The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-04 00:00:00

CRICKET.

MARYLEBONE v. SURREY.
'Ms mad mod war *Wombed yesterday at Lewin ; es
Weer Iva:mass by .56 runs. The start
Ileareasexe.
I,arst lining. Mee kaisis.
W. Niebilese. Lei, • sad •
7.lNftrt
L lie.s. e liseetall. •Oireil 22 • INmernes.
J. Oerady,e eel • Winn. • • abeam's. 0
T. Play • • echoed ..- ...... 1 e leeekysr. • Bealkwell 9
LW. ‘4.00•,,1eg..• Warms 17 • ere.kweN
A.►
10.2••• IN e. fen • W. *Wee
• 1111,411 Mil
S. Oral. tag . eue eat .._.... • nu oat
1•10 I/wt.-wt. ewl est .. ..... • as Got I:
J. P. W. 1.% keg, • 111 OR .. IS eh I. ielia=reeter42l ..
Hes. IL cerrees • plumes H e sad •
Bars W llaskii. set •••
$ 414; •4111..-.. 24 II is, i 4 sortort• e 2l
- -
Telel - 129 TINA

Ilentar.
Pltat butimpt. 11mod Trap.
V. P. NO .4 Lco.. b Wady._ le b Nista .-- ....... 0
o.l'. Met. .1 swan ... - 0 sat cat ......
11. .s. It ,t.r. Rig ~ • Mar,
11,114.10 .. ... .... II b Maas. ...--. ....... II
0. Inotbstal, • Do+. te.Mlsan H b Oman . .. - 1
A. attn.. I, 2,61..6 lnitteatts.
b to...tic .. . . ... 7 a Wlntorlintt b 00110..-....... 6
I. Into-% .q . b 0t0.41 ... 1 b Mace —....--......-...... Is
O. 1.11..0 t, I oi.. b Mum II 161;noodp ...--.........—...... 10
T. I. to• n. I. Woody ..
-10."1 Eq.bOrn
T. ....n. ....rsoly - ............... 1
W. 11. 1110 t, loop, out ant 0 • Untroary. b Dna -. 13
a .14.20.4.a.bt ... II 01.1.1.:,w1.•b1.- It

971 Tutsi ..

I ZINCIA2.I v. DENSE PARK CLUB.
In tb.• a Oil V' o the PRA week the Bohemians wandered
into IWnn. -garb, when they were attu•kcd by the club ex-
isting uo .er that some. A. will he wen, at the close of the
play tM• " Walesa" bad t►e worst of the fray.
_ _ Daum l'Aut.

U 5....*, EN", Arabia/ b Toed-
eralt
A. Week aOaB, b Trail . :5 moat 4
u. r auks. lf.q. • Tiellirott, b
Trent ...... ......... 10 e Mcrae, b Arebdall 2
T. N .prar. b Arabia . .... 14 b Trail
W. N ueser. Nem. b Cecil 1N b A.M4JI 22
A. W 0... I:.1,0 Arthl.ll .....0 to out
A. at a-I,u. tag a anattlall,
Teel' . . .... !O run set
A. M.. s .6Tvedereft.... 13 not an ....
A. Ihee,,br. y. EN b 'lrerlsetift 1
J. fl p Ip.ran out ....... 2 b Train
C. EN., y.l 0
lid, lb, I; 5,3, slAll

0

204 109
I X 11.0410.
I
WM. V. it set. b Pithrlek .... • lunl Paget. 9E. NIIPPP:
J. Trail., V. q., bM. &slyer .. II t. reeden.a. I'./.... c..... 01 •• 9
K. 11,1....10. n - b * 21. p er 9 1.d.r.1 11.Iultm4 b r .0•s et
& C.v.', • rt.. b V.. Nopter .4 .1 Arcbd.,ll, esq. •0t 00t
C. 01..... Y..q.. no but .. II N, s 3; ~ 10 :3
Maw& t& lotraer. It P...
'VP
ape Mertioun W.

TIOUSE OF IA)Itllti —YLamDAY.
P 111.1.1.1 rat Iran 014 014 Pas s•.
MILL v. Sig Joint Aces IN lam.sen.
The arguments in this appeal from a decree of the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland, the facts of which were stated in the
report in this journal yesterday, were itemised by Mr. H.
Terrell, who was, with Mr. 1. Parker, kw the appellant,
and he contended that as Major Mill was a purchaser for
valuable consideration without notice of the principal deed
under which the respondent claimed, be ought not to be
prejudiced by it, especially as the registry acts in Ireland
were passed for the protection of such a purchaser. Ile
acquired a legal title to the property, and thereby was enti-
tled to priority over an equitable title, which was derived
under deeds, one of which only—and that the derivative
one—was registered. The appellant could not by the most
diligent search discover that such a deed existed. He pur-
chased the property from Sir 0. Hill, as heir of Sir G. kitz-
gerald Hill.
Mr. Napier and Mr. td`Causland (both of the Irish bar)
supported the decree. It was impossible, they said, to ad-
mit that the appellant considered Sir 0. Hill was in posses-
sion as heir-at-law of his uncle, Sir G. F. Hill; because the
property was a chattel interest, and would go to the caeca-
tors, and not to the heir. The settlement under which the
respondent claimed interest was • duly registered deed ;
anti, if the appellant or his agents took the trouble to
search the registry, they would fund it, and by perusing it
could not fail to see that it referred to the
prior settlement. They referred to the numerous
cases that were cited by -Mr. J. Parker on Monday, and to
several other decisions by Lords Redesdale and Slanners,
Sir A. Hort, and Sir Edward Sugden, and submitted that
• long series of decisions to the same effect settled the law
on the point, and left no room for argument.
Mr. J. Parker replied.
Judgment was postponed.
THE CLAIM or LoaD TALBOT, OP MALAUIDE.
This claim of Lord Talbot, of Malahide, to vote for
representative peers of Ireland, was proved on the 20th of
May, except one point of evidence. The former proofs
were that Margaret Taibot, widow of Richard Talbot,
formerly of Malahide, was created a baroness, with
limitations to the heirs male of her body. She had
four sons, and the eldest, Richard Wogan Talbot, on
his mother's death, succeeded to the title and died
in 1549. His neat brother, James, then succeeded to
the title, and died last December, without having proved
his claim before this house to vote for representstive peers
for Ireland. The present claimant was his sun and heir.
The difficulty the committee had on the 20th of May was
this : it was in evidence that the issue male of Richard
Wogan, the first heron, by his first wife, was extinct. But
he was married to a second wife, who is still living, and
although Sir W. Bahian and other witnesses stated that
they never heard that there was any issue by the second
wile, the committee thought proper that the widow, who
was the best witness of the tact, should be brought to prove
that. There was no child of the marriage with her. Her
ladyship having been sworn and seated within the bar, said
the late lord (Richard Wogan) had no child by her.
It was then resolved Vat the elsimant had proved his
right to vote for representative peers of Ireland.

EQUITY COURTS.—YarrEaDAT.
Senna VICY.CI4•I•CWO• aawaT bare.
(honors a. Furressest—Sr. Para.'s, Sitanwatt.
Mr. Wigeam and Mr. Gifford appeared for the plaintiffs,
who were mortgagees of the rates otthe parish of St. Paul's,
Shadwell. The mortgage had been created under the au-
thority of local arts passed for the purp .se of raising two
sums of 10,5001. and 6,0001. The bill sought accounts of the
receipts of the parish trustees in respect of the rates, and to
make the trustees answerable in respect of those receipts.
Mr. W. M. James uppearrd fur the Attorney-General ;
Mr. Russell, Mr. Bacon, Mr Calvert, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Osborne, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Nevinson, and Mr. Itawlinson,
fur the several other defendants, contended that the mort-
gagees were not cdtitled to en account of the sums row:cleat
• Oalosat of the rates, and that acquiescence and length of
*NO
liens rlolodedo rt the plaintiffs from re-opening the transalo
I.
/be C Chancellor said that the bill was filed by the
tratortgaree of rat s authorised to be made and to be
mortgaged by a private act of parliament. The interest
upon the mortgage was not in antra, and no complaint
was made upon that ground. It was alleged that the set
seemed a trust its favour of the mortgagee of the rates for
aecamulatiog or at least appropriating some portion of the
ales in discharge of the capital. The complaint of the bill
wog rat the rates and the affairs of the parish had been
mimenaged, and it sass stated that if they had been
Dnamlp managed a sum would now he forthcoming
t to pay the plaintiff' principal monies.
They, therefore, desired to have an account taken
of the rates and their application for a considerable
number of years back. Now that a mortgagee could
have an account of past rents was of course impos-
sible. It was against every principle upon which the court
acted. If the plaintiffs w. re niece mortgaged', the retro-
spective account could out of course be granted. But it
had been said said that the plaintiffs were something more
than mortgagees, for that in fact a trust hail been created,
of which they were entitled to avail themselves. Having
I considered the act very carefully since the case was first
mentioned, hi. Honour was in the first place not satisfied
that the creditor had a right to claim the principal; and,
secondly, he was not satisfied that the right was not
merely in the debtor to pay off the debt, if he, the
debtor, would do so. In the next place he was
sot satisfied, whatever trust might be created be-
tween the parish suit the parish authorities, that any
trust with regard to the application of the rents to the pay-
ment of the principal was created, of which t i parish cre-
ditors could avail themselves. It was not necessary to give
any opinion upon any of these panda. The consideration
of the case divided itself into two heads, the one particu-
larly applicable to Mr. Fletcher, one of the defendants, the
other application to the other defendant. As to Mr.
Fletcher, it appeared that more than 50 yern before the
institution of the suit, he had ceased to have any
connection with this Act of Parliament or with
the administration or application of the rates under
it either as treasurer or as trustee. In 1831, when his
emanexion ,ceased in this manner, all his accounts were
waited, and after fifteen years it was sought to retake
ems accounts on the ground of errors, which were said to
be obviously apparent upon them. His Honour was of
3thrthat it would be the height of injustice in the case
üblic debtor, whose. accounts hod been submitted to
the parish at large, from all connexion with which he hadso
long separated, to take any such account at all. lie was of
opinion that justice and reason required that, so far. se
Mr. k letcher am sued by the present bill as an aceoun
party, whether as treasurer or trustee, it must be • '
against him with costs. If any account was to be takes of
the rates, it must he confined to the time of instituting lib
suit. The better course would he to direct an Welly.
whether any portion of the funds applicable to tie pus.
poses of the acts were on the day of tiling the boll fare
ion of the defendants, other than Mr. Fletcher
07:oder, and under what circumstances. In all Writ
respects the bill must be dismissed, so far as it sought an
account of the rases. An inquiry might be directed ea to
the debts to which the rates were subject under the We,
and to whom du:, with liberty to state special circus&
stances.

loose Vi...-Cwoveu.os Tvim.
ATTORIIPT-GLUM L C. BISHOP OP WOISCS

.............. -
URILTIIN,TaIt Yale SCHOOL.
This was an information tiled at the relation of certain
of the inhabitants of Kidderminster for Cie purpose of
ening aside a scheme fur the regulation of the tree school
of Kidderminster which had been settled by the court in
the years 1814 and 1818. By that scheme admission of free
boys to the school was limited to boys born of parents of the
church of England, and who bad attained the age of eight
years. A payment of 11. per head per quarter um exacted
from each tree buy ; and the heed and second masters were
allowed to take a certain number of boarders. There was
no foundation deed, but the trusts of the school were de-
', claret. by the drone of an inquisition issued in the Bth year
of Charles I. to he for the education "of children
and youth of Kidderminster in Food literature and learn-
ing." It was objected by the informants that the prowl.
sions of the scheme were at variance with the original trusts
' thus declares! ; and it was insisted that admission should be
open to children of svery denomination of Christians, and
without any payment ; that there should be no restriction
as to age ; and that the masters should not be allowed to
take boarders, but should he required to devote their whole
time to the education of the free scholars.
The argument wa.. this day concludes!, Mr. Bethell, Mr.
Rolf, and lilr.C.llall appearing for the information ; and the
Solicitor-General, Mr. Ituundell Palmer, Mr. Bigg, Mr.
Wilcock, Mr. Craig, and Mt. Kendall ter the defendants.
J udgment reserved.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-YE:ITERDAT.
ammo u BUNIP.-111Krurs. taw Caursasz, Ma. Jt.ricu Parrs-
/0., mu. Ma. Jtenca Esau.
&MTN L. TIM MONMorTIINHULI RAILWAY AND CANAL

COMPANY.
In this case the plaintiff was the Owner of certain iron
works. and the defendants were a company who And ob-
tainedan act of parliament "enabling and requiring" them
to convert a certain trauunuil which passed near the plain-
tiff's works and communicated with the canal into a rail-

rued fuTlZicouTtivetrathc7anii also to make on iniependent
new hoe of railway. The time limited by the act for exe-
cuting the works had expired, and the plaintiff brought
his action against them, alleging, that by their breach of duty
in not converting tho trarnroad and making the railroad, he
could nut convey Isis iron to the canal as conveniently or
cheaply as he should have been able to do. To this declara-
tion the company demurred.
Mr. Willes, in support of the demurrer, contended that
the action would nut lie. Ile proposed only to consider the
case of the truxuroad, foe if the action would not lie on ac-
count of the breach of duty in not converting that, a for-
tiori it would not fur not making the line, because the
act recited a contract made with certain freighters by the
company to convert the *misread, and the act required
them to do that ; whereas it only gave them the power to
make the railroad ; but he conteudevl that any breach of
duty of which the company had been guilty, 11:16 only one
by which the plaintiff suffered in common with all her Ma-
jesty'ssubjects living thereabouts, said was not, therefore,
the subject of a civil action. It was like a damage done to
a person by obstructing or not repairing a public highway.
The cum which had gone farthest in this direction was that
of Wilk* e. Huusierford Market Company" (2 Bing.
N.C., 284, but that stopped very far short of the present
cam

The Attorney General (Mr. Phipson with him), for the
plaintiff, contended that here the company were not only
'web:Mao& bet required, to osarert the trammed ; cod
therefere it was impossible to aidatala that there was not
a duty Inwood ea Jima; and though that ditty was a yalr

__-
A PARISH.
Mr. Watson said that in this TAN he had, on a former
day, moved for a mandamus to the inhabitants of the parish
of St. Mary Islington, commanding them to summon a
vestry and make a rate, for the payment of the interest of
a sum of money advanced by a person of the name of Low-
land, some years anew, for the purpose of budding churches
in that parish. He was not then in a position to cite any'
wee, to show that a mandamus could in such a case '
directed to the inhabitants of a parish. He had now, hew
ever, found a case in point, via., " The Ling v. the It
habitants of Wiz " (2 darn & Ald. 197), where a mask-
MOS was granted, and Lord Tenterlen said that In ass d,
disobedience, the court might grant a criminal infeennatias
against the inhabitants upon whom the writ was .used.
It was necessary tint to ascertain the amount of money that
would be required for the year, and if the vestry
refused to make a rate, theu it was in the power
of the trustees of the fund to make a rate
but the vestry must brit be called on to act. There west
two preceding conditions—the vestry must be called ea
ascertain the amount of money that would be required, aid I
then there must be a refusal, on the part of the vestry,
male a rate, fur fourteen days.
Mr. Justice Wightmaa, atter looking at the case cited.
granted a rule nisi.
MI raises 111:1A11.—VIOLENT AIta•ITLT IT • COIIaTT
MAGISTRATE.
Mr. Cleasby.moved, on behalf of a Mr. Hulse, for leave
to exhibit articles of the peace against a Mr. Tolmache, a
magistrate of the county of Cheshire , residing at Dotrd
Hail, in that county. -f he articles stated that about four
u'elock in the afternoon of the 11th of April last, Mr. Tel-
ma:be came to the farm of a Mr. Latham, where Mr. Hulse
than was, it being about a quarter of a mile from his house,
and dismounting his horse, assaulted him most violently
with a horsewhip, the liand;e of which was made
of lead, and having knocked him down, struck him
several times when on the ground, giving Mr. Hulse two
black eyes, anti otherwise injuring him. Ile also said if
ever Mr. Hulse wrote another letter he would flog him
within an inch of his life. Mr. Tolmache, it appeared, had
married a daughter of a Mrs. Tomlinson' and Mr. Hulse
had written to that lady stating that he had entertained a
aroug attachment for another of her daughters, called
Julia, during a period of five years, and expressing a wish
that she would ask the young lady to make up her mind
either to speak to him, or to give up taking any farther
Notice of him. Mr. Tolinache, it was presumed, had by his
vialent and unwarrantable conduct sought to resent the
writing of the letter ; but the learned counsel submitted
that there was no ground whatever fur his doing so—that
the letter was properly addressed to the mother, and that
Kr. Tulmache had no right to interfere, much less to act in
the manner in which he had dime. If Mr. Hulse was nut
protected
by the court he must arm himself to resist any
attack.
Mr. J ustice Wightman said Mr. Hulse had his remedy
for the assault by indictment or action, and articles of the
peace could not be exhibited %inlets it could be shown that
Mr. Hulse had cause to apprehend further violence.
Mr. Cleasby accounted fur the delay in coming to the
court by stating that application had been made to the Rev.
J. Folliott, a brother magistrate of the deferahuit, to
hold him to bail, but he had refused to grant a warrant.
Since that period no time had been !oat in taking the neces-
sary steps to bring the matter before the court. It had beep
considered improper to state to the court anything which
had occurred since the application was made to the magis-
trate, or he should have been in a position to show that
Mr. Hula apprehended further violence ; and if his lord-
ship desired it he wuuld be in a position to do this to-morrow
(this day).
Mr. Justice Wightman thought that would be the better
course, and meanwhile the matter could stand over.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER—YEsrEaDAT.
Woes this Juseui 41.Ttlit liC100:8 ,iit.scr AND Cantos y.w

iimova or ',soma. a.
BUCHANAN V. KININO.—JuDOMENT.
This cause came up on a bill of exceptions to the ruling of
the late Mr. Justice ColUnAn in an action for false un-
prisonment. it person named Townley brought an action
against Kining in the Sheriff's Court of London for a sum
under 201., and judgment was given against him, and an
order made that he should pay the debt and costs by
monthly instalments of 21. linking having failed to obey
the order in respect of the first monthly payment, the judge,
acting under the authority of the statute 8& 9 Vict., c.
127, and at the request of the present defendant, as attor-
ney for 'fownley, ordered Klein to be imprisoned for 40
days. The plaintiff brought his action, which was tried,
and there was subsequently a ucw trial, at which the bill
of exceptions was taken to the ruling of the learned judge.
The case was argued at the sittings after Hilary and Easter
Mr. Baron Parke now delivered judgment, holding that
the ruling of the learned judge was erroneous, and directing
a venire de novo.

Eaaou Dmrs.
The court fixed the following WI the error days after the
present term —Queen's Bench, June 18 and 19; Common
Pleas, June 20; Exchequer, June 21.

COURT OF RANKRUPTCY.—TIMTEHDAY.
Berms ata. COSIMIPROPI■ iiIO.IIOTD,
IN RI PIAVOCIL.—ANTEDATING • BILL.
R. Peacock, painter, Ladbroke-grove, applied for his
certificate. His debts were I,Booi. ; assets about 4001. ;
profits, 1,317/. ; eapcnves, 1,3141.
Mr. Morgan supported the bankrupt's application.
Mr. Linklater opposed, for the assignees, on the ground
that the bankrupt had removed some of his property, had
kept imperfect accounts, and hail sought to impose upon
the court by antedating a bill.
Joseph Emery, who had been in the bo~'s employ
before and at the time of the failure, and irr witness,
wen ermined, but they both negatived Ms ellegatiga of
ent gunk MM. been removed.
Mr. LiOderar said the smidgens of the erigreas wee
wrong, but dry bed not bees die to Amin the assessay
evidence. HemaatOarefon primelan thefflureal aninem
of the ease. TM bankrupt bed amdmerd • ibis t
!lee nosey lent with Mr. Wilhelm when be ref WM
berm that he was getting into diameters. Hie bus ebed I'
bs mg badly kept, and the accounts were to a greet ens
tee seem guess-work. An attempt had been made, at •
how meeting, by Mr. Chapman, to get in a proof for 261.
• • WI of exchange, dated March, 1850, though the
ea Of** stamp was nut till the following November • and
fie haskrapt, though warned by the court, persisted in
mewing that the bill was given at the time it bore date.
Tbts eon stituteal an offence under the 256th section, being
an gasification of an instrument to deceive his creditors and
Idabel the object of the bankrupt laws.
His Honour doubted whether the antedating amounted
to a falsification.
Mr. Morgan admitted that the bankrupt had not given
a CSlTett account of the transaction in the first instance' but
it was more through stupidity than knavery. It bad been
shown that the transaction to which the bill referred was
undoubtedly a real one ; and there was no reason fur im-
puting corrupt or fraudulent conduct to the bankrupt.
fhe books had been as well kept as those of such tradesmen
usually were. The charge of removing goods had entirel
I
failed. The assets would realise 3a. in the pound, which
abler all was not a very bad dividend. The bankrupt bad
Illeaged to pay 500/. for the goodwill of a business which
ggrend out to be nearly worthless; and this accounted for'
bap amount of loss. Though an imprudent, he wen
bra* man.
His Ilionour said the charge of removing goods illiiollll.
plenty haled: but there were two grounds on whisk •Me
pension of the certificate was necessary. It was mat I
portant that all persons coming to that court should make
la fall and complete disclosure of their affairs. In the bill
treaseetion with Mr. Chapman, it was to be presumed that
be VW a creditor; but the bill had been antedated six or
Milt maths, with a view to facilitate his proving. It had
Ind the apposite effect, the suspicions of the assignees being
seenoid. His general trading was the other ground of sus.
peelien. His expenses had exceeded his profits ; his per-
sona expenditure alone had exceeded 2004. a year : the eon-
omponne was he bud nothing to meet the interest on the
merry be had borrowed. The absence of vouchers for a
great pert of the expenditure webs circumstance that ought
Ito be eansidered. In respect of the excessive expenditure
the certificate must be stepended for three months ; and in
respect of the attempt to impose on the court by the ante-
dated bill, for twelve months, without protection: in all
Id months, 12 months to be without protection. The tor-
Itificate, when granted, to be of the second class.
Mr. Linklatcr applied for • certificate to Mr. Williams,
empowering him to arrest the bankrupt.
Mr. Morgan hoped his Honour would allow the bankrupt
to apply to the court when he had been three months in
prison. lie also asked that the suspension might date from
the day of the last examination.
His -Honour declined to mks any alteration in the terms
of his judgment.