The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-26 00:00:00

Mt ItltAY r. INGRAM.-COPTRIOHT.

Mr. Russell and Mr. Galant moved on behalf of Mr.
Murray, the publisher, for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant, Mr. Herbert Ingram, the proprietor of the Illus-
trated London News, from printing, publishing, selling, or
disposing of any copies or copy, volumes or volume of a
, work published, sold, and brought out by him, called the Life
wSamuel Johnson by James Boswell, Esq., containing
any notes or note, or passages or passage copied, taken, or
eaiorrbly altered from any note or notes written or com-
Merinby William Cruiser, Esq., mentioned in the plaintiff's
the suit.
Mr. Burke and Mr. R. Moore for the defendant, said that
the affidavits in support of the motion had been tiled too
late fur the defendant to be prepared to answer them.
A discussion then arose as to the terms upon which the
motion should be ordered to stand over, and his Homer,
after comparing the two works, said that the
pointed out to him showed a sufficient probabilitjT=
plaintiff being able to establish a ease tor an injunction to
make it right to grant one, subject to the defendant being at
libert, to give twenty-four hours notice of motion to dis-
solve it, unless the defendant would cuter into a satisfactory
undertaking.
After some discussion as to the terms of the undertaking to
be ' that the defendant

Sines, it was ultimately arranged
should enter into an undertaking in the terms of the notice
of motion, and to keep an account of copies sold, and that
both parties should undertake to be answerable in damages
as the court might think fit ; but that the sale of the vo-
lumes already published should not be considered a breach
of the undertaking. On these undertakings, which were
entered into without prejudice to any question, the motion
was ordered to stand over till neselriday, the defendant
undertaking to file his affidavits (if any) by Thursday.
On a question arising as to the effect of the undertaking
upon the publication of the third Volume,
The Vice-Chancellor said that if the third volume were

not a breach of the undertaking there would be no cause for
complaint. If it were, the defendant would certainly be
committed.

...
It was then arranged that the plaintiff should, OR !Satur-
day (this day), be furnished with a copy of the ferthcoming
volume at his own expense.

Barone Loma CaAnworrig (Trce-ClosesuaL.)
OLIO r. Dipmzr.—llacitas ON ♦ CLAIII.—ArFLIC♦TION

T.I STAT I'ItOCIEDINGII IN • SECOND SUIT.

Lord Cranworth delivered judgment in this case, which
was an application to stay proceedings in a suit instituted
by the plaintiff as a creditor of an intestate named llibley,
0111 the ground that a decree had been obtained in a claim
by another creditor of Mr. llibley, which would give all the
relief soughti second suit. His lordship said that an
soplirationi n one suit to stay another on the ground that
the firs► suit would give all the relief asked by the second
would be a mere matter of course ; but two objections were
here raised : one was that the first decree having been ob-
tained upon a claim had not the effect of an ordinary decree
in a suit, since there was no lis pendens. His lordship thought
he should be acting contrary to the intentions of the new
orders if he allowed this objection to have any weight.
lle was of opinion that there was no distinction between •
decree on a claim and a there° in a suit. Then e•ma tbe
second objection, which was that something more was
asked in the suit than could be obtained upon tho
claim ; that there was no receiver asked for of the real
estate, and no injunction as to the personal estate ; although
be did not consider that these two objects were of much
importance, still they might he introduced by consent into
the decree already made, and if that were done ho would
grant the present application.

Strout Vicc.Cespcntins Trues&
Ix an PLTZU'II TUUsT, sNo IN RE Tull TRUSTED ACT,
1840.—V*471N° Oauck.
Mr. R. Pryor appeared in support of a petition for the
is
saiZtiintutme„onntooffaannimewteetrunslemeel 'inert wdielrialtr wlo SIN
out of the jurisdiction. There was a continuing Indite
resident within the jurisdiction, and the petition red fir
an order vesting the trust premises in such anndnising
trustee, and the trustee proposed to be substituted fiat the
absent trustee.
The Vice-Chancellor observed that it was enacted by eta-
Dien 10 of the statute that a vesting order, under olsintO
[stances like those of the case before him, should Wee
the snot effect as if the trustee out of the jurisdiction boa
duly executed a conveyance or assignment of the land ma
ending to the direction of the court. The effect, however,
of such a conveyance would be to sever the joint tenancy,
and might, he thought, give rise to great inconvenience is
any future dealings with the trust estate. The proper wee
of effecting the object proposed was to appoint a es penes
ea the solicitor of the petitioners, to convey to the propossi
trustees. This the court was empowered to do under the
10th section of the act.
As order was accordingly made for the appointment it
the saw trustee proposed, and also of the solicitor of the
prildeoew, es a person to convey the trust premises to
meek trustee and the continuing trustee.
ORENFILL T. THE Wyconlia ItsiLwiT COMPANT.—IIt-
JUNCTION.
Mr. Bethel (with whom was Mr. Robson) applied for at
imparts injunction to restrain the company, their directors,
servants or workmen from proceeding to take pommies et
four acres of land belonging to the plahnifr, mad
which they had given notice of their handlea to
purchase under the compulsory powers of their act. It
appeared that in 1846 the plaintiff, Mr. Pascoe Oreohll,
was an opponent of the compsny's bill, then in its pump
through parliament. Certain negotiations were in that
year entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants,
having reference to the withdrawal of such opposition.
Cltimately a written agreement, dated Bth July, 1846, wee
drawn op and signed by the parties, by which the defendant,
is immoderation that the plaintiff would withdraw his oppo-
delft to their bill, agreed to pay him low. per acre fir all
boa Obis which they might require for the construction of
OWIDIONIEbiIs of railway which were intended to be made on
labol, sod they agreed to take, at the same price, all the land
lesinee the two branches, amounting to about 10 acres, for
a• purpose of a station. The plaintiff thereupon withdrew
his oppoution, and the act received the royal assent on 27th
,July, 1816. The defendants afterwards abandoned the
intention of constructing two branches of railroad, and
applied to the plaintiff, early in the present month, to take
four acres of his land, as being sufficient for the construe-
ties of one branch of the road. The plaintiff refused to
IWM for the sale of four acres of land only, but insisted
open the specific performance of the contract to take the
whole ten acres. The company then served the plaintiff
with notice of their intention to apply under the power of
their act to be allowed to pay the purchase-money of the
four acres into court, and for an order to be let into row
aka of the land. The plaintiff then applied for the peeeeM
fillZlia‘merfo melle es order restraining the defendoob
km wanks Ars the four acres mentioned in their
asilles‘

r.-YESTEILDAY.

COURT OF
Bows Ka.
IS ZS MOODS.
The bankrupt was • eieseinseme at Paddiagtoe.
His Honour gare judgment Mt bla appbeaties int • sub-
tlest.. He said these MIS SEW elgialiess, fise peielpd
of which were taped/met babies*. anti • aseeelment
of tree statements. There bed desloes • euttiag eat ot
leaves from as of the bankrupts beaks, and he nut my
that the moss was totally imendllisma. With regard to
family debts it was • pervollint
trader that they were tiosambist away
as private '
wan wise aid bens&
aWe thew I tilers Topeated footmen hoe
dabs was met down bessue k We. is the family ; but
be (the ref teset my that Inks were always
lama tr., keep *Wows et those debts s• sugalarly as of say
sew.. He we etibisd that debts wee dee ti the beak-
✓ose. lather and bdier-in-law. If aboldamaso bum ern,
WA be aid • melt the bankrupt von oagedial to it, be.
Saute be Ist set attempted any pretensw t. say member
of his Thin wee also aat,ther sat in hla favour.
His hosiseareas= extenw, were very Taking
all the • lintrever, into consideration, book-

i keeping in particular being of the worst character, he did
what was a considerable offence. When his affairs were
investigated by a creditor's accountant he gave* false
colouring in some particulars and suppressed the truth in
others. Ile (the commissioner) should suspend the certifi-
cate sin mouths, and when granted to be of the second class,
and with protection in the meantime. Ile would re-
mark that since his bankruptcy the bankrupt had
given every assistance to the official assignee ;
but he had put his creditors to unnecessary
expense. Ile would learn to be lent captious, as good,temper
was a great ingredient in trade : offending customers often
led to disastrous results.

Mr. Linklater applied that an allowance might he made
to the bankrupt. Ile had laboured hard at the accounts,
and was really a most indwitrious man.
His Honour said he would confer with the assignee.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT-YESTERDAY.

Serous Id a.

Li..

IN Tilt 11•172*-07E1I—AILLa iiODOTON-111:0111F.3.—Cht08S

CASE OF FILAVD.
This insolvent, who had been a commercial agent, carry-
ing on business in Wood-street, Cheepaide, was opposed by
Mr. Cooke, on the part of three woollen cloth manufacturers
resident at Leeds, named Thornton, Carr, and Walton. He
defended himself.
The complaint on the part of the opposing creditors was,
that the debt of Mr. Thornton had been contracted by a
breach of trust, and that the debts with the other two cre-
ditors had been incurred fraudulently. The insolvent
owed about 1,8001. He was employed by Mr. Thornton to
sell goods fur him, as his agent lle owed him 5571. lie
was supplied with goods by Mr. Walton and Mr. Carr.
Ile sold their goods under the authorised prices. Ile owed
Mr. Walton 346/., and Mr. Carr 3781. He had obtained
the property from these parties in a very few months. They
now complained of his conduct. Ile admitted that he "had
kept one book for himself, in which he entered the sums he
got, and another fur his employers, in which he entered the
prices they authorised him to demand.
Mr. Commissioner Law was of opinion that it was a very
bad case. The creditor bad been defrauded—robbed of

their property—in a very short time. The case of falsify-
ing books was clearly made out ; but he would prefer dealing
with the insolvent on the individual ground of complaint.
His Honour adjudged the insolvent to an imprisonment of
two yearn (the full period), for contracting a debt with Mr.
Thornton by a breach of trust, and for fraudulently obtain-
ing the property of the two other opposing creditors.
IX THE MATTER OP ROBERT COLLINSoN.

_
This insolvent appeared for judgment. Mr. Nichols
opposed for Mr. Denis, a wine merchant, and another cre-
ditor named Ross. Mr. Cooke supported.
The insolvent was an upholsterer in Newman-street,
Osford-strect, and also a betting-list keeper. His wife was
a milliner. He had petitioned under the Protection Act
in 1849, and at the same time obtained wines from Mr.
Denis, and made no mention of them in his then schedule.
The debt was incurred and the wine disposed of at the
time he was an applicant to the court under the Protection
Act. The debt of Mr. Ross was on account of upholstery
goods.
Mr. Commissioner Law considered it a serious case of

contracting debts without reasonable means of payment,
and remanded the insolvent at the suit of his creditors
generally for six months, and at the suit of the opposing
creditors for thirteen months from the vesting order.
IN an THOMAS CHARLES CHESMERE WICKES.
Mr. Lucas opposed for a creditor named Latchford, from
whom the insolvent hail taken a house and paid no rent.
The landlord put in a distress, and the insolvent brought an
action for such distress, which was now pending. The
landlord brought an action fur his rent, and he was put to
301. expenses.
Mr. Commissioner Law said the landlord had been seri-
ously injured, and if the action for the distress continued
the insolvent would soon again come to the court. Ile re-
manded him for nine months fur the vexatious defence.

IN RE JOHN Fl

ARCH HOLD,

The case of this insolvent, the well-known law writer,
was concluded.
. _

Mr. S~rgood, who opposed for creditors, withdrew the
opposition.
The insolvent was discharged.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD CIRCUIT.-STAFFORD, JULY 21

86V./111fa..Bmws MAanmx.

BUROLAILIZA AND FELONIZA AT STATFORD, CANNOCK,
AND HUNTINGDON.

John l'erkin, labourer, pleaded guilty to charges on no
less than four indictments—first, of breaking into a dwel-
ling-house at Cannock on the 12th of June, and stealing a
quantity of shoes ; on the same day he perpetrated another
burglary, and also stole shoes ; on the 9th of the same
month he committed a felony in the parish of Huntingdon ;
and on the 26th of June he committed a third burglary at
l'enkridge, and stole a quantity of cheese.
The learned Judge remarked on the extraordinary course
of crime which the prisoner hail pursued. Ia consideration
of this he sentenced him to be transported for life.
Before the prisoner had been removed from the dock the
grand jury tame into court with a true bill on a fifth indict-
ment fur felony against him.
N raw* Cover.—Baron Ma. hirrtni Eau.
txwrg r. ROBIRTS.—CAN TUC MANAGER 07 A MINIII

PLEDGE THE CREDIT OF THE SHAREHOLUMI ?
This was an action upon a contract for goods sold and
delivered. The plaintiffs are iron and steel merchants at
Sheffield, and the defendant is a shareholder in the New
York mine, at Itl.ton Field, near the Peak of Derbyshire,
and the amount sought to be recovered in this action was
611. 2s. 4d. . .

In the month of March, 1849, the New York mine,
which had up to that time been worked exclusively by
a person named Williams, passed into the hands of
a company, the defendant becoming a shareholder to
the extent of 40 shares, and Williams was retained as
manager. In the September following, a meeting of the
shareholders took place; the defendant was present, and
accounts having been presented, showed that there had, up
to that time, been a loss on the adventure of 576!. The
defendant himself himself moved a resolution, signifying
the assent of the shareholders to this account, and ordering
• further call to meet the deficiency ; this account contains
various items for good+ ordered by Williams, u manager,
and the defendant approved this 'quilting his signature in
the books of the company. Subsequently goods were ordered
from the plaintiffs, and their account for the same was in-
cluded in another minute on the books of the company,
notitying that the losses of the concern were 1,0001. ; and
the evidence showed that the principal part, if not all the
goods supplied by the plaintiffs was used at the New York
mine.

On the part of the defendant, Mr. Keating contended
that where parties work a mine on the cost-book principle,
as in this instance, the manager obtained goods on his own
credit, sad that an action to recover for goods supplied
under such order would not lie against any individual
shareholder.

Mr. Justice Erie said that be differed entirely with the
learned counsel. It was quite clear that the order of an
agent in a company of this kind was binding upon the'
shareholders, and that debts might be recovered from any
solvent person amongst them. It was too much the fashion
now-a-days for people to form themselves into a company,
and so long as there were no losses to take part in its affairs,
but so soon as reverses came to shirk the responsibility they
had incurred. In this case there was very little doubt but
that the goods had been ordered by the manager for work-
ing the mine, and no pretence of hardship could free the
defendant from his liability.
Verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.