they also poetised yeliow hearts by this
time. (Laughter and applause. ) I speak disrespectfully of so man
be his individual character (that everybody knows); and if
they don't I know it, and I do not like to End fault with others.
PAU' officers are however Imbue property, and so long as I am •
padie pricer, if I misconduct myself I shall expect to be found fault
with. Therefore I do my that this applies to every public oflicer
from the beach of magistrates—(hear, de
ist
the bum twilit! that
lades his distress on your goods. (ApWsw.) Oestlemen, I feu no
man, and I lope I shall never Isar
dez3ensa as long lam doing my
duty. (Applause.) I feel I am my duty to say, though lam
wry to say it, that the magistrates this town do procitute their
dike to political purpons. (Applause, and cries of That's true.")
I say it fearlessly boldly, and publicly, and I defy them to gainsay it.
I But, gentlemen, hope our as.ociation will be the means of letting
these gentlemen know that when they get upon that magi.-
teriel bench, they bare a duty to perform, and If they
don't know their duty before they get there, we must teach it them
after they get there—(applause)—at d we will teach it to them. (Bear.
bear.) Bub pray do not let any man in this room suppose that I
speak this for the We of finding fault. No, geed:men, Ido it upon
the defensive. We have been set upon, and we moat attend our-
selves. (Cries of "On we must and to we wi) Wecan only defend
ourselves by uake and strength. We cannot do :tut cur own mai-