The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-09 00:00:00

pired
dum ,

bond to
Beer ~e the reet_itertmtnt_etpe

Before Vie•Chaneellor Knight BMX.
BRIGHTON a. No H. POWER OP COMMIS/HORSES
TINDER ACTS OP PARLIAMENT TO LEVY RATE/4 TO OPPOSI
THE PASSING or OTHER ACTS.—The bill was filed by
Abraham Brighton and others on behalf of themselves and
all others the owners of lands comprehended in the second
district mentioned in an Act of Parliament passed for main-
taining the banks of the River Ours, between Denver Sluice
and the Eau Brink Cut, in the county of Norfolk,
against Nicholas North and others, who were some
of the commissioners and deputy-commissioners acting
for the 2nd district, and against Daniel Gurney, Esq., the
treasurer for the same district (who also, bi virtue of the aet,
represented the commissioners genera 1) , praying that it
might be declared that the commissioners or the 2nd district
were not entitled to apply any monies, raised or raisable
under the Act of Parliament, in carrying into execution cer-
tain resolutions which had been passed by the defendants
(other than Gurney), acting as commissioners and deputy-
commissioners at • certain meeting which took place
on the 9th March last; and that they might be decreed
to refund 1051. of such monies which they had already
applied to that purpose. It appeared that the ob-
ject of the River Ooze Act was to " protect and secure from
inundation many thousand acres of adjoining fen end marsh
land," and for that purpose to " put the banks and bridges
of the said river Ouse between Denver Sluice and the upper
end of the Bau Brink Cut in a permanent state of stability
and security, and to construct the forelands and slopes of the
banks as far as possible upon one uniform system, and to set
back the said banks where the force of the current or other
circumstances might require the same ;" and for that pur-
pose, also, to levy rates on the landowners within the dis-
trict ; but nothing in the act was to be construed to autho-
rise the commistioners "to do any act that might be preju-
dicial to the drainage or navigation of the said river Ouse."
It was alleged by the bill that in the early part of this year
certain persons formed themselves into • joint-stock com-
pany, called the " Norfolk Estuary Company," for the pur-
pose of reclaiming from the sea a large tract of land in the
county of Norfolk, below Lynn Regis, by diverting the
waterinto the river Ouse, and that such company brought
into the House of Commons a bill to enable them to carry
their scheme into effect. That on the 9th March, 1848,
the commissioners met, and that the defendants (ex-
-lumber

cepa Gurney), constitntinp the majority in nu.
and value of the commissioners, paned the follow-
ing resolution, viz., that proceedings should be taken
on behalf of the commissioners for watching, and, so far as
might be necessary, opposing the said bill in parliament, and
for causing such provisions to be inserted therein as might be
requisite for indemnifying the landowners in the second district
from any greater charge in respect of the banks of the river
Ouse, than had been incurred by them on the average of the
last eight years, and that a rate of Gd. an acre on lands within
the second district should be raised, under the provisions
of the River Ouse Act, for defraying the expenses of the said
proceedings on behalf of the said commissioners ; and that
such expenses should in the mean time be paid out of the
funds then in hand, which had arisen under the provisions
of the said act. That a subsequent meeting of the same
commissioners took place on the 17th of March, when they
voted that 1061. should be paid to one of their body, John
Platten, a solicitor, to be applied by him to the purposes of
the resolution passed at the previous meeting, and that this
sum was afterwards
.paid to him by the defendant Gurney,
as treasurer.—To this bill the defendants demurred, first,
for want of equity, and, secondly, because the other commis-
sioners and deputy-commissioners of the district, and also
the general commissioners under the act, and also her
Majesty's Attorney-General, were not made parties to the
bill.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Bunny, in support of the demurrer,
argued that the course taken by the commissioners was jus-
tifiable, both on public and private grounds. That they had
a duty to perform to the public as far as the navigation of
the river was concerned, and to the landowners in seeing
that no fresh danger accrued to their property from inun-
dation. Mr. Russell and Mr. Toiler appeared for the
plaintiffs.
Ili, Honour—lt is alleged that certain persons, in the
early part of the year, applied for an act of Parliament for
the purpose of draining the Wash. The mouth of the River
Ouze is in the Wash. The commissioners in this district
considered that the act of Parliament would put the district
in a disadvantageous situation. They therefore came for-
ward to oppose the act, it not being alleged that they were
served with any proceeding, or any notice of it—it not being
alleged that they had any notice except what the public in
general had in the shape of advertisements stating the
intention to apply for an act. However good the inten-
tions of the .-----‘lisioners might be (and I think

their intentions were good), how-ever reentuable it might
Lave been for the landowners to subscribe for that purpose,
I am unable to discover in their set anything which enables
the commissioners to apply the proceeds of the rates levied
under it for the purpose of defraying any expense incurred,
or to be incurred, in opposing the bill in question. Unless,
upon further considering the act, I should be of a different
opinion, I must hold that the course taken by the commis-
boners was ward vireo, and, therefore, that the plaintiffs
tare an equity. The ease was then argued on the question
of parties, but his Hesouretheto a further consideration
of the case till Tuesday morning) ultimately overruled the
Is:Duffer, reserving thecae's to hearing.

Beene Vice-Cluaoellor Wlstram.
FEAR BR O. JONES.—FRArDIMENT MISREPRESENTATION.
—The bill in this awe, which was filed by the plaintiffs as ma-
magma of the Monmouthshire and Glamorganshize Banking
Company, prayed that the bank might (under the circum-
stances mentioned in the bill) be declared entitled to have a
allebt of .6101., due to them from David Jones and John
Powell, the two first-named defendants upon the record,
paid in priority to a debt of 2001. owing by the same Partin
ee John Jones, the other defendant upon the record ; and
ter the delivery up by the latter of a mortgage deed upon
*Web both debts were secured. It appeared that in Sep-
tember, 1842, John Powell was entitled to a mortgage for
1,0001. (setts, however, to a prior charge to one Parry)
uPew the of David Jones; and that early in
that month It was arranged that the lands and
the mortgage should be conveyed and marled to
the beak as a enmity for their debt. Powell then repre-
sented that the mortgage deed had already been deposited
by him with the defendant J. Jonas, to secure a debt of
1,0001. Oa the Bth of September, therefore, a deed was
executed, reciting the mortgage to Powell ; and that the
same had been deposited with J. Jones as a collateral se-
curity, for a debt due to hint upon bond from Powell, whereby
the leads ma the mortgage (subject to the prior charges
to Piny and J. Jones), were ebnveyed and assigned to the
bank, as a isamity for their debt; and early in October,
1812, notice was given by thelank to J. Jones of their claim
upon the premises. The plaintiffs, having afterwards ascer-
tained that the representatiem contained in the recital as to
the deposit with). Jean was false, applied to the latter to
deify& up the deed. J. Jonas then admitted that the repre-
gagagyfan nude_ by Powell was fictitious; but claimed to be
ttil tit Lid the deed as a security for a debt of
of width hi 87/. had been advanced by m to
• before, and 1131. sifter the assignment to the plain-
. tat Jed he refused to slaver up the deed =al those sums
„tired hie aspens!' had bee* paid. The plaintiffs then filed
praying as above.,
w and Mr. Rolla, for the plaintiffs, stated that on
• . tooth September, 1842, about a fortnight after the assign-
. MOM to the B.uski the defendants, David Jones, John Powell.
end J. Jones, and Bran Jones, the son of John Jones, and
ate Froster, the .ImalOrd of the 808, in Brecon, met at the

her separate use, and the remelting naianco..... —.,: a
to Sir J. Pryer. Shortly afterwards Earl Temple filed
bill to obtain payment of 24,0001., and • decree was made for . ofa depoeit nr. the mom, deed for 1,800/. with J. Jones,
D the proceedings however, to secure I,oo', Both these nutriment. were eeteseeed,
se
the sale of the estates. unnA ,The _
._
D ke el W ewircr, ond with the date of the deposit, as alleged in the
Sir. J. PrYce the(/' 'wing IL ' Pile. big
htrafter. the sale recital '-si tie plaintiff's security,and, after being weld bY
of Buckingham was then leR executor, an- remain Powell e handed to Jones, together with the
of the estate there was a sure found to . .
amounting to 20,9721., out of whichthe
~ .
plaintiff insisted age mothsuetedwere
for 1,8001. I 0 U's for 10001., of
that Jacques ought to be paid. His lordship
_Bud that the 1w...a date with the above-mentioned instrument, were
and that he also on the same de signed by Powell, and given
statute of limitation did not bar the claim made,
.t T. h
ihortiy
attn.
must consider the plaintiff's claim good, Mr. as Lad PrYce s to J. Jones, by whom tey were
debts had not been paid. It appeared that act had r- wards burnt. It a peered also, that upon a subsequent ad.
purchased several incumbrances on the estates a Sir J. • of ON. by J. onesJ to Powell, the latter gave his bond
Pryce to an amount which exceeded the fund
.irk, emit He for the amount, which was also antedated as of the date of
should direct inquiries as to the amount of i ncumbrances, the deposit alleged; in the recital. ,
d Mr. Hominy and Mr. Busk, for the defendant J. Jones,
and as to the character in which Evora got *.fie estale, ,and
the amount of money expended in the pv.rchase. Further
insisted that the plaintiffs had failed in their evidence to show
directions and costs were than reserved, and his lo siprd h* that the defendant was a party to the fraud practised upon
theplaintiffs; and that the court would not, therefore, &-
directed several inquiries to be mate to tarry out the decree. him of
Lis
prive Ol security
without first seeing that his debt
Delors Lash-
elee•Ctiasioetior ot Eaeland. wei paid.
KINORAIII V. Laa.--Wurn couurrreo Y$ IFII.7BBAND or Mr. Humphrey, for the defendants D. Jones and J.
TENANT 1011 Lira.—Tiff Wipe's FISSONAL REPRESEN-
,, Powell.
TAUT'S NOT NECURAHT P 1117116 TO A SUlT.—This mh His Honour said, there had clearly been gross misconduct
stated that Thomas Harding, deceased, by his will gave and on the part of some of the parties. The bank, upon re-
devised all his freehold and copyhold estates to his wife Ann la
nesting security for their debt, had been informed
during her life, she keeping
.the premises and the buildings t the property offered was subject to one charge
in good and substantial repair, and committing no manner of to Parry, whi& was true, and to another for 1,0001. to Jones,
waste, and not selling any timber thereon, except what which was untrue. Whether there had been a legal fraud or
should be necessary for repairing the buildings. The testa- not, a gross moral one Lad certainly been committed. The
toe gave all his said estates, after the death of his wife, to defendant Powell, who, if be W told the truth, would
James and William Hingham, and their children in manner have been called upon to give up his mortgage deed for
therein mentioned. After the decease of the testator, his 1,8001,, bad falsely stated that the mortgage was subject to
widow married Roger Lee, who committed various act" a charge of 1,0001. and by so doing bad been enabled to keep
of waste upon the estate, and allowed the buildings the deed in his possession, and perpetrate a fraud upon the
to fall out of repair, and the amount of such acts of defendant, J. Jones. If by the decree J. Jones were declared
waste exceeded the sum of 1,0001. Upon the death of Mn. entitled to all thathe claed, the bank would still obtain a/1
Lee, the tenant for life, this bill was filed by the per- that they had contracted for, and Jones would only get
eons entitled to the estate after her decease against back that which the bank (innocently it must be admitted)
Roger Lee, and against the legal personal representatives had enabled Powell to get from him by misrepresentatlons.
of his wife, praying that an account might be taken of the Excluding the supposition that the defendant J. Jones was
dilapidation and other acts of waste, and that they might imor.m.., tea in the fraud against the bank, the case was re-
be declared liable to pay the same.—A demurrer was put In r
duced to that of two innocent parties, one of whom must
to this bill, on the ground that the personal representatives suffer by the fraud of a third person, the question being,
of the wife were not necessary parties to the suit; that the which was to be entitled in a court of Justice to the
wife, by her marriage, had parted with her interest in the benefit of his security, it being admitted that whoever
estate, and was not liable to the acts of waste committed by failed would be prejudiced to the amount of the debt
her husband. secured. His Honour then observed that the question sou
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Campbell appeared in support of the simply as to which of two equities was to be preferred, and
bill ; and Mr. Bethel! and Mr. Hargreave for the demurrer. took time to consider the auorities upon the subject before
The Vice-Chancellor said the estates were in this cue 1 - -441 a final decision.
given to the wife. subject to the usual restriction against
waste being committed, and he did not think that there was
any express direction which could be considered as creating
a trust. If the estate had been devised with a trust of any
description, the person taking the estate might have been
compelled to execute that trust, and could not have conveyed
it away without the trust being performed; but hero it was
not so, and if he were to hold that such a clause as thill would
create a trust, which the tenant for life was bound to
perform, he would be laying down • proposition which
would throw the greatest afficolties in the way of all tenants
for life. If Mrs. Lee had conveyed the estate away to a
stranger, she would have been in no case responsible for the
subsequent acts committed by the purchaser. By the mar-
riage her husband became seised in her right, and her whole
beneficial interest was vested in him ; he committed certain
acts of waste, and he alone was responsible for those acts,
and his wife's personal representatives were not necessary
parties to the suit.—!lie Honour considered this a fearful
experiment to encumber the estate, and he should therefore
allow the demurrer.

- -
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
DAVIS v. WILLIAMIL—EVIDENCE IN AN ACTION FOR
LOSS or SERVICES OCCASIONED BY SEDUCTION.—Mr.
Townsend moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict
in this case, which had passed for the defendant at the last
assists for the county of Carnarvon, should not be set aside,
and a new trial bad, on the ground of misdirection. The
action was brought by a mother to recover damages for the
loss of her daughter's services, consequent on her having
been seduced by the defendant. The daughter had been
seduced while she was in the service of the defendant under
a hiring for a jeer, which terminated at the end of April,
1845, about three months before she was confined. During
these three months, and at the time of the confinement,
she lived with her mother. It was contended for the
defendant that on this state of fasts there was not disclosed
any such service as would support an action by the mother to
mover compensation for the loss of the daughter's services,
and to the same effect the judge directed the jury. The
learned counsel now submitted that the coasequence of the
trespass, and not the trespass, was the ground of action ; so
that the right to maintain it belonged, not necessarily to the
person entitled to the service at the time of the trespass,
but exclusively to the person whose enjoyment of the
service had been prejudiced by the consequences of the
trespass.
The Court intimated an opinion that the action could only
be supported by the person entitled to the service at the
time or the seduction ; but ultimately took time to consider
its decision.
PHILLIPS V. COLLINS.—MODE OP LEAVING TO A JURY
THE QUESTION OP THE LIABILITY or A PROVISIONAL
COMMITTEEMAN.—This was an action against the defendant
as a member of the provisional committee of the French and
Swiss Junction Railway Company, for goods supplied for
the purposes of that company. The case was tried before Mr.
Justice Wightman, at the sittings in London after last term,
and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for the full
amount elmmei. The questions raised at the trial were,
first, whether the defendant was liable, as • member of the
provisional committee; and 2nd, whether a person named
Galbraith, by whom the goods supplied had been ordered,
had authority to bind the provisional committee.
Mr. Serjeant She* now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial hail
on the ground of misdirection. He contended that the
verdict had been caused by a direction made under the in-
fluence of decisions pronounced by the Court of Exchequer,
which tended to make a man liable for everything, simply
because he was a provisional committeeman.
Lord Denman : Do you contend that the fact of his being
• provisional committeeman is an excuse ?—Serjeant Shee :
No, but the direction amounted to what I have said.—
Mr. Justice Wightman: I think not. I left it to the jury to
say.—l. Did the defendant hold himself out to the world
or the plaintiff as a director of the company, or knowingly
suffer others to hold him out as such director ? 2. Did the
plaintiff execute the order given him on the credit of the
defendant? 3. Were the goods such as might reasonably
be required for the purposes of the company in the then
state of the company ? 4. Had Galbraith authority to give
the order ?—The jury gave an affirmative answer to each
question.
Lord Denman: There wu no misdirection.

Rule refused.
WOOD O. MTTTON.—RIORT TO EVE ox A NOTE or
HAND PAYABLE TO THE MAKER. —Mr. Setjeant Shee
moved for a rule to show cause will, the verdict which had
passed for the plaintiff, at the sittings in London alter last
term, should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the
ground of its being against the evidence ; or why a nonsuit
Should not be entered, on the ground that the action was not
maintainable. The action was brought by the holder of a
note of hand, made by the defendant, payable to himself or
his own order. At the trial, the defence of fraud was set up.
On the second point, he submitted that the right to maintain
the action depended on the statute of Anne, which, in re-
spect of notes of hand, directs that " all notes in writing
which shall be made and signed by any person, whereby any
such person shall promise to pay any other person, er his
order, &c., shall be taken to be payable to such person, &c., to
whom the same is so made payable." These words pointed
clearly to a note payable to the order of some person other
than the maker.—The Court panted the rpplication.
Aosotom v. MAIM AND VITHERB.—Mr. Peacock obtain-
ed a rule nisi on the same point as that on which the rule
was granted in the last case ; and also on the ground that as
the note was made payable to " us or any of us" it was bad
for uncertainty.
A rule is depending in each of the other two courts in-
volving the same question as that raised in " Wood v.
Mytton."