The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-26 00:00:00

atbe drama•

PRINCESifiI.—A new drams, in two acts, with
magic, was produced last evening at this theatre. It is
a mere trifle, and can hardly be said to have any plot or
story. The characters are King James the First end some
of his courtiers, a Scotch bagpiper (who is the hero), a
Greenwich Innkeeper, and his daughter, who is the
heroine. The piper is a suitor of the innkeeper's
daughter; but the father refugee to have him for
a son-in-law, unless on condition of his producing fifty
pounds in a given time. By his good fortune in detecting a
conspiracy he gains the sage monarch's favour, and conse-
quently the band of his sweetheart. The humour of the
piece is fiat enough, and consists chiefly in the Cockney-
S.tch spoken by the actors. The music connate chiefly of
Scotch ballads, and songs in imitation of the Scottish style,
some of them rather pretty, but none of them at all remark-
►ble. They were very well sung by Mr. Barker, Mims
Smithson, and Mile E. Stanley. The piece made no great
impression, but received a moderate degree of applause at
the conclusion, and was given out for repetition.

AND CLERICAL NEWS.

Caannuues, Ilia 24.-11.1LH. the Chatmellorh gold medal for the
Wet Mogi& poem les len exlihnleed to IL Day, *choler of 'Maa
\ A r-
y oddest, .11Ir Mims Rm.° The IlareMa Cainden'a
eeeld it the best emmans r Witt hexameter Term bile been mi-
te J. C. Witgleheileir Wash ; subject, *. &deft cathe-
=twee aped It
emelenela."
Trawswes Hamm Semoheaunre.—Ex .111MATION, MAY. 1847.
Pint Ouldere ltaarahrs, 1., 6t. John'. ; Mawr. A. A., tat.
John% aseri Clem Mister : ~la C. W., Gaselle and 0.1611.
Beadles, G. 'Deis& L. lanes; Hillier, E. lbehreem, Trtedty.
exandoollem
The above fe the ease tmidi et the matidatie vile weed the

Luc lbeete atiomens" smeller as artier Is Need valkaridag
the Beloloollid Comboleeito lean 'stole be* Woe&
Ye le mimeo at liarroll Coseltell, Muni and We-
eel TWIN hoist le tbo eolisebis dm& lbellmlb
Pmeagervi.-11ev. Lew., to St. Jolefeibenkllyeab. Manor.
polite; pin% tnt to oro..—Bev. P. T. illahomle he en it dr
relies et lie ittathent Chorth of Itselarl Mod. toot wood.
Vaeoposb—lnliord P. C., Cheek, dio. Cbosior; value, 1111.;
Or Them: wry bath of Coo. T. Abinvorth.
lb* Ilrlibk Reelittets et the Hague • Rev. Ll.
dootood.—Onnielbea Grommet Yowl, .cooed meltablp . Rev. P.
T. Pala" artatoleL

NAVAL.
Possossinz. MAT `Yok'''el Aridsokt, jArd J. 114. apt Bar-
keel, lab of the Yoko* r Aid
Ws.
wird.
arrived se • smislialmi ad wet round sti=ard AQ
Id&
Or C. 0^ fad allenurds Ilplamed la the Myrtle, V., to invest
this IL Mori. Clipt. Pam Ins earpectcd to arrive here this day
sumbask OMB. st
Iludovise, MAT ft—lissalf4 Otes. J. West, mind Vds
semis Om lisdlimssm. sod les bun siml mks ipmser
Or. Weft, Wily =hid softly is reimaclia.vak apt=

nosserarks. Bs=lt, 12, Com. A. Cade Palled last evening for Lis-
ta& with dempatches for Vlec-Aden. Kr W. Parker. Mercury, tender.
arrived yesterday from roitawouth, with Mr. Davy, itsvintaic-master
attendant of this dockyard, and party, ...turned from the Centaur, st-
The lewd@ Cominiwkwant of the Ad:nealty have been pinned, in
oonarqueere of the Mph price of provieiarts, to authoriee an addition
of b. per week to the pay or the hired labouren who are wow !Veen-
inc only 12.. • this adoitlon to commenos from the 13rd it t. and
continue till the 28th of Aloud.
Paint Koniev.-laet night's f;arrtre gives notice to the (Meer. and
err. of H.M. drop Muttne, that an account of the proceed.. of slaws
and tonnage bounties for the capture of a vinwel, name unknown.
petard May, INS, will be deported in the Chart of Admiralty on the
Sath Met. -Notice Is likete siren to the oflieers and company of
H.31.n. Prometheus and !Kate, that an account of bounties received
fat the slavc-vowel Belmin, captured Nov. 11, 1843, will be forthwith
deposited in the Admiralty

MILITARY.
rownworm bias 25.—Lard Y. litaciarenee proceeded to ('hi.
choker this diy to isirixot the depUt of the GOth Rifts dationed at
that place. The arranrenients for eir.anspiiig the troops upon South-
-110140111M071 are nearly oiireetcd.
Tub Alo3lf New Goat, dor oecr WARRANT.- - Yerent..y, the new
good conduct warrant, fyinded on the re vent proceedings of the Right
Hon. F. Manic, for bettering the condition of the ..idle, Ir.. lamed
from the Horse Guards. It is of canaiderable length, and authorises
au Mete-are In the amount of pensions, which holds out prospects of a
moat brightening maim to non-er mmieeionrd offtreni red i creates of
good character. The bum Ity, ot thought will be followed by twiny
beneficial egrets, and will, r.dhleubt, in a {treat meoaure, itray that
dieconteut which his 1,,e1y prevailed amongst the non.courr inioned
odlcei SIM well as trivates.
Tut tineti.a On -I'l-vssorrius.—Yesterday, several bodies of the
norther n diyadon of the metropolitan (Iw.l..clotii.perodonce, acre put
throcgh various evolutions by the to coutuisnding mature in Hyde
Park. It IF undrmtood that either on Thursday afternoon or on tlic
following Oar the veteran soldiers will be inspected by the Cotn-
niansler-ia.chief.

SPORTING.
gETTLING Folt Tll/IltliT AND OtEs,
The winners of the :Above rows Irving at the time been grtiently
supposed to be "harmless' boom we fatly expected to have to speak
lan easy settling. We regret to say, that it boo tans d out quite
the serene—not merel3- a bad OW, but one of the wont that haft been
known since Cotherstone's year. Two parties were nisi est, whose
loses cannot be stated at Iris than 20,0001.; one of the, who is con-
nect: d with the highest families in the kingdom, is • loser of about
11,0001., of which than o no immediate proapect of partied ; the
other is a Mr. P of whom there la no hope whatever. It ap.
tows that this worthy, not ranee.' with " drawing" all be could on
Monday, without dithurvisg • farthing, enclosed a hat of debts due to
him on the race, to one of the forties from whom he bad rceeived,
begging him to "collect all be could, and resin the half for Id:
trouble," adding, that he was " utterly ruined,. and orachaling be
graelouily permitting Ids victim to make any entre he might think
fit for cslleming for him Of course t 1.4 Im;ralent s tempt at
swindling was immediately made public. It ia almost needless to add
that these beery deg. otiuns serimudy crabs:Tweed the settling, and
that many parties who enb rod the morn with balances in their
favour, guinea it losers Pir Jompb Rowley, Mr. Pedim, and their
friends, are good winners; but it la beyond a doubt that the defi-
ciencies of the parties s t.t.Ml to, and dr inability of others to pay in
full at mom, have mattrially Infiner.oed their Oct profits.
Bets on the two plates on Friday were paid under protest.

Rata) Entelitutnct.
EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord a:manor.
IN El: SIR GEOEUE STEPHEN, A SOLICITOE.—TATATION
or Cost's —This was a petition presented by Mr. Bass, the
brewer of Burton.upor•Trent, praying that Sir George
Stephen might be ordered to furnish a bill of his costa and
charges incurred in respect of the direct line of railway be-
tween London rind Man-hest,r, called liern:ngton's direct
line, a prrject whi.h failed. The sum of 28,0001. had
been already paid by flee of the directors to the respondent.
and he had a claim for more, but he declined to furnish a
bill on the ground that his services in getting up the project
were not of a professional nature, and also that there was a
distinct agreement or understanding between him and the
directors for a sum of money in gross.
Mr. Relt, Mr. Dar.:el, and Mr. Speed have been beard in
support of the petition. Mr. J. Russell ..nd Mr. J. Parker
have been heard for the respondent ; Lila Mr. Cooper.and
other counsel remain yet to be heard.

&fore the Master of the Rolls.
IN BE SAVLUY. —PETITION THAT BILLS Of COSTS
MIGHT NOT HO TAXED.—Mr. Beavington &eery, the peti-
tioner in this case, during the lifetime of R'cliard Teteliv,
the ustatnr, acted as his solicitor, and, after h's death. as the
agent and solicitor of his trustees ; during Richard Treeby's
life, two bills of cats ace:veil due to Mr. &very. The tes-
tator's residuary estate by his will bteame divisible amongst
his children, when they attained the ages of 21 years. In
May 1836, there was a meeting between the trustees end the
persons interested in the estate of the testator, to ascertain
the amount of each child's share ; accounts were then pre-
pared, and the amount of the two bills of costs having been
deducted from the whole residuary estate, the remaining
balance was left to be divided amongst the children, and, in
July, 1837, and January, 1938, two of them reosived their
shares. The residuary account of the testator's estate was
afterwards rendered by the executors to the stump-office, and
in it these bias desists were treated as haring been paid out
of the estate. In June, 1840, S. Savory entered into part-
nership with J. T. Silvery, and, in 184.5, the partneeship
was dissolved. Disputes subsequently arose, and, in
August, 1846, Mr. Barrington Savory was called
upon, on the part of the trustees, to furnish his
accounts for the purpose of having them taxed; he diet so,
and these two bilk of costa were delivered in with others.
In November, 1846, a common order was obtained to tax all
the bills, enil on going before the Master, the petitioner dis-
puted the right of the trustees to have them toted, and it
was then agreed that as to these two bills the present petition
should be presented to hare the opinion of the court on the
question, whether they ought to be taxed or not —Mr. Turner
and Mr. Willeak appeared fur the petitioner; Mr. Kindersley
and Mr. Bates for the respondents.
The Master of the Rolls said that the accounts prepared in
May, 1836, were as between the trustees and cestuiquc trusts,
and not so between the trustees and their agent, the peti-
tioner, and that they could not be deemed to stand as prop.
that these bills were then paid. If there had been an account
settled between Mr. S. &very and the treatises, he might
have allown from his books, or in other ways, that these bills
had been paid, but the onus of proof of sack payment was
clearly with him, and he had not in any way produced prow
of such payment. His lordship, therefore, was of opinion,
that the petitioner had not succeeded in showing that these
bills ought to be :sewed to have been paid, and in conse-
quence they must he taxed.—Petition &missed with coati.

Before the Vice-ttancellor of Hatband.
Ex TER AND CREDITOR RAILWAY COREA:SY V. BOLLER.
—INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE DIRECTORS FROM ACTING.
—MOTION TO TAKE THE BILL OFF THE FILE.—In this cam
en injunction was granted en the sth of April last, to restrain
the defendants, who are seven of the directors in the Exeter
and Crediton Railway Company, from tattling into any
agreement for opening, using, or working the said railway
upon the broad gauge, and also from makdng any junction
between the Exeter and Crediton Railway and the Bristol
and Exeter Railway, end from leas' fig wiMne the said
Exeter and Creditou Railway to the BrtYlYlsod Exeter
Railway Company, or to any other company working upon
the broad gauge. The bill was filed by the remaining three
directors of the Exeter and Crediton Railway Company (the
number of the directors first appointed having been ten), on
behalf of themselves and all the ahareholdere in the company
except the defendants, and it was alleged that the plaiotia
expressed the opinions of the majority of the shareholders.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Follett row moved on behalf of the de-
fendants that this bill might be taken off the file and
the suit dismissed, on the ground that it was instituted in
the name of the Exeter and Crediton Railway Company
without due authority. It appeared that since the injunc-
' Con was granted, an extraordinary general meeting of the
company had taken place, when J. Wentworth Boller, Esq..
was the chairman, at which a resolution woe proposed, that
the number of Oirectors should be reduced from ten to six;
and that the following directors, J. W. Buller, Esq., R.
Bastard, Esq., J. Brown, Esq., and C. B. Tripp, Esg..
should be removed from the direction of the company.
The chairman having refused to put this resolution, the same
was put to the meeting by Mr. Thorne; and carried with
only one dissentient. The following resolutions were then
Teeupon: that the provisional agreement for a loam
the Exeter and Crediton Railway to the Taw
Vale Railway and Dock Company, and sealed with
the seals of the Taw Vale lisilwaaasAeock Company, and
the London and South Western be adayined and
confirmed ; and also that the IMPIMEE• rednised tons
opening the Exeter and Cm= noway SE bend
from
gauge, and fro taking any f steps 11111111461 complet-
ing the connexion of the Exeter sad Crediton Railway with
the Bristol and Exeter Railway.
Mr. Betkell and Mr. Hardy appeared for the plaintiffs. and
Mr. Chandless for the company.
The Vice• Chancellor said nothing could be more plain on
the affilavits than this, that the seven directors, who were
in feet opposed to the three directors, were determined to
act in opposition to the avowed declaration of the majority
of the shareholders. It was difficult to do justice to what
was eallel the compaay, if you were to OlatideT it
that sort of metaphysical thing (to use the ex-
pression of Lord Holt) having neither soul nor body;
the company must, in feet, be identified with the
majority of the shareholders. The question was, whether
the directors were at liberty to disappoint the views and
opinions of the majority of the shareholders. In this rapect
there was a clitficulty about the matter, and he would be
glad to know with greater (certainty what was the opinion
of the shareholders. He would, therefore, direct the motion
to stand over, in order that a gent rat meeting might be held,
and the sense of the shareholders taken, whether it was their
wish that the bill should remain on the file or not. This
would be the best means of ascertaining the real opinion of
those who constituted the shareholders.—The motion was
then ordered to stand over for eight weeks.
IN RE THE HARWICH RAILWAY.— ITITZTMENT or
Srocx.—Mr. Bourdillon applied that a sum of 13,6001.,
which had been paid into court, and laid out in Exchequer
bills, might be sold out, and reinenthd upon government
stock.—The Vice.Chanctllor refused the application, and
ob d, that if this were allowed, the court would have to
fulfil the duties of a(stockbroker, and parties would change
their investments whenever an advantageous opportunity
occurred.

Before Vice-Chancitilor Knight Ernes
Croce, It F. RATCLIFFE. T HE ODD FILLOw6.—
FS I EN DLY SOCIETIEIC—In this case, the IIZZEIEUIS in
which hare been already reported in the els, the
Vice-Chancrllor gave judgment this morning. T suit, it
will be recollected, was instituted by some of the members o.
the Loyal Highland Laddie Lodge of the Manchester and
Salford district of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows,
for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that the plaintiffs
had been illegally excluded from the lodge ; for an account
of monies belonging to the order ; and for other relief. To
this.bill a dernurrr wee pot is, which was in the first in-
stance allowed, and liberty was given to amend the bill. The
bill wu then amended, and a demurrer wee put in, which
was on the 6th of May inst. argued by Mr. Rolt and Mr. R.
Palmer for the defendants, and Mr. Russell and Mr. Har-
grave for the plaintiffs.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the only ante of donna

specifically assigned upon the record was want of equity.
He wished in the first place to say that he felt some difheolty
upon the question whether the hill was free from the objec-
tion upon which Lord t'dilon proceeded when he allowed the
demurrer in " Lloyd e. Loring." He doubted whether the
contract of partnership, if that was the proper term,
or of association for mutual assistance, or however it
should be designated, which was the foundation of the
suit, wee not shown by the bill to be a contract
so circumstanced, that the principles and rales of the com-
mon law could not be considered as sanctioning it, or that a
court of equity ICU bound by statute to recognise it. Ile
did not suggest that, abstractedly, such a 'contract, such an
association, was otherwise than morally laudable; bat if,
from the number of persona concerned in it—or for that reason
and others the contract or engagement was of such a allure
as not to enable any of the established judicatures cf the
realm to deal with it beneficially or usefully, or to act upon
it efficaciously without doing injustice, was it the duty of the
court to acknowledge an agreement of that kind? It might
be conceded that far every civil wrong the law of the land
provided, or ought to preside, a judicial remedy. But was
ft inconsistent with that conceesion that the court should de-
cline to recognise a contract, creating interests of which the
powers confided by the law to the courts did not enable
them to provide for the regulation or protection ? sir that,
with rtierenee particularly to C3-Sts such as this, the law,
among whose oldest inatitntiens was the power of
incorporation, with ample means for the governmeet
of bodge oorponde, and among whose provisions of
later times, which the changes'in the habits of society
seemed to render expedient, were tise 'Latta re-
lating to Friendly societies, the law which gave
facilities for such a snciations should not permit the
adoption of every course or every mode of effecting •
laudable object, of a rature rather public thin mendy pri-
vate, for effecting which it had provided means et a par-
ticular kind under wholesome regulations, He doubted
whether, upon censideratiods such as these, the association
which the bill brought before the court was within the
province of the court, and did not fall within the observe-
tions of Lord Eleen in " Van Sandau e. Moore," tanks.
there was env st %tete which ought to be considered to
making a material difference in the plaintiffs' &Your. He
was not sure that the members of such an ate:cation as this
most not, upon civil questions arisir g, be left, in the words
of Leval Eldoe, " to regulate themselves by a mutual under-
standing, and by a moral rule, without judicial interference,
where pailiams tit has not assisted them." An impression,
indeed, at once of the moral and civil advantages capuble of
arising from the societies called friendly societies, and of the
inefficiency or insufficiency of the institutioos of the country,
without the aid of parliament, to afford them, unless incor-
porated, stability e r protection, produced the friendly
societies' acts, of whnh the members of this asso-
ciatien had not thought fit to avail themselves,
although it was probable that it might hare been placed
under the protection of these sets, and if it had, the com-
plaints of the pleintiffs might, by means of these acts, have
been easily redressed. It might be suggested that the 33rd
Geo. 111., c. fit, and 35th Geo. 111., c. 114 recognised
the legality of an asemiation such as this, although not
haying enabled itself to r :aim the privileges conferred up on
friendly societies. He was not, however, convinced that it
was the intention of either statute, in the case of any society
that should not entitle itself, by the means specified, to have
the benefit of the enactment, to render it cognisable by the
civil judicature, if, independently of the two acts, it would
not have been so cognisable. His honour then went at some
length into the techne al questions which arose upon the
seleadings, and said that the demurrer must be allowed, but
without code. He added, that the caw, as it stood, upon
principle, was one of some importance, although the Lille' id
not, in his view of it, render it necessary to decide whether
the association was or was not unlawful at common law, or
was rendered criminal or unlawful by statute, as had been
strongly argued by the defendants, upon which, if he had
formed, be should decline stating, any opinion.
TINS INDIORNT BLIND SCHOOL O. BIRD.—Mr. Wigßnl
and Mr. H. Nichols appeared for the plaintids in this suit,
which was iestituted for the purpose of obtaining payment
of a bequest under the will of Mi. M. E. Bird, late of Cum-
berland-place. New-road. The will was dated the 10th of
November, 1827, and the testatrix thereby gave to the true-
WA lathe Asylum for the Blind, in trust for the said charity,
the sum of 1,0001. Consols, and also the interest of 1,000!.
Consols, to be by them distributed in yearly payments to six
blind perms not resident in the {11.11.1112, of .74. each. The
testatrix died in April, 1815. Mr. Bacon, for theexecutrix.
Miss 8. Bird, said, that in the testatrix's possession were
many papers relating to various charities for the benefit of
the Mind, and she was therefore unable to say that this be.
quest was in favour of the School fel Indigent Blind.—Mr.
Wray appeared for the Attorney-General.—The Vice-Chan-
eellor said there could be no doubt in the case. Whenever
Londoners spoke of the Blind Asylum, they meant that large
building in St. George's-fields. A decree, therefore, must
be made in favour of the plaintiffs.

Before Yiee-Chancellor Wheeze.
TENNANT C. TIMPIANT.—GITT T.T WILL IILLD LN SATII-
7/iCTION OP-A.DEBT.—David Tennant, by his will, dated in
February, 1839, amongst other bequests, gave an annuity of
00!. each to his sisters Catherine and Charlotte. It appeared
that in 1808 a runs of 2001. had been received by the testator
from his brother, Dr. Tennant, to be by him invested in the
purchase of a life annuity for his sister Catherine ; and tbat
the testator had omitted to invest it in the manner directed
by the donor, but had in the month of June in every year
from 1808 till the time of his death, paid to his sister
Catherine the sum of 201. in satisfaction of the annuity.
The pre,ent bill having beta filed for the administriVion of
the testator's estate,the testator's sister Catherine claimed the
annuit) in respect of which the 2001. had been paid to the tes-
tator, as a debt, in addition to the annuity given to her
by the will. The Master by his report in the muse had
*mod that the testator was at the time of his death liable to
pay to his sifter Catherine the sum of 20/. per annum in Te-
epee cf the annuity, to secure which the sum of 200!. had
been placed in his hands ; and that at the date of the report
is 1847 the sum of 1451. 10s. 2d. was due to the tsstator's
lister in respect of the arrears of such annuity. To this
report exceptions were taken by the residuary legatees of
the testator, on the ground that the Master ought to have
found that the annuity of 501., given to Catherine by the
will, was intended to be in satisfaction of the annuity of 20!.
Ilia Honour, In delivering judgment upon the cue, the
argument in which was heard en Euter Term last, observed
that one point relied upon in the argument was, that the teats-
tor had expressly directed that his debts should be paid ; but
he thought that would not be sufficient to prevent the appli-
cation of the doctrine of satisfaction. Another argument
was that tho time fixed for payment of the annuity given
by the will was different from that at which the annuity of
M. was payable. That, however, did not apply. in the
present case the intention was to regulate ; and that would
not be held to depend upon the period at which the testator
might happen to die. The ease appeared to be undistin•
pushable from those in which • gilt by will had been held
to be in Teti:faction of a debt. The testator's sister, there-
fore, would have to elect between the annuity of 201., due to
ha from the testator, and the benefit given to her by his will.

COVET OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
1117MDRE V. TER Dove. or BECIMINVICIL—ACTION ON •
CORTEACT MADE BP • SOTERRION PILINCE.—This wag an
action on an annuity bond. The defendant pleaded that he
was a sovereign prince, and that the contract had been made
by his when within the ::mite of the dukedom of which he
was sovereign. To this the plaintiff replied that the contract
did not relate to the government or policy of the dukedom
of which the defendant alleged himself to be the sovereign,
and that at the time the suit commenced, and still, the de-
fendant was raiding in this country sea private individual.
To this replication there was a demurrer, and on the argu-
ment the question mainly discussed was the validity of the
plea. The court took time to consider its judgment.
Lord Denman now said, thst the court thought the plea bad
because it did not state that the defendant was a sovereign.

prince at the time of the suit commenced or plea pleaded.
That he was a sovereign prince at the time the contract was
entered into was altogether immaterial. That he had been
a sovereign prince at that time might be the mere opinion of
the individual pleading, and it was an opinion which he
would probably entertain, though he should then have been
a usurper since properly deposed. If indeed the contract
had been made by a de facto sovereign as a matter of state,
that perhaps wou:d furnish a good plea to the jurisdiction,
though not amounting to a discharge. But in this
plea rt mu not said that the contract was entered into as a
matter of state, and there was no legal presumption that it
was. The court bad no means of knowing whether the
defendant might not have been sued in his own country en
contracts made by him as ea individual ; there was, how-
ever, Do presumption that In could not be so sued ; upon the
whole, therefore, the court thought the plea bad, and the
defence suggested by it quite inadmissible.—Judgment for
the plaintiff.
MARTENS V. lIVITER.—SUFFICIENCY OF AN AWARD.—
Lord Denman gave judgment on a vale for setting aside the •
award which had been made in this nee. When cause was
shown against the role, several objections were taken to the
award, and many of them disposed of at the time. Of the
ether, the principal was that the award had been made by
the umpire andone of the arbitrators, without the assistance of
the other arbitrator. Bat it appeared that at a certain
period the arbitrator, whose absence was complained of, had
expressed his entire dissent front the vices of the other arbi-
trator and the umpire, and mid that it would be useless for
his to attend again. Notices had been sent to him from
time to time, but he had not attended. From such circum-
stances the court inferred the total abdication of his func-
tions, and, therefore, the insufficiency of the objection. The
award had also been impeached on the ground that certain
skilful persons said that it was impossible to carry it into
effect. But those persons did not state that they had tried to
carry it into effect ; and there were opinions the other way,
which in the judgment of the court had the preponderance.
Os the whole the court was of opinion that the award ought
to be supported. Rule discharged.
WALLINGTON V. LANBRRT.—Doss THE LIABILITY OP •
MEMURR OP TRY. PROVIAIONAL CONIMITTIE OP A RAILWAY
OATH PROM RIO CONSENT TO RI ST:CR MEMBER, OR FROM
THE ACT BY WHICH RIO CREDIT IS FIRST FLEDGED FOR
TR* REPINSIM OP Till COMPANY I—Mr. Chambers, Q.C.,
moved for a rule to show cause why the defendant's verdict
in this cam should not be set aside, and a new trial hod on
the ground of misdirection. The action was brought by a
surveyor, for work and labour in preparing certain maps and
plans for the Great Welsh Junction Railway Company, of
the provisional committee of which the defendant was •
member. The defendant consented to become • member of
the committee in the month of July, 1•13; the work was
ordered by the secretary on the 10th of August, and
sent in on the 23d. Some time afterwards the de-
fendant went accidentally to the office of the company,
and took the chair at a meeting of the committee.
What was done at that meeting did not transpire.—Mr. Jus-
tice Bele leR it to the jury to say whether the defendant had
authorised the secretary to pledge his credit to the plaintiff,
and added that, as the mere consent to act as • member gf
the committee was not, according to recent decisions, evi-
dence to go to the jury of an authority to pledge the credit

of the person so consenting, so the acts of the defendant
additional to that consent amounted to the very slightest
evidence of such an authority.— The learned counsel sub-
mitted that the judge ought to have told the jury that any
interference in the offal:sof the company operated to explain
the previous consent to act so a member of the provisional
committee, and to show that the defendant, by that consent,
then authorised those with whom he consented to act to
pledge his credit for the expenses of the company.
Lord Denman said that, without meaning to enter into
general principles of law, the court thought that there were
special circumstances in the case which made it desirable that
there should be a tale.—Rule

BLAYNE V. BATIISTICI AND ANOTHEIL—ACCIDENT TO A
HORSE FROM Saw AOl OPIIATIONS.—Mr. Willer moved for
a rule to slow cause why the plaintiff's verdict for 20'.
should not be set aside, end a new trial had, on the ground
of misdirection. The action had been brought by the plain-
tiff, a cabowner, to remote damages for the loss of a pone,
which hail fallen into an excavation made iu front of his
stable, in Gower-mews, by the defendants, who had
justified under the Commiasioncrs of Sewers. The
evidence showed that the plaintiff had been pre-
viously warned by the defendants of the danger that
would attend en atteupt to bring the horse from the stable
to the open part of the road; that he persisted, rind the
horse fell in; that some clumsy attempts wire made to draw
the horse out; and that while it was uncertain whether the
bock of the horse had been broken by the oiiginal accident
or the attempt to get it out, it was quite certain that it had '
been strangled by the rape used to draw it out. The learned
judge who tried the Cave, Lord Denman, told the jury that if
the plaintiff, in neglectiog the caution given to him, had
been guilty of gross negligence, the defendants were not
' liable, but that the fact of bin having, after warning, incurred
the danger which the defendants had created did not, unless
therein he had been guilty of gross negligence, deprive him
of his remedy against these defendants, whom right to put
others into a state of siege in their homes, while alterations
were being carried on, he could not admit. The learned
counsel now submitted that the judge ought to Late told
the jury that if the plaintiff had in soy degree contributed to
the mischief of which he complained, he could not recover
against the defendants.
The court, after expressing some doubts whether the rule
as enounced by the learned counsel was not too general,
intimated its opinion that the question ought to be discussed.
Stale nisi.

BAIL COURT.
Defer. Mr. ftwtice Co:wide.
EK PASTE RECKFORD IN THE MAT Inn OF TURNER.—
MOTION TO STRIKE AN ATTORNEY OFP THE ROLL.—Mr.
Martin moved, on behalf of a Mr. Beckford, fora rule calling
on Mr. Tomer, an attorney of this court, to show cause
why he should not be struck off the roll. It appeared
that in August, 1845, Mr. Bcektord, being animus
of landing a sum of money, applied to Mr. Turner, who is
an attorney at Wolverhampton, is find some one to whom
he might lend it. On the following morning Turner told
Mr. Beckford that he would be glad to borrow the cum
(i 001.) himself, on the security of a house and 30 acres of
copyhold land, called the " lima Es:ate." On inquiry, it
was found that the property wu sufficient for the security
if this was the first mortgage, which Turner said it was.
Mr. Beckford wished Mesan:Fonter, also attorneys at Wol-
verhampton, to let for him in the preparation of the neces-
sary securities, but, on the representation of Turner that he
was unwilling to let any other attorney know that he was
borrowings:coney, Mr. Beckford alluwedi urncr himself to act.
On August 22 Turner showed Mr. Beckford three copyhold
It dmistarces. and agreed to surrender them to him in consi-
deration of the loan of 6001. Several applications were made
subsequently to Turner for the admittances, but he never de-
livered them, stating that they were in London. In March
of this year Beckford having reason to suppose that Turner
was in embarramed circumstances, canoed the Messrs.
Forster to make inquiries, when it was found that the sur-
renders had been deposited by Turner with some bankers at
Wolverhampton, which must have been done soon after
he bad got the money from Beckford. On Ist May he exe-
cuted a legal conveyance of the property to the bankers, and
as the property was not more than sufficient to pay
that debt, Mr. Beckford was deprived of his money. It was
submitted that this was such conduct in an attorney u would
justify the interference of the court.—Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Ruing. in Banco.
PRICE F. BELCHER. THE DI:TIES OP RETURNING
OFFICERS AT ELECTIONII.—Tbis was an action against the
returning officer for the borough of Abingdon, for refusing to
record the plaintiffs vote on the occasion of Sir Frederick
' Thesiger's election as the representative of the said borough.
The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Mauls at the Abing-
don assizes, when a verdict was found for the defendant,
leave being reserved to enter it for the plaintiff, damages 403.,
if the court should be of opinion that the action was Main-
Minable. The jury, in giving their verdict, said they were
of opinion that the plaintiff bad no right to vote, and that the
defendant was not actuated by any malicious motive in the
course he had pursued. The plaintiff, it appeared, was a ds-
senting minister, and his name was entered in the last
register of voters on the 31st July, antecedent to the election
now in question. Previous to that election he bad left his
residence at Abingdon, and had gone to live at Gravesend.
He had, therefore, according to the defendant's case,
ceased to be entitled to vote. He, however, tendered his
vote at the election, and the returning officer refused to
enter it. Under these cireumstances the plaintiff's complaint
was, that he tendered his vote as a burgess of the borough,
and that the defendant, maliciously intending to deprive him
of his vote, refused to record it. The plaintiff sought to esta-
blish his claim under the authority of the 79th section of the
6th and 7th Viet., by which it was enacted that the register
of voters shall be deemed and taken to be conclusive evidence
e
that the persons therein named are possessed of the qualifica-
tions in respect of which their names are entered.—
The learned judge, in summing up, told the jury they
were to decide whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to
vote—whether at the time he presented himself at the poll
Mg booth he continued to reside in the borough of Abingdon.
The jury answered these questions in the manner above stated,
and the case now came before the court upon a rule nisi,
which had been obtained pursuant to the leave reserved.
Mr. Serjeant Talfourd (followed by Mr. Maynard). for the
defendant, contended that the rule ought to be discharged,
on the ground that the plaintiff had sustained no damage,
and that he had no cause of complaint. By the 80th section
of the Registration Act, the returning officer was bound to
put two questions, respecting the right and identity of per-
sons tendering their votes. The plaintiff was not in a po-
sition to answer those questions in a meaner calculated to
satisfy the act of parliament, and, therefore, the defecdant,
in the exercise of his duty, rejected the vote. There was no
doubt, however, that the defendant had committed an error,
but the question was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to
maintain an action in respect of that error. In other words,
whether, instead of showing that his name was on the
register, the plaintiff was not bound to prove that he was
entitled to vote. The defendant, by refusing to enter his
vote, had committed no breach of the plaintiff's right, but
was guilty of a breach of his duty to the public. The plain-
tiff had no right to vote, and although the defendant, by
the course he pursued, had done that which could only
be done upon inquiry before a subsequent tribunal,
the plaintiff was not in the situation of a person entitled to
maintain an action for damages. No action could lie for an
infringement of a right, when the tight did not exist.—
Mr. Whateley, with whom was Mr. Serjt. Kinglake and
Mr. Phipeon, submitted that the rule ought to be made
absolute for entering a verdict for the plaintiff. The de-
fendant had violated the act of parliament by exercising the
functions of 'judicial instead of a ministerial office. The duties
of a returning officer were strictly ministerial, and the de-
fendant therefore had no right to reject the plaintiffs vote when
tendered. It being admitted on the other side, that the '
defendant was wrong in refusing the plaintiff's vote, the ques-
tion was as to the nature of the plaintiff's right. Had he a
right to have his vote recorded, and was the returning officer
justified in cawing a scrutiny to be made, and in ultimately
rejecting the vote ? The object of a scrutiny, such as the
legislature contemplated, was to prevent returning officers
from exercising any judgment upon the votes tendered
to them. As to the argument that the plaintiff
had sustained no damage, the learned counsel urged,
that, according to the dictum of the Lord Chief Justice Holt
in the ease of "Ashby e. White," the law would imply
damage where there was an injury, although no actual
damage existed. The defendant had given the plaintiff cause
for complaint by deciding that he had no right to vote. He
was not called upon to exercise any judgment in the matter,
but merely to record the vote amongst others which in-
fluenced the election.—The court took time to consider.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
sittings ts Banco.
CLAIM! v. NIIIPSON AND EDWANDS.—FALIE IMPRISON-
LLANT.—Aks Scale CitaTIFICATIS RISC/11PM FO N.
WITHIN 1 WIC I V., CHAP. 66?—This wean action of trespass,
to recover damages for the defendants having, without reason-
able and probable cause, charged the plaintiff with having been
implicated in the forgery of certain scrip certificates of rail.
way shares, and for having caused him to be detained in
custody and taken before the Lord Mayor of London to
answer that charge. It appeared there were two pleas
pleaded, first, not guilty; and, secondly, a justification,
setting teeth that the defendants had reasonable and probable
cause for suspecting that the plaintiff was guilty of the
offence charged against him, inasmuch ea • number of
" accountable receipts for money" had been forged by some
person, and the plaintiff, who had a desk in the Hall of
Commerce, and dealt in the sale and purchase of railway
scrip, sold the defendant, one of them, for 60 shares in the
Buckinghamshire ( Oxford and hletchley Junction) Rail-
way, and was therefore considered to have been im-
plicated in the forgery. The document described in
the plea es an " accountable receipt " purported to
have been signed by Mr. Harding, secretary to the
company, " by order of the provisional committee," and
was in these terms:—" The holder of this voucher is entitled
to fifty shares in the above undertaking, he having executed
the subscriber's agreement and parliamentary contract, and
having paid the deposits, and agreed to pay all future calls in
respect to the said shares." The principal Question raised at
the trial, which was heard before the Lord Chief Baron, stthe
London sittings after last Michaelmas Term, was, whether
the offence with which the plaintiff was charged was a mis-
demeanor or a felony. If the charge was not within the lit
Will. IV., c. 66, by which the offence of forgery was made a
felony, for " any person forging any accountable receipt
either for money or goods, or for any note or bill, or any
security for the payment of money, or any war-
rant or request for the delivery or transfer of
pods," the justification, it was contended, was not proved.
The record, which was lost since the trial, was amended at
Nisi Prius by striking out the word " accountable," so that
the opinion of the Court in Banco might be taken as to
whether scrip certificates were " receipts for money " within
the statute in question. A verdict passed for the plaintiff
upon the plea of not guilty ; for the defendants upon the
second plea; and the jury awmosed the contingent damages
at one farthing, at the same time expreming their unanimous
opinion (in which the learned judge fully concurred) that

the plaintiff wea perfectly feu from all imputation. A rule
nisi for a new trial was subsequently obtained by Sir F.
Theaiger, upon the grounds of misdirection, and that the
plea of justification had not been proved
Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Greenwood were heard yester-
day at length, showing cense against that rule, and contend-
ing that scrip certificates were "receipts fur money paid,"
and were within the meaning and contemplation of the
statute of William IV.
Sir F. Thesiger, Q. C., with whom were Mr. Humfrey, Q.C.
and Mr. Inner, who appeared for the plaintiff, were stopped
by the court, who granted the rule for a new trial, their
lordships having stated, seriatim, they had not the slightest
doubt that scrip certificates were not ' receipts for money ;"
they were merely documents, signed by order of the pro-
visional committees or direness of railway companies, by
their secretaries. certifying that particular tltlegs had been
done, not that the secretaries had received the money. These
documents did not, therefore, come within the tanning of
the Ist Wm. IV., chap. 66, which was a highly penal statute,
and should be construed strictly. The rule for a new trial
was made absolute accordingly.
SHERIFFS' COURT—Sr anal'.
Retort Mr. Under4heriff Abbott and a .yectal Jury.
Cats(. CoN.—This morning a special jury were empanelled
at the Hoene, liennicgten, to assess the damages in the ease
of Cantley r. Cooper, which was an action to recover com-
pensation on damages for injury sustained by criminal con-
versation between the defendant and the wife of the plain-
tiff. The damages were laid at 10,0001., and there was a
large number of witness. in attendance.—Sr F. Theaiger
would at once state, that es the chject of the plaintiff by
these proceedings was simply to take the necessary steps
for the procurement of a divorce, he trusted his learned
friend who appeared on behalf of Major Cooper, the dc-
fondant, would not offer any opposition to the count, which
he had alreedy stisseited the mere so, as the fact of the
adultery had been admitted on the record—by a suggestion
that the &mares should be taken for I,oool.—Mr. Edwin
James, on behalf of the defendant, said that, in all these
ease*, there were connexions of both parties to whom an
exposure of the circumstances of such a transaction
could not fail to Callie unaecessary pain. With'
a view, therefore, of avoiding that exposure and
of not offering any impediment to the severance of an union
which must in future be attend( d with misery and remorse,
he had advised hie client to consent to a verdict hr the
amount which had been named by Sir F. Theaiger. Mest
certainly upon the record there was an admission of the guilt
of the defendant, his client. There might nevertheless exist
some circumstances which were calculated very considerably to
palliate that guilt; but inasmuch es pain could not but
be inflicted upon many innocent parties if the details of this
unhappy catastrophe were gone into, he hoped he was ad-
cisme his client to adopt a proper course.—A verdict was
then taken by consent, or rather the damages were by con-
sent assessed at 1,0001.