The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-01 00:00:00

EQUITY OOURTB.—YamEDAT.

Baroaa Tra Loan Canocauoa.
Naaloos c....BADDILLIT. —APPLICATION TO etSTIND

they misted to the whom le genies in the salt; and,
thateleee. the phalli wee Oho fosie entitled to pro-
dad. litho the iihjestions raised by the defendants
wen loftiest to them. His lordship mid he
the of those objections were neither
Ol with regard to the first objection,
the weelleer was The defendants said they held
thedeatelessts on behalf of persons by whom they had been
eauneleil hith the mmey for the purchase of the ships; but
did they mean to designate thereby ? Was it the
inheilhna ei Sicily or the executive government foe the
time beim ? It could not be the former, between whom and
themehes there was no privity of contract. The people by
whim the mosey was raised had entreated it to the executive
genvaimon, leaving it to them to make the purchases re-
The mew repnwented that the government eating
ritrespie gave the orden to the defendants. It was
absurd to speak of a whole people u cousins qua trust of peen
piny in dispute in this court. the people were represented by
their government. Thou had the detendau to a right to say that
that Ronnie= et were cestui quo trust,and that in their absence
the defendants could not be called upon to produce the docu-
ment? He thought not. Every government, in dealing
with other parties, must be countered as partaking of the
same of a eerporettoe, and be treated as basing a perpetual
sisesesekst. It would not be represented by all or any of the
ladtvidwale of whom it might from time to time have been
esterwoh. The easwer stated that material changes bed
hien lime eissega the parties from time to time exercising
the fesetisen of government at Palermo. It was impossible
Is my that the defendants were agents of all the individuals
who from time to time composed the executive government,
and sot of those who continued to constitute such body.
!cry far individuals must be considered to have teased
the. individush ceased to be members of such
government. Wnen that government came to an fad, the
defendants either ceased to be agents at all or become agents
of the plaintiff. The cue might be likeeed to that of an
agency of a caporatien which comes to en end either
by the death of all its members, or by the pro-
visions of en act of parliament detern-ining the incor-
poration. It could not be said in such a ease that the
agency was for the individuals formerly constituting the
corporation. So here the defendants were not the agents of
the individual' co:spaded the executive government when
the remittances were made to them. if nests at all, they
were agents olthe plaintiff. This objection etas the necessity
of making the remitters co-oefendants had then raised upon
demurrer ; and had been disposed of when that demurrer was
overruled, anima a new case had been made by the answer;
but it appeared that no such case had been made. Upon the
second ebjection, vie., that as to the penalties, hie, lordship
said be had been unable to fled an authority upon the point.
The defendants said the production of the documents in
quecion might be the means of subjecting themselves and
others to penal consequences in Sicily. With regalia to
pasties other than the defendants, it was well settled that
the rule of protection could not be extended to such
parties. The maxim upon which the rule was founded was
I Nemo tender seipsum prodere. Production could cot be pre-
vented merely because third parties might thereby be subjected
es penal consequences. The rule, moreover, wes applicable
to those eases only where the penal consequences to which
the party would be subjected arose under our owe muni-
elpal law. The protection could be extended only to matters
'penal by that law, and with regard to which the judge
might pronpunce as matter of law, whether tee) were
likely or not to subject the party to penalties. Thus, where
a witness refused to answer, on the ground that five yeah
beek he had executed an den without having taken the ne-
wton oaths, and en a.t of parliament hod been passed to
hidentnny the witness in such a case; if the witness
said he would not answer, en the ground that by
so doing he might be made liable to penalties
there the judge might say the witness was under a mistake
as to the Law and was not protected. With respect, how-
ever, to penal consequences in a foreign country, it was ins.
poesible for a judge bete to be cogaisant of what was penal
' and what not in a :oreiga country. In the present case
there was little difficulty in conjecturing that the defendants
bad truly stated that they would be made liable to tbe penal-
ties of high treason in Sicily; but if the principle were
case established it would have to be applied in all cues.
Thee in the case of a suit for an account against the
members of a Spanish firm resident here, the detail,
dolts, if Spanish subjects, might refuse to answer
on the ground that the transacticns of the firm were
contraband according to the law of Spain and
that a discovery might subject the defendants to penalties
under the fiscal laws of Spain. So in the case of the trade
in opium to China, which had been put at the bar. It
would be impossible, in fact, to tell to what extent the r ea.
cipte, donee established, might be carried. It might be
observed also, in the present cue, that the defendants before
they meld incur a penalty must first quit this country. It
was probable indeed that, being Sicilians, they would raters,
or be desirous of returning, to their country; but still their
privilege could not be more extensive that that which would
be granted to an Englishman who had been abroad, and
acted than so as to be liable to penalties in a foreign
country; and who would not, on that account, be e&
eased from answering on tee suggestion that if
he did so, and afterward* went abroad, sue might be sub-
jected to penalties in • foreign country. His lordship said
that these reasons formed, in his opinion, a strong ground
for not oust bind the present application. The rule, he
thought, ought to be confined to what tended to subject the
party to penalties under our own municipal law, and that
the objection could not be sustained. Thu usual order for
production must therefore be made.

Af .0101111. PIXDING AX APPRAL.
Mr. Bothell, with whom was Mr. E. Webster, referring
to his lordship's judgment on Wednesday, discharging the
order of the Master of the Role for the appointment of
receiver, said he was now instructed to apply to his lordship
to suspend so much of his order as went to discharge the
injunction against the defendant's receiving the rants; he
only asked that the injunction might stand for one mouth,
until the plaintiff could bring his appeal against his lord-
Iskip's order.
Mr. R. Palmer (with whom was Mr. J. V. Prier) op-
posed the motion. 'do grant it would be nullifying his lord-
ship's order. That was the order, as his lordship said, which
the Master of the Rolls ought to have made at first. There
was no ground to disturb the defendant's poeuseion. He
was, and had a right to be, patio the same state in reference
to he estates in which he was before the Muter
of the Rolls made his order. It was always in the
discretion of the court to suspend its own orders
pending an appeal, but that was a discretion which ought to
be exorcised with the greatest caution. In " Wilburn a.
logleby" (1 Mylne and Keen, p. 61), Lord Brougham re-
fused an application like this. Ile Tied the judgment in pp.
86 and 67, and then referred to the case of " Storey a.
Lord George Lennox" (1 Mylne and Craig, 525).
Mr. Betbell raid this was a proper use for the exercise of
the discretion of the court is sueneuding its order for a few
days. Here was a conflict of opinion between two judgee,
end it was n-A too much to ask that the order, the sabject
of the conflict, might be stayed until it could be brought
before another tribunal. Although no irreparable mischief
[ might follow the discharge of the Injunction in this cue, it
[ was still a proper matter tor the exercise of the court's dis-
cretion to let the injunction stand until the partite could
appeal. lie referred to the case of "The Corporation of
Gloucester v. Wood" (3 Hare, p. 160 et seq). Unless the
order made in this case as to the injunction were stayed,
the plaintiff would be deprived of the benefit of his appeal
from it.
The Lord Chancellor said he did not think that this was
a case in which inconvenience would attend the staying of
the execution of the order. Bit the granting the applica-
tion, though it was a muter in the discretion of the court,
might be inconvenient In the way. of precedent. The spell
cation was, that the injunction might be continued until as
appeal could be brought before the House of Lords. He
had no doubt that, if the case had been as fully
[ before the Master of the R.41/8 as it was hers,
that learned judge would not have made the order.
He was much influenced by the verdict obtained by
toe plaintiff, and which Wel then subsisting. Except for
that, the Muter of the Rolls would never have made the
order. That was the difference between the Muter of the',
Rolls and hiens,ll. He had man knowledoi of verdicts,
tram 60 years' experience, then the Master of the Rolls.
He gave no credit to the verdict in this case, and it was new
sat aside, and he had reason to know what was the opitiom
entertained of it by the judgis who discharged it. He had
no reason to warrant him in disturbing the defendant's title,
sad he felt he would be making a bad precedent if
he granted this application. It would be as if he
felt no coofi lenge in the judgment he had pro-
nounced. Every judge should have confidence enough
in the judgment he pronounces not to yield to a suspension
of it. It is the duty of a judge, before he pronounces his
judgment, to be quite sure that his view is right, and having
given his judgment he ought to adhere to ir. The general
Me being that orders of this court are not stopped by appeal,
he saw no reason in this case to depart from that role. He
saw no reason to assume that the plaintiff's title would be
established, or, that if it should, the defendant would not be
found competent to answer for the rents. The affidavits of
his insolvency were not at all satisfactory on that point.
The onus of proving it lay on those who charged it. He
thought, however, that the rents ought to be paid by the
defendant into some bank until the question of title was
decided. _ _

.....—.
Mr. R. Palmer was ready to undertake that no mete
should be committed on the estate, and that the rents should
be paid into a beak. That should be added to tits lordship's
WWII%
His lordship said he desired that; and he then said the
application to stay the execution of his order was reflood,
with costs.

Zr.roaa Tice-Cusecomos Knorr ham.
Rs MADRID AND V ALINCLA RAILWAY COMPANY,-
WIN DIN P ACTS.
Mr. Selwyn, on behiUt of the cfficial manager of the above
company, applied for the sanction of the court to an ordes
dittoing the inverment in Ezchequer Bills of a sam of
12,0001, part of the assets of the company which had been
halved by the official ensnare. from Speak. The Muter
doubted whether he had jurisdiction to direct the inveatenent
under the powers cont. reed upon him by the Windinspup
Acts, which, !weever, authorised the Matter to make a
.pecial report e.onceriiiog say matter arising out of the
wending-up, so that the opinionlof the court might be token'
upon i . It was now suggested that It would be convenient,l
If the court would intimate an opinion as to the authority of'
the Master in such rues in gen. ral.
The ViceeCeancellor laid he mut decline making any
general order, but, in this particular cue he would make an
order permitting the 16,00(11., and all such other sums of
money as might be received by the official manager in this
matter, to be invested, with :he approbation of the blaster,
is Consols or in Exchequer Bills.

METAIRIE O. DR. WISEMAN LSD OTHERA.--INJONCTION,

Mr. Bethel', with whom was Mr. Kioglske, moved that
the defendan.s Dr. Nicholas Wiseman, John Athanasius
Cooke, and Edward Norris, might be restrained from selling
or transferring • sum of 7.0001. per cent. Bank Annul-
' ties in the pleadings roentiriced, or any part thereof ; and
from receiving the dividends hereafter to become due
thereon ; and from applying or parting with the dividends
already received by them in respect of such stock. He said
that notice of motion for the ihjuuction had been served on
the defendants on the 18th last , for the 23rd. That on the
motion coming on on the 23rd, the defendants had appeared
and asked fir time to answer the affidavits in support of the
motion. This had been granted, and the motion had stood
over for that purpose till tc-day. The defendants had thus
had ten char days from their first notice of the
application to pr. pare their affidavits to meet the plaintiff's
case. No affidavit in opposition had however been filed,
but the defendants Cooke and Norris had this morning
filod an affidavit stating that by reason ol the length to which
their affidavits would rue, it was imposaible to hare them in
readiness far seven more days at least. The learned counsel
then said that the substance of the case wade by the bill wu
that a catholic gentleman, aided by Mr. Cooke,a banister,
had gone to a Mr. Cant, when lying at the point of death,
and procured him to sign • deed of gift of almost his
entire fortune far the benefit of certain catholic
priests and tstablishmente, to the exclusion of his own next
et kin, and the object of the suit was to impeach the transac-
tion. The facts had all occurred in • few hours, and were
within the personal knowledge of the defendants. He sub-
mitted, therefore, that the defendants had had ample time
allowed them for the preparation of their case, and that the
motion ought to proceed.
Mr. Rolt, for the defendants, said that on the occasion of
the motion standing over on the 23rd, he had certainly under-
stood that time was to he allowed for the preparation of the
material' of the cue, provided the turtles proceeded with
good faith and with reasonable diligence. la the present
mos the evidence would be voluminous, and further time
ought to be allowed for Its preparation. The plaintiff's bill
had originally been flied against Dr. Oriffiths, but had since
bren amended by the introduction of Dr. Wiseman's name,
tor the sole purpose of giving • partials of notoriety to the
case. At present he wu entirely unprovided with evidence
in supoort of the defence, and the case, if proceeded in,
would have to be in effect diapnsed of ex parte.
Such a mode of dealing with a case of great importance, and
involving charges affecting character, would, he submitted,
be contrary to the usual mode of administeringi justice pur-
sued by the court.
Meßinglake deprecated the charge of garnishing for no-
toriety thrown out against the bill. The fact was, that Dr.
Griffiths was discovered to have died since the execution of
the deed in which he was named as trustee, and Dr. Wise.

Ducar Lou Cauwoara (Vica.Caucasaa).
Tns Kiao or TAX Iwo BICLUXII O. WILLCOX £4P
°THAWS.

His Lordship delivered judgment upon this motion, the
facia of which are tulip reported in our impression of the
18th instant. flu Lordship said this was • motion for the
production of documents, which the defendants &sighs and
Orsestelli admitted were in their pomtasion, and related to
the mstters in question in the nil. The bill alleged that
!from May, Ib4B, till April, 1849, the government of Siciiy
was wrested from the plaintiff by certain of his subjects
there, who during that period unlawfully ex, rcued
the tunetions of government in exclusion of the
plaintiff. The bill stated that the usurping go-
vernment, while so exercising its functions, employed
the defendants as spate or commissionen in Enolasd,
and remitted to them large sums of money taken from the !
royal treasury, which had been seized by the usurping go- •
vernment at Palermo; tad that the came was received by
the defendants for the purpose et purchasing two Means
ships for the use of that government. 'flied the defendants
accordindy entered into • contract wish their
fondants, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam-packet
C impany, for the purchase of two vessels, the
Vacs and the Bombay. That the defendants possessed
themselves of the vessel the Vectis, and lent it our to their
employers in Sicily; and that they paid over he money
emitted to them to the company in part payment of the two
ships. That the Bombay was now &early ready for sea.
That in April, 1819, the plaintiff masked his dominion over
NHIy and was motored to his authority, ea rightful mere-
taiga ; and that as en incident to such restoration be had
beams entitled to the said steam ships, and to the benefit of
tbiesentnet entered into by the defendants, as agents of the
Imerphig government, with the comoany. The bill prayed
that the defendants, the company, might be restrained from
delivering the ship the Bombay, and from permitting the
same to be sent out of England. Toe defendants
Unlit and Granatelli by their answer admitted the
leisure of the government of Sicily, but said that
the persons so seizing it were not properly desig-
nated a usurping ff. merriment, because the plaintiff,
prior to such seizure, had on various occasions violated the
rights of his subjects; and the answer alleged facts and I
decussate ebseriag, or intended to show, that the so-called
usenkfc posesnesnt exercised, or affected to exercise, the
masa ediseGromat, and were recognised as exercising those!
Gallifilk• by seise European states. With regard to the
Sallindetior tie pastiness of the steam ships, the answer said
ON ernes it WOO Iribe that the so-called morning govern-
IMinbiesek peseidem of Se gamey is the royal treasury In
Mose, yet regale 11Mreef wee employed in the purchue of
swam. ships to question; but it said that several thou.
mmib of the Shableante of Sicily raised a contribution, under
the emotion of the parliament and the executive govern.
meat fee the time being, of a large sum of money for the
yenta, of steam ships and other purposes, and that a
selligant pat of such rootrinotios me remitted to the de-
fendants here to be laid oat on such purchase. That this
remittance was made to the defendants here as agents se
trusters for the public or government in Skill; and that the
defendants ought not, therefore, to be bound to produce the
des meats in question in the absence of the parties by whom
Vs sissy had been as remitted to them. The defendants
then est out the contract between themselves and their ee-
deMadants, the company, which was signed by theateelvie ea
behalf of the Sicilian government, and by the seereesy of
the ompany on behalf of the company; sad was to
be subject to ratification by that government. The answer
then stated that the contract was accordingly ratified by the
&silks government meaning thereby the eseentive govern-
ment for the lime being. The answer than Newt that, after
the netontice of the plaintiff, various pressings took place
la dilly se to the transactions in gonakaaa by the result of
sblek the deiadeate were dehisced reepeadble far large
awes Is respell of the re:Musser mode le them by the
areselim emetheesaL The eamme ram adobe' the pos-
e/sift of the demomate fa re
eel that Air
Mate or the maw Is weed= is ymoth had eahmimei
that the dehadeate see mt. berth II =ies throb
Ant, hewers,weed be e breath of le do se
in the abeam of lbeir eve ash gun Sauk the parties by
when the mobs hid Mee remitted up them; sad, eimedy,
bemoan thole posamoks might be the means of waldwidea
them sod mime to Shay to midaid prememhth sad to
pleats awe to sweet el the
_pert tibia hy SWIM is the
sir=whit Ins plated& The garden was
ken siege& eider grand et p
11111111166.11161 pereedes et Ine isate, sad sit

man bad been named in his stead u del.nduit, the deed
providing that the vicar general or bishop for the Vitae
being aboild be a trustee ex officio. An offer bad been
made to dismiss the bill as against the doctor if he would
nominee the ex officio trusteeship, bat this offer bad been
refuted.

His Lordship said the notice of motion had been given for
a particular day, and that the court was bound to hear the '
Intolion on that day, utiless it saw that by so doing injustice
would be occasioned. The question was, whether it was not
here clear, from the nature of the ease, that Juju-
lice would be don. if it were now beard. It was
impossible, without looking through the whole cam, to
I soma to a certain conclusion; but ha thought he saw
enough to induce him to postpone the hearing of the
motion. The bill, which was of great length, was filed on the
17th. It was perfectly clear that the parties could not arrive
at a knowledge of i's purport till Monday the 19th. Ha
could not say that the defendants ought, under these oireum•
stance*, to be held bound to be prepared in 10 days. That
would not be the mode usually pursued in this court of
administering Justice. In these sorts of cases, however, the
question generally was as to what ought to be done
in the meantime, so as to ensure Justice to the
parties who bad been diligent. Here he was relieved
horn the consideration of that question, which other-
wise might have given rise to embarrasemeat. Having re-
gard to the offer of Mr. Rolt to submit to an order in the
terms of the notice of motion being made for the security of
the fund till the motion could be heard, he would not merely
require an undertaking frost the defendants, bat would
mate an interim order having the effect asked by the notice.
—An order wan then made, by consent, that until the mo-
tion should be beard the defendants should be netrained
from dialing with the fond, according to the notice of '
motion, until the besting of the motion. That the motion
should stand over till the second teal in next sittings (Feb.
24), and that the defendants' affidavits thould be filed on or
before the 12th February next.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YEsnaDAY.
&rims IX BAXo3.—Rarou Loam Camas, 112. Janes Parma;
Ms. limes COLXILDeII, AND XL ICIPTICS WIPXTULW.

EII/ITRS 0. LIDDIILL.ILATILLIIIO lixnarsze or

W i:esxsa.

In this case a ntle had bees obtained by Mr. Htuntrey,
Q.O , calling upon the plaintiffs to show cuss why the
Muter should not review Ms taxation. The question is the
eau depended upon the construction to be put upon the
directions to the Mister,, which were drawn up la Hilary
Tens. 11/34, with regard to tie allowance to be nada Ira the
travelling expenses of transom The order proalial that
the ens allowed should be one shilling per Ed* walson,
under peculiar eittanataarar. The mutate is which the

Mutes of all the courts had construed the rule was that 1 oat in actions of replevin as well as let ethos That de:
they were to look at what had been paid by the parties for pended on the construction to be placed on the words "sash
the =penis of the witnesses, and not to look at the sum unions "in the section, and it appeared that the proper way
actually expended. In the present case the plea had been thread those words was by adding to them the words "as
adopted, and the um* allowance mode, so that, whether are applicable to the provhions of this section." By that
wrongly or rightly, the plaintiff bad paid the witnesses, who reading those words would embrace replevin where the
were mariners, upon this principle. vision in tonne:inn with which those words occurred could
Bir 1. Theeister, Q.C., and Mr. Atherton now showed be applied to that torn of action would ceded, it as in the
cause against the rule. clause raterriog to notice of action where they were inappli.
Lord Campbell, without requiring Mr. Hominy, , who ate. cable. That would make the whole section plain and consis-
peered is support of the rale, to address the court, said he tent, and would give the defendants the protecion to which
the ht that the rate ought to be made absolute, and he was they were entitled. The rule to review the taxation should
to find that the Masters had put such a construe- therefore be made absolute.
Yes epos the "directions" which had been given them. Judgment accordingly.
• miastructi.n was clearly opposed to the intention'and This was the last day of term.
Nth, language of the rule. The Masters were to allow the
gravelling expenses actually incurred, but no allowance was
be nude beyond le. per mile. They were not to convert
• sidebum into a maximum, nor • maximum into • mini.
Visa. It was very desirable that this rule should be
pernerly construed end scud upon. lie (Lord Campbell)
had consulted with all his teamed brethren, and they were
of opinion that this rale had been misconstrued by
all the Masters, and for the future it mut be
differently construed. This construction had brought some
undeserved obloquy on he courts of justice, by making the
expenses of without' unnecessarily great. Thera was no
alteration in the law which could prev.ut the detested party
ia an action paying the expenses of the witnesses, but they
ought to be moderate. To lay down a rule that there should
be • shilling • mile in all cues, by which seafaring men
coming froth Newcastle would get 300 shillings for 300
miles, would have the effect of causing witnesses nomme-
n:lly to be brought from • long distance: He (Lord Camp-
bell) was sorry that the plaintiff in this case would suffer, but
the court bad no discretion, and they ware bound to say that
the rule must be made absolute.
Tee rest of the judges concurred.
Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT.-.YESTERDAY.
RROINA W. POOOOE. AND

..—...- -
In this use, in which a rule nisi for a certiorari had been
granted to bring up an inquisition by which a verdict of
mans:aughter was given agaitoit the defendatits u the chair-
nun and trustee. under the St. Ueorgo the Martyr, South
wuk, Loud Act, was made absolute, no cause against it
being shown, and the reugnisances were fixed at the sum of
401. for each of the defendants, with two sureties of 201, for
each.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YESTBRDAT.
Barons Ma. Couswatosaa
lts Its W. hairs.
The bankrupt, described as of the saw mills, Kingslend,
came up for his last examination. The *mounts, prepared by
Messrs. Hart, Brothers' of George-yard, extended month*
let of January, 1848, to November last. The bankrupt owes
1,0731. to unsecured creditors, and gives tap in good debts and
property, 1331. His secured debts amounting to 4,8231., are
pretty well covered by property in the baud. 5i creditors
estimated at 4,6301. His capital had been 121.; unfits,
1,0001. ; losses, 1901.; trade expenses, 1,2551. ; house and
persona ditto, 3291.
Mr. Chidley supported the bankrupt.
There was no opposition.
His Honour observed that the result was very miserable MI
regarded the unsecured treditors, who bad ever) reason to
complain when they ifound so large a propor ion secured.
The case required to be vigilantly locked into.
Mr. Chiellq said that most of the securities were of very
old standing.
The baskrupt passed his last examination.
Booze Ma. Consomme' Govtacas.
IN as MACDONALD AND CAMPBELL.
The bankrupts were army agents sod bankers, of Regent.
street, whim imbue occurred some years ago. Trier* was a
dividend meeting to day, in the separate estate Campbell,
which has already paid 7a. or ss. in the pound ; aid a further
dividend of ls. 6d. will be declared.
DrJOlll its. COXIDINIWOOL lIOLIOTA.
IN its CALIADALI.
The bankrupt wee a deeper, at Norwich. T. was the
meeting for the last examination, but the accooi.ts had not
been toed. His debts are stated to be 2,7991. ; assets about
1,2001.
Mr. Alfred Jones appeared for the assignees, and briefly
examined the bankrupt, who admitted that tae bad had
forced sales at Cambridge, Wisbeach, Peterb,rough, and
Whittlesea. He had no means of ascertaining ehet goods
had been sold at two of these places (as the catalogues had
bees lost), except by the amount of cash received us account
of the oaks.

The bankrupt wu directed to be prepared with further
dor:nation when he again came up.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YESTERIDAT.
Elms% rats Cum
IX Si LIITILLIII HIM HT LEMAN. _

This case, ;iticl7. wee reportedin our pap. r of the 7th
January, again came before the court. rns insolvent
alleged t►at he was one of the claimants to the L. roan estates,
and had got pouesaion of a house in Great Pr. +cott street,
which he declared was part of the property, ano he still re-
tained possession, lie had been in preon sin, .Ipril last,
andstated on the present occasion that he would sooner die
in prison than give up the house.
Mr. Cooke appeared for Mr. Oppenheim, who claimed the
house in question, and complained of the berious annoyance
and expense he had been put to by the insolvoit keeping
possession of the property for some years when he had no
claim to the same. He prayed the court not to discharge the
insolvent until be had given up poseeasion.
Mr. Saunders, as counsel :or the insolvent, represented
that he could not give up the property, as he woo only one
of the claimants to the Leman estates.

A good deal of evidence was adduced on the present occa-
sion. On the last hearing the insolvent was ordered to
produce a Mr. Newnham, who claimed the L•mea estates,
and it was now shown that he was at Antwerp, where his
resided. His attorney (Mr. Bebb) had written to sq that
the insolvent was not turther authorised to retain possession.
Mr. Bury Hutchinson, who had been oricerned as
attorney for Mr. Newnham, said the insolvent bad taken
possetsion u agent to the trustees, and was aw.horised by
them to retain it. Before the insolvent went to prison he
bad been paid for keeping possession about 601. There ►ad
been about 40,0(101. spent in litigation respecticg the Leman
_ . _

The insolvent, in his statement, alleged that he had st
right to the property, and would never give it up. He bad
been lately very ill in prison, and the surgeon of Whitecroen•
street had given a certificate to that effect.
After considerable discussion as to whether the insolvent
should be again remanded until he gave up the premises in
which he admitted his family resided, it was reeid that in
April next he could be discharged, as under the Protection
Act the limit of imprisonment was 12 month..
The Chief Commissioner had no doubt it was a very die.
Waling and annoying case, but on the whole the insolvent
might be diseharged. The 21st February was appointed for
the final order.

BtFORZ MIL 031011.V,PIKE1 LAW.
IN SE ANNE KATEBIIINE FLOOD LOUIS.

..... -
This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Nichols and by several
creditors in person. Mr. Cooke supported.
The insolvent is the widow of an officer who held a high
rank in India. She had a pension of 3001. a year from the
Bengal Fund, and her two sons 1001. each. It was now pro-
posed to set aside 1001. a year out of her peasi.-n, but the
creditors required 1501. She had contracted various debts at
Ealing, where she had resided, and several of the tradesmen
of that place attended t, oppose. In addition to her own
debts, she had given bills tor ber brother, Capt. English, to
more than 8001
Mr. Commissioner Law considered that the trade creditors

had good cause to complain. The lowest to b. sec said. wit
1201. a year, ana it would be seen whether any claim wan
made on the bills given for her brother.
The ca•e was adjourned to the 7th April, by which time
the first quarter's payment would be in court. 1 t,e protection
MN renewed.

THE POLICE COURTS.

RAILWAYS.

The following were the quotatieee yesterday ;
fle.day's sales will be found in the 6th page.
FatoAt Erairree.