The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-14 00:00:00

KM intentglice.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-YESTERDAT.
ramw.

The n the and keened lords present to-day want the
L rd Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord de Maulay, and
Lotd Bawarden.

TON ROYAL BANK or SCOTLAND T. GARDIIII.

JUDOMiNT.
This cue wee en appeal against a decree of the Court of
Session. The suit related to the tenure of land by the
hank on trusts for crwlitors, and the question was whether
the bankers held as proprietors or merely as singular
successors ; that is say, as disponees by a judicial or value-
to ry title.
The Lord Chancellor, in moving the judgment of the
house, went through the whole cue very carefully, and on
the authority of the principles to be deduced from Scott's
Trustees, and Miller and Small, advised that the judgment
of the court below should be reversed.

Judgment accordingly.
Tun ABILADILY RAILWAY COMPANY O. MAUI
BROTHRIM.

This case was an appeal against a decree of the Court of
Session. The action was founded on a contract, which set
out that the appellants agreed with the respondents fora
supply of 78,131 joint chairs, and 312,631 intermediate
chairs for the permanent road of the Aberdeen railway, at
the rate of 81. 10s.'per ton, delivered at Aberdeen.
The ease had been only part heard when the house ad-
journed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTERDAY.
AT NW PAWS IN LOIMON.-130.0•11M/1.1011TICII Carwcu
MID a COMMON J 1.311%

This morning the court commenced the sittings after
term in London. The list contains 38 entries, 18 of which
are remands, and 7 causes were appointed to be tried by
spacial juries.

EVANS V. AIONSON..--ACTION AGAINST A
IN • MINING COMPANY..

The plaintiff in this case is a worker in iron and brass at
Manchester, and the defendant le a tailor end draper at
Bangor, in Curnarvonshire. The action was brought to
recover 28!.10s. ter goods supplied to the Allt-y-crib Mining
Company, and used in the mining operations. The defen-
dust pleadel that he was never indebted.
It was stated that the mine in question was a silver and
lead mine of um' antiquity, and was situated about seven
miles from Aberystwith. In the year 18.50, the property
got into the bands of four persons, whe divided it into
1,248 scrip shares, of which each of them took 312. When
about 11. pc r share had been laid out upon the property the
defendant bought one strip share for 51., and it was under-
stood that the scrip was to be exchanged for shares, " sub-
ject to the rules and regulation of the cm: book of the
proprietary." These rules and ,regulations were not pro-
duced, and there was no circumstance of importance
against the defendant except that he had taken this scrip
share.

Mr: &leant Byles submitted to his lordship that there
wu no evidence to go to the jury to affect the defendant,
and therefore that there must be a nonsuit.

Mr. Justice Crewe,ll was of opinion that there might
be some evidence. and he should therefore leave the case to
the jury for their consideration.
The jury at ono, found a verdict for the defendant.

MOCNT e. VAN BCTCHALL AND ANOTAIR. ACTION
AGAINST Du/ACTON/ TOIL TAN 81C/LATART'S SALARY.
The plaintiff in this cm wee fersurly seenvy to the
Sewage Guano Company ; and he owed the as
two of the director' of that eseases. W mem ISM for
six months' services es eseretary. The defendants peed M.
into court, and se to the remainder of the claim they denied
their liability.
The plaintiff's ease was, that about the end of March in
last year he was engaged for six months certain, and the
salary was to be at the rate of 2001. a year. He acted as
secretary down to July, when disputes and quarrels arose
among the directors, and they were separated into two
hostile bodies. In the early part of July a meeting of per-
sous connected with the company was held, but only one
director remained, two other directors having protested
against the meeting, and left the room. Oa this maim,
however, it was determined to dismiss the secretary, and
also the chairman of the company, and the ofßces were
afterwards shut up and locked. The directors who were
locked out, however, held meeting, at their solicitors and
elsewhere, and the plaintiff attended times meetings, and
acted as secretary down to the 14th October, when the
books and funds of the old compasy were by arrange-
mint handed over to a new company. It was not'
conclusively proved that the plaintiff was engaged for six
menthe certain at the rate of 1001. a year salary, but some
of his witnesses mid that that was only a fair recompense
for his services. On the other side, it was denied that there
had been any arrangement as to term or time of service,
and it was said the work done by the plaintiff was not
worth the amount claimed for it. Beyond this it was
contended that the plaintiff had teen dismissed in July,
and, therefore, that the amount paid into court covered hie
claim spinet the company.
His Lordship directed the jury that if they were of opi-
nion that the plaintiff had not been properly dismissed in
July then the only question for them would be whether
the sem paid into court was sufficient to pay the plaintiff
for his services from the time of his engagement down to
October.

111ejary immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff for
601. beyond the sem paid into covet.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YESTERDAY.
trrnias £T NiM PAM. HAMM Ni. BARAN rmixs aim

• BPSCIAL JUST.

TEN ATTORNIT-GENNIUL V. COURT AND OREMLII.-

This ins an hiforeaatlon by the
instance of the Beard of Inland Revenue, for the publica-
tion of • weekly periodical called, the Patterim Plus
Press without the newspaper stamp.
The Attorney-Oeneral and Mr. Phinn appeared for the
Crown, and the defendant Mr. Collet Dobson Collet de-
fended himself in person.
The Attorney-Oeneral, in opening the case for the prose-
cution, said that the defendant was a teacher of dud g, and
held the appointment of secretary to on mineeie erp-
nised for the purpose of removing the tense you know-
ledge. He did not object to persons comblehis to endea-
vour' by legal sums, to obtain the repeal sir that which
they believed le be se eldest law; bat he Semple sod that
the defendant, Monad et Malden Ms energises le obtain a
change in the law, bed taken upon bloat to 'Mkt* the
law. The subject of unstuoped publications led been be-
fore the Court of Exchequer on a foram mensien, and the
construction then put upon the act 6 and 7 WU. IV. cap.
78, had led to the belief that the stetter might be violated
with impunity. A section of that stellate oeseted that every
publication containing public amen, intellinsene. sr Seem-
ream, or comments upon news or eseneumass. should be
taken to be a newspaper. By the 17th soden, a penalty of
2W. was imposed upon any person who should print and
publish any newspaper, orlpaper not duly stamped accord-
ing to law. The schedules annexed to the act defined what
were to be considered newspapers • but a question had
arisen lately, whether the thud part; of the schedule super-
seded or absorbed the first ; and it was held, in the OM of
Messrs. Bradbury and Evans, that, supposing a paper not
published within the interval of 28 daze, was within the
first clause of the schedule, but not within the third, it
might be exempt from the stamp. He did not, however,
see how the decision of the Court in that cue could affect
the present, for the Potteries Free Press was within tho
first and third clauses of the schedule. It was of the sin
which made it liable to the stamp duty ; it was published,
not at intervals exceeding 28 days, but every week ; and
it contained advertisements, news, and comments upon
news. The title of the publication was, TA. Potteries
tree Press and Weakly Narrative of Cwrreist
Events. The three numbers which would be
produced contained various articles and reports of
proceedings in parliament ; and he could not see upon
what pretext the defendant could escape from the payment
of the stamp. Whatever opinion the public might enter-
tain as to the advisability of taking off the stamp duty on
It was not for any individual to set himself up
rell=red the law. There having been some difficulty
es loft the bleatity of Mr. Collet, of Stoke-upon-Trent,
flits 818 mer was p•Mished, with Mr. Collet of London,
sedisige were, is the first butane., taken before Mr.
at How nYsss elbs, against a person who bad
nil paper In UM= g end the result was a conviction.
The defeadant this wed primly avowed himself to be the
=l:r, ide readiness to suspend the pub-
-1: tie = VMS the Court of Exchequer should
deilM _ e
lanlaw. He was adorned that the
delete be see the Builder, the Atheneum, and the
Art Aismud. end dasher publications, were allowed to pub-
Usk maids, et sews without a stamp. But even admitting
that tile um or it did not follow as a consequence that the
defending Mesjetelfied in violating the law. It might be
that the peibtions in question were liable to the stamp,
but the Booed of Inland Revenue had taken a liberal view
of the law in not pressing for the stamp, as so much doubt
existed on the subject. In this ease, however, there could
be no doubt of the liabilty of the paper in question, as it
contained every element of a newspaper.
Numbers of the paper of the 12th, 18th, and 26th of Feb.
last were put in ; and this closed the ease for the prose-
cution.

The defendant then addressed the court and jury, con-
tending that the Potteries Free Press came within the
same category as the Builder, the Atheneum, the Family
Herald, and similar publications, which were allowed to
publish news without a stamp. He also referred to the case
of the " Attorney-Oeneral v. Hetherington," tried in the
Court of Exchequer some yean ego, in which Lord Lynd-
hurst said the Poor Alan's Friend was a meagre affair,"
and advised the jury not to find the defendant guilty. The
Potteries Free Press was also a "meagre affair," as com-
pared with other publications in the district, and ought by
the same rule to be exempt. It was published at a penny,
and was a clam paper, 'mamma as it circulated
among the working men of the district. The Poor
Man', Friend contained the King's Speech, and
other articles of news, and yet that was exempted from
the damp.
Mr. Baron Parke said that Lord Lyndhurst did not
express an opinion as to the liability of Hetherington's
paper; bat merely said it was a " meagre affair," there
Ming an information against him at the same time for pub-
lishing another paper of a more important character. The
decision be Hetherington's case, or any other eue, was a
matter of but little consequence, as the questlim here would
entirely tarn upon the construction of the act of parlia-
ment.
The &diffident then contended that, as he had complied
mitt the teems et the Ha eastioa, mai sesta copy of the
ths asempeike; entitled to notice
Simm;s4l
•