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

NORFOLK.

Tun COUPORATION 0F.J41.11i:V71(1 on Monday last elected
Mr. Jeremiah Colman to be Mayor of that City, and Mr.
Charles Winter to be Sheriff, for the ensuing year.

DEvoNsiiikts.

HONOUR TO THE FAIR Sex.—The SEX.—The Builder says—" At
the risk of vexing some who would not have their good deeds
brought too prominently forward, we cannot avoid making
honourable mention of the remarkable perseverance and
devotim of the daughters of General Simcoe, who distin-
guished himself in the American war. These Indies, on the
ruins of the old abbey of Duukswell, near Honiton, have
erected a church, for which they worked all the stone
with their own hands. A large drawing-room, commenced
by the general, and not finished, served for the atelier.
A WATCRMIN at Dcror.port, named Davey, is in custody
on suspicion of having caused the death of a woman of in-
different character, who bad engag‘d his boat to carry her
on board the Stromboli lying in Hamoare. On the return
of Davey, shortly afterwards, he expressed his belief to a
constable that the young woman just after getting on board
the ship had fallen into the water and was drowned. The
body however was not discovered until the 27th ult., when
on being picked up, the face was found to be greatly dis-
figured, an eye was missing and the head exhibited marks
of violence. At the coroner's inquest, Davey, being sworn,
solemnly declared that he put the woman on board the ship,
a man assisting her up the aide of the vessel, and as he was
leaving he heard a splash in the water, but saw nothing
He was hailed and told that the woman was overboard, but
those on board made no attempt to save her, and after look-
ing about for some time he pulled towards the shore. On
examining Allen, the constable, that witness proved that
Davey had given different accounts of the circumstance,
for subsequent to his first statement to witness, he told him
that the woman was not drowned, but was on board the ship
all right. Witness afterwards went on board the Stromboli,
to make inquiries upon the subject, and those who were on
duty on board that ship on the night in question declared
that no woman had been brought alongside for the night. A
Serjeant of Marines had told him (Allen) that ho was on
North Corner beach on the day after the woman had been
missed, when Davey said to him, " I was alongside your ship
last night, with a woman ; she was drunk, and I was not
much better. I could not get any assistance ; she fell over-
board between the ship and the boat, and went down like a
stone." The testimony of a medical man was next given ;
he expressed it as his opinion that the deceased did not die
from drowning, in consequence of the flaccid state of the
lungs As the Stromboli is, at present, on the coast of Ire-
land, the inquiry was adjourned.
CORNWALL
• New Sitsturre.—The Gazette of last night annotthees
that ‘• the council of his Royal Highness the Prince of
Wide'," have nominated the following gentlemen sheriffs of
the county of Cornwall :—N. Kendall, of l'elyn, Esq. ; Sir
W. P. Call, of Whiteford House, Bart. ; and William Dau-
bur, of Killiou, Esq..
• .0.71.1217

THE NEW MAYOR FOR ANDOVER L, to be Mr. Thomas
Phillips. The election for Town Councillors has given rise
to some dissatisfaction in consequence of the friends of cer-
tain candidates having been required to pay some tavern
bills. Small bribery and corruption, like many other nui-
sances, are remarkably tenacious of existence. Surely those
who inttnd to do their duty to the public should no longer
countenance the system of ' paying" their way to office.
BUCKINGIIAMSITTRE. _ .

Tait GAME LAWB.—Dulins the past week no less than
thirteen prisoners were committed to the House of Correction
at Aylesbury, by the Buckinghanshire magistrates, charged
with poaching and trespassing in search of game, viz, two
for one month ; five for two months; two for three months;
and four for six meek'. During the week previous to the
last, thirteen prisoners were also committed to the Douse of
Correction, at Aylesbury, for offences against the Game-laws,
their terms of imprisonment varying from seven days up to
three months. Twaoty-ti: poachers committed within a
fortnight!
ESSEX.

THE PROPENSITY FOR STEALING.—IASt week Charles
Donellan, a labourer, of Eaat Liam, was discharged from
Ilfad Gaol, where he had undergone an impri.onotent of 21
da'e, for stealing some eahbag, plaids at Et•t Ilam. It
seems that in this case poverty was not the inemtive to
crime, for on being searched at the prison, the .nit of 951.
in gold was tinti,d upon him, and a:so a. ss. in a sia..ll hag
It app ars t!m; he had, on the evening lie was taken into
cust,ly, draws the money from the Barking 5.., bank,

----- -
The BREVET Ire THE ARMY. —lt will be perceived
with satisfaction that the anticipations expressed in this
paper of Saturday, on the subject of the military Brevet, in
honour of the birth-day of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales,
have been In every respect realised, and that the government
have at length granted a boon so long expected. A consi-
derable pecuniary outlay will, as a matter of course, be con •
sequent on the measure, but even a cursory glance at the
services of the gallant veterans promoted, will be sufficient
to convince the reader that they are entitled, perhaps,
to still further consideration at the hands of the State.
It is gratifying to observe that the three oldest gene--
rah of the army have received the highest military
title in the power of the Sovereign to bestow,
even though at far advanced periods of their lives.
The appellation in question, it should be added, has for
some years been considered merely an honorary one. Of
the six who have lately held it, but two ever witnessed an en-
gagement, viz., the noble hero of a hundred battles, and his
Majesty the King of the Netherlands, his companion in
arms at Waterloo. -The name which first catches the
eye of the reader is that of Sir George Nugent, a
gallant veteran, who has reached the advanced age of
eighty-nine, and who has been connected with the service of
his country for no less than seventy-three years. He was
engaged in the first American war from 1777, until its ter-
mination in 1783. Field Marshal Grosvenor entered the army
in 1779. The Marquis of Anglesey's services are well known.
Sir George Cockburn is now the senior general in the army,
having entered in 1779, and been promoted to the rank in
question in 1819. Fourteen Lieut.-Generals have been made
Generals, so that the latter list is now a strong one. Sir
Colin Heiken, Colonel of the 31st Foot, which suffered so
severely in the late war in India ,• Sir F. Adam, and
Sir Peregrine Maitland, three old Waterloo veterans,
are in the batch promoted. By the further changes,
several staff appointments will, according to usage, be-
come vacant. It will be seen that two of the eminent family
of Napier have been promoted. Amongst those advanced
from the rank of colonel to that of major-general, are some
officers whose names are somewhat familiar to the reader,
vie., Sir H. Smith, the hero of Alewal, Sir de Lacy Evans,
Sir Joseph Thackwell, and the Hon. Col. Cavendish of the
Ist Life Guards, the lieut.-colonelcy of which is now vomit.

lab) Intelligente.

LAW NOTICES.—TiIIs DAY.

COUR? or CIUNCRUT, Westminster, at 10.—Appeals: Thomas v.
Blackman, part heard; Bends v. Sirloin; Cooper v. Pitcher; Salkeld
v. Johnson ; Booth s. Creawick.
Vies..Cusscativos' Cocas', Westminster, at 10,—Before Sir L.
ShadwelL —Comas, Re.—Grand Junction Canal Co. v. Dines, part
bawd; Hower s. Seto; Parker v. Day (2) ; Johnson v. Forrester;
Terry v. Wieber ; Simpson v. Holt; Gamma v. Moor; Small v. Nick-
Red (2) ; Peacock v. Kernet ; Morrison v. Watkins ; Wright Berne-
wall ; Ormenway v. Buchanan.—Before Sir J. Knight Bruce t Bank-
rapt petitions (Court of Review.)—Exporte Hind re Cromiand ;
ex Smith re Allen ; ex Green in re hing Railway Co. ; ex Clay re Ball ;
or Fletcher re Phillips; ex Worrell re Worrell; ex Winterbotham
re Potter; ex Bromage re Jones ; ex Hardy re Thomson; ex Wal-
ton re Clarke.--Equity causes : Wilson V. Porker, part heard ; Pascoe
v. Sanders (2), Woodward v. Miller; Shaw T. Hill ; Beach.. Rowley.—
Before Sir J. Wigram : Campbell s. Brighton Railway, for judg-
ment; Duncombe v. Levy, ditto; Jackson v. Picketing, to be spoke
to in re Brighton Railway Company, by order.—Causea, He.—
Dale v. Hamilton, part beard ;:Blair v. Bromley ; Saito& s. Shaw;
Preston s. Klima ; Eraerson v. Emerson; Hammon v. ended,* ;
Warner v. Hodgson (2) ; Kirby s. Marsh.
Roue Corn., Westminster, at 10. Carnes, fte. : Rotation v.
Wall, part heard; Knights s. Stanton; Perry v. ?deddowcroft ; At-
toroey-Osneral v. Magdalen College; Feintel r. King's College;
Attoniey•Oeneral v. Ludlow ; Hopkinson Ottley v. Gray;
Willis s.,,Douglas ; Howardte. Howard ; Lockhart v. Hardy; Onsley
v. Andruther.
Comes or Quern's Baer, Westminster, at 10.—Sittings in Barre.
Comm or Corinne Putts, Weenninster, at 10.—Sittings in Banco.
Cocas or Cowan. PLTAR, Guildhall, at 10.—ha Sitting in
Michaelmas Term.—Middlesex Common and Special Jury maim
entered for this sitting.
COURT or Exenotinia, Westminster, at 10.--Middlesex Common
Juries.—Maclean v. Wing, part beard; Talbot v. Dalton ; Banks v.
*Tidwell; Massey v. Hetherington; Cowan Y. Cole. The Court
will sit in Banco.

EQUITY COURTS.--YESTERDAY.
_ Before the Lord Chancellor.

IN RE DYCE £IOO\IWILE.—IN- Rolt stated
that the coni.sel on both sides in this matter had a meeting as
his lordship suggested, but did not come to any arrangement.
He asked that the petition might be allowed to stand for the
next day of petitions in lunacy.
The Lord Chancellor assented.
GOMPERTZ V. GOMPERTZ.—CONSTRUCTION OP A WILL.
—This was an appeal from a decision of the Vice-Chancellor
of England upoi a clause in the will of Solomon Baron
Gomperts. By that will, made in 1796, the testator left the
residue of his estate, in certain specified shares, among his
five eons and five daughters, and left the sons at liberty to
give each of their sisters 4,0001. odd in lieu of her share ; and
the testator directed that the interi st of each daughter's
share, or sum of money, should be paid to her during her life,
and on her death the capital be divided among her children.
The testator did not provide expressly for the event of any
of his daughters dying without children. In a suit for ad-
ministering the will a decree was made in 1604, and several
orders since that time. Upon the death, very recently, of
one of the daughters, the wife of Mr. Lewis Hollender,
without children, the next of kin of the testator, at his
death, or their representatives, claimed to be entitled to
Mrs. Hollander's share of the residue, and the Vice-Chan-
cellor decreed in their favour.
Mr. Walker was now proceeding to support that decree,
but the Lord Chancellor soon stopped him, and desired the
appellant's counsel to state his objections to it.
Mr. James l'arker and Mr. Speed then contended that
Mrs. llolleuder and the other daughters of the testator took
their shares absolutely, with a direction, only in caseshe bad
children, to distribute her share among them In a certain
manner. _ .

The Lord Chancellor was of ft different opinion, and en-
tertained no doubt that the daughter took only a life interest
in the share of toe residue, and that on her death without
issue, the same reverted to the testator's next of kin.—The
Vice-Chanc.llor's decree was affirmed.

Before tbe

of England.

KIRI V. THE BROMLEY UNION.—RELIVIREMENT RY A
BUILDING CONTRACT THAT ALL DEVIATIONS FROM IT
SHOULD RE IN WRITING, HELD TO RE WAIVED HY Ac-
QUIESCENCE.—This bill was tiled by Mr. Kirk, a builder,
against the Guardians of the Poor of the Bromley Union, in
the county of Kent, fur the purpose of compelling the defen-

slants to pay the plaintiff certain sums of money charged by
him for deviations and alterations in carrying out a contract
entered into by him for building a workhouse in the Brom-
ley Union. The bill stated that a contract was entered usto
by the plaintiff for building the workhouse fur the sum of
6.6751., and that such contract contained a clause that it
should be in the power of the Board of Guardians, or of the
architect, (b the authority of the Board of Guardians,) to
direct such alterations to be made in the works during their
progress as they might deem expedient which alterations
should not vacate, or make void the contract, but should bo
perforated by the contractor, and the value.. thereof to
be ascertained by an architect, and to be added to the
amount of the contract, but no allowance whatever
was to be made to the contractor for the extra or ad-
ditional work, unless the same should have been ordered
its writing. The bill then stated that no deviation
from the plans and designs originally proposed, was in any
ease made, without the express sanction of Messrs. Savagd
e
and Foden, the architects employed by the guardians, rin
although no writing. was actually signed by the
constantly
visited the building, and were well aware of and sanctioned
all the deviations that were made. The plaintiff, on th
he
completion of the building in February, 1845, delivere
due to him
d s
bill to the defendants for the sum remaining ,
under the contract, and for additional work performed upon
the building, when the architects refused to certify for the
amount, alleging that the work had been done without any
written ord.'', authorising the plaintiff to execute them. The
bill contained a charge that the plaintiff always con-
sidered, and was, in fact, induced by the conduct
of the defendants, and their acquiescence in the
deviations from the original plan of the building,
which were from time to time made by the direction of the
architects or their clerk of the works, to consider that all
such orders were given to him with the cognisance and by
the direction of the defendants. That all the deviations for
which the plaintiff had charged as additional work, were
sanctioned, and approsed, and authorised bv the defendants,
and minutes of such approval were entered in the minute-
book of the proceedings kept in the board room of the
guardians, and signed by the chairman present at the meet-
ings of the guardians. That the defendants, during the
whole time that the works were in progress, encouraged the
plaintiff to believe, and, in fact, gave him to understand,
that all the additional work, which was performed by the
plaintiff, was ordered with the knowledge of the defendants,
and by their authority, and would be paid for by them.
A demurrer was put in to this bill by the guardians, on
the ground that as no agreement in writing was executed,
authorising the deviations from the plaintiff's contract, he
could not now be entitled to payment of the sums claimed
by him.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Hargrave appeared for the demurrer,
and Mr. Babel' and Mr. liethenngton in support of
the bill.
The Vice-Chancellor said the general rule in this court
was that a contract which was solemnly made should bind
both parties, but it was acknowledged, that notwithstanding
any express contract, the conduct which one party pursued
and the other acknowledged, might be binding. The mean-
ing of this contract clearly was that the guardians should not
be put to additional exyenses for deviations and alterations,
unless the intention was manifested by a written order, but
the bill contained statements that the plaintiff had very
seldom any communication with the defendants, the clerk of
the works always acting in their behalf, and that plaintiff
was induced by the conduct of the defendants and their
acquiescence in the deviations, to consider that they bad
been sanctioned and authorised by the defendants. This fact
was admitted by the demurrer, and his Honour was clearly of
opinion that there was an equity on the part of the plaintiff to
enforce fur his benefit the right which resulted from the course
of conduct pursued by the defendants. This was consistent
with the rules of equity, and, notwithstanding the contract,
the conduct of the defendants had laid them under an obli-
gation to pay the plaintiff, which this court would enforce.
Lama V. COOPER.—SOUTH MIDLAND RAILWAY COll-
- FILED FOR DISTRIBUTING TILE FUNDS.-
The facts of this cue were fully reported in the Daily News
of July the 6th, when an injunction was granted against
three of the directors in the South Midland Railway Com-
pany, restraining them from receiving a cum of 65,0001., the
funds of the company, on the ground that they had, con-
trary to the powers contained in their act, entered into an
agreement for the amalgamation of their company with the
Southampton and Poole Railway Company. The present
bill was filed by one of the shareholders against the directors
to have a distribution of the funds, and a demurrer was put in
on the ground that there could be no distribution without
the affairs of the company being wound up and the accounts
taken.
Mr. Terrell appeared for the demurrer, and Mr. Bethel in
support of the bill.
The Vice-Chancellor overruled the demurrer.