The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-13 00:00:00

)4insonovon Au. AGED grata—Nit. Banbury's Meattude beat
Mr. Arabia Q. Alpha. Not run eat.
stdocsne.—lt wee I Amsted, Jost previously to
Ohs he saires. that la iessthe intend= d the ice
meter tie the leek Is ban, Neesislik_t_ez ejtibuathe____,_
within the welt It was hang. lust wapruy at
met who We Ugh the mai stag ast bur davit the week
woad be maw lee we& at • pee t OM le thaw who sold
Mae 01 a wily imqp holima deg. went the lagetwasa 1031
he he
; tame masks barbs sirwig Mims pktim ( OR MOW.
y..awl Weimid), mai gm hat* wil take Swe today. at
mam Oar do *slag durse lime ius an TwanilM, the
swi Wmaligas ti...w.b....a.4.
Li..yeed,..„6:....1461161 NM boar taillen ths very
Istbr —ass awe Om awes (sag the nib assaw d die Peek
POI alig ow at thaw) betas ntemot et Iteewb/ikeit, the
Me= =whir li.Thseartribelii:avelan W=aia:
doeMeng.bisk lis
_Mot Chobt, away
ene tome. Ow ammo la Shrubs-
hal sid grawasegrn. Biro ftl eagail about Mg wateings al la boar
kr Wad Chmer% Mesielisna. sad was at 101 taken la • pawl,
ekes at saansian, air sleet se board aWs rat, the gret
part at almost nail, egad.

/MD Entrilfgenet•
--.---- I
LAW NOTICES.—THis Dor.
Cover or CWAYCFRY, Westminster, at 10.—E1e•en UnOPPOled
lunatic petitions. Cause petit order : Blake v. Lord Wa&abort
(2) : Bristow v. Needham. Appeals;: Booth v. Creserlek, part beard ; I
Fortes v. Leeming; Andrews v. Lockwood; Watts v. Hyde ; Eyre sr. I
1
.
aye
z.Csarecninas' Covers, Westinhoster, at 10. —Bete. Mr L.
Bluidwell.—ante petitions, the unopposed first and short causes.
C 411104 petitions, /Ct., by order : Bern ford v. Arm*h, to be spoken
v.
to ; ,t,inions T. Simons, ditto; Cmhet v. LiniW.k (2) ; Hall
yrorroobo ; "ate v, Pick,
_part beard ; Expecte Smith. petition;
Carter v. Gili; Hobos T. Bell ; Mithad V. &Venda Causer,
Grand Junction Grave(
)C:a! V. Dimes, weaned ; Bower v. Scott •
(q); Parker v. Day (2 : Jo *moon v. FORTAIT; Terry v. Weaker ;
Simpson v. Holt. Before Sir J. Knight Brocc.—Twenty-three cense
Client, Causes, lie.: Massey v. ;anion, to be spoke to ; Stewart v.
by, by order ; Appendy , Page i Woodward ". Miller; Shaw v.
Hill ; Coward v. Coward ; b .W.h v. Wielley ; nand' V. Francis (2);
Edwards •v, Browne. Before gjr J. Wigram.—Frazer v. Jones, for
rtiagnirst ; DuStotobe v. Levy, *.'? be eFeke,b, ; liter Motions, by
order. CAUSCS : Dale v. Hamilton, part bean, ; l'k)wuen v. Thelle :
Blair v. Bromley ; &stock v. Shaw : Prestos ". Wilson ; Enurson v.
Emerson :Hammon v. Sedgwiek • Warner v. Hodgson (2).
Botts Cot ier, Westminster, at 6.—For judgment : Earl Nelson v.
Lord Bridport. Caner, ne. : Perry v. Aleddowcrolt, part heard; At-
Lord v. Magdalen College ; Teistel v. King's allege; At-
torney-Genenl v. Ludlow ; llopkinson v. Ellis ; Ott ley v. Gray ; Wil-
lie v. linuglas ; Howard v. Howard ; Lockhart v. Hardy : Ouwley v.
Anstruther ; Hubbard •v. Tonsil • Stratford v. Beast.
Cower or Cosmos BINCII, Westminster, at 10.—Sittings in Banco.
Coeur or Cosmos Pia" Westminster, at 10.— Inkldleses Com-
mon
e;JeParratt v. Berkeley, Psq. • Clayton v. Jam; Wilkie
T. Pil ; Mackenzie v. Hunter, Esg. ; Lake v. Williams J. G.
Yearn v. Earl Me:borough (special jury) ; Fagan v. Webb; Stebbing
v. Goodchild ; Scarlett v. Tucker; Ford v. Lltitard ; Carlin v. Lord
Mesborough (special jul7) ; Reid v. Wellesley; Hollis v. Ewen;
n r. Clarke ; Tbrupp v. Cuthill ; Fadenwilhi v. Iloboyd and an-
other;other Shaw v. Clarkson; Fridenwillti v. Smith. The Court will also
sit in Banco.
Corer or Eacirsuesa, Westminster. at 10.—Middlesex Common
Jocks.—Tibbets v. Dalton and wife ; Cowan'. Cole. The Court will
also sit in Banco.
hall-street, at 11.—Seward v. Martin.
&costumes Corer, Basing
dale; Barnard v. "":"dale; Thomas ". Nance ; now v. Tame.
----
__

EQUITY COURTS—YESTERDAY.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
IN THE MATTER OP TBOUTBECICB ESTATE.—PETITION
07 Riour.—Mr. Anstey applied on the first day of term for
a commission to be issued, to inquire into the facts stated in
a petition of right presented by lqrs. Caroline Robson and
Mrs. Ainsley, claiming to be the next of kin of a testator, of
the name of Samuel '1 routbcck, who died in India in 1792,
leaving a large estate, a great part of which he willed to be
employed in the erection of charitable institutions in White
chapel. These bequests were declared void, and they and
the residue of the testator's estate were seized into the hands
of the Crown, for want of heirs or next of kin of the testator.
The petition prayed, in the usual way, that right be done to
the petitioners ; and, with that view ,a commission should
be issued, to inquire into the facts. The Lord Chancellor
on that occasion observed, that the petitioners were entitled
to the commission as of right, but if his sanction was
wanted, be would require notice to be served on the Attor-
ney-General. The matter stood over for that purpose, and
notice having been accordingly given, this morning the
Attorney-General (with whom were Mr. Twin, Mr. Wrey,
and Mr. Waddington, on behalf of the Crown), applied
that the matter might be allowed to stand over for some

time longer.
Mr. Anstey.submittcd that no delay should be interposed
by the Crown in the way of these petitioners—one of them
was 80 years of age, and the other 76; and remembering
that by the death of a petitioner of right lately (the Baron
de Bode), that suit abated, and all the proceedings should be
commenced again, he hoped his lordship would not grant
any delay, especially in so plain a matter, and in which such
an array of counsel attended for the Crown. He further stated
that this petition was presented to the Queen in Juno,
184.5, and it was not until July, 1846, that it was referred to
the Lord Chancellor—then too late to take any proceedings in
it before the vacation. A large sum of money was in the pos-
session of the Crown, and there was no justification of further
delay to the prejudice of these supplicants.
After some conversation between the counsel on both sides
and the Lord Chancellor, the application for the commission
was appointed for next Monday week.
SALKELD v. JOFINSON.—SIf Francis Simpkinson was
about to open this appeal, which involves some nice questions
on the law of tithes, when
The Lord Chancellor said he could not hear the case
without having the opinion of a court of law. Ilia
predecessor seat a caw to the Court of Common Pleas. The
Judges of that court were equally divided, so their certificate
came to nothing. It appeared that is another case of pre-
cimely the same nature the judges of the Court of Queen's
nch were equally divided. The only court left was the
Exchequer, and the better way would be for the parties to
send a case there.
Mr. Wood and other counsel for the parties said they
would prefer taking his lordship's decree. The case would
in any event be taken to the House of Lords, and there the
opinions of all the judges could be taken.
The Lord Chancellor said he was bound by tho practice.
As his predecessor (Lord Lyndhurst) sent a case to a court
of law, he could not now do otherwise.—lt was then agreed
-..nd a ease to the Court of Exchequer.

name the Vice-Chancellor of England.
BRENNER O. MCNAIR.—DISMISSAL OF AN AGENT TO
THE GLASGOW AND LIVERPOOL STEAM-PACKET COMPANY.
—This was an application for an injunction to restrain the
defendants, who,were directors in the Glasgow and Liverpool
Steam-packet Company, from discharging the plaintiff from
the office of agent to the company, in which position he had
been ever since the original formation of the company. By
the affidavit of the plaintiff it was stated that he had been
chiefly instrumental in forming this company, and had
always acted as their manager and agent at Liverpool ; that
at a meeting of the shareholders held in March, 1838, a re-
solution was passed that the plaintiff should be the managing
partner and shareholder, and should have the entire and
exclusive control and management of the affairs and agency
business at Liverpool ; that subsequently to this, a contract
of partnership was executed, dated in October, 1844, by
which the preceding acts of the partnership were annulled ;
the defendants were appointed directors, and power was given
them to appoint a manager at Glasgow, and agents at the
different ports, for the management of the company's ves-
sels and business, and to appoint masters, officers, crews, and
servants, and to dismiss the individuals so appointed, and to
appoint others in their place. The defendants, acting under
this power, gave notice to the plaintiff that his services
would no longer be required as agent to the company, and
another agent was appointed.
Mr. Bethell, on behalf of the plaintiff, contended that it
was not intended by this clause that the directors should
have the power to discharge a person in his capacity, acting
as a shareholder and manager, but merely the servants of
the company, and that the Plaintiff had taken a share in the
company, and had executed the contract upon the express
understanding that he was to continue acting as the Liver-
pool agent. Mr. Stuart and Mr. Shee appeared for the
defendants.
The Vice-Chancellor said it appeared that the plaintiff
was dismissed on the 31st of December, 1845, and it would
have been much more convenient to the company as well as
to the plaintiff if this bill had been filed upon his receiving
the intimation that he would be dismissed, instead of allow-
ing the directors to appoint aent and allow the
tv to be conducted by him foranother so long a time ; by this
course the company had been placed in a worse position
than they would otherwise have been. However, upon con-
sideri. ag the contract executed by the shareholders, in Oct.,
1844, , he thought the directors bad full power to exercise the
author ity. even them of appointing agents from time to time
and did unsung such individuals so appointed, and to appoint
others i a their place. His opinion was that what the directors
had don • was within the limits of their authority. The
motions vas emuequently refineL
SIR ( inOnCilt LARPaNT c. Tete RICHMOND RAILWAY
COMPANI f.—Celtril OF AN INJCNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE
COMPANY • FROM TARING POSSESSION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
LAND.—A a injunction was obtained on behalf of Sir
George La ipent,.in April laa, ee restrain the Richmond
Railway C ampany from taking possession of certain pro-
perty been 'Wog to the p situate at Putney,
until the co espanyehould have paid the purchase-money fee
such propert v, The railway compeer/ havinc paid die money,
and the sale I saving been compleSs the injunctiew was dis-
solved by arra Illoalart-
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Miller now moved, on behalf of the
company, that the plaintiff might be ardered to pay the costa
of the proceedi, Is, ea the ground fiat be had been guilty of
mierepresentatit Dupont theapplicatiestor the injunctaen, and
had committed rhos An delivering bie abstract of the title to
the property.
The Vice-Chani flet„ without hearingyr. Bethel and Mr.
Fooks, who appear, far the plaintiff, mats he considered that
Sir George Lsrpent had perfectly good grounds for filing this
bill ; the money was, paid by the company, and be had now
to consider the case as' lithe cause had come on for heariag.
If this had been the cue, and the money had net been paid
he would certainly h. the continued the injunction, but that
was now useless, and Is e was of opinion that the defendants
ought to pay the costs o.e the motion, and the costs of the
Mae.

Before Tlce-Cll smeller Knight Bruce.
ESDAI7,II V. MOLD/41U'. —JURISDICTION OF THE VICE-
C BANC ELLOII3.—In this ease a plea and answer had been put
in by the defendant in bar oaf the whole bill, and the plea
being overruled upon argument in Trinity term last, the
plaintiff had obtained an order of course, at the Rolls, for
liberty to file exceptions to the answer.—Mx. Wigram and
Mr. Bird now moved, on the part of the defendant, that the
order made by the Master of the Rolls might be discharged,
and that the exceptions might be taken off the file for irregu-
larity, with coats. The learned counsel contended, that since
the new orders it was not competent to the plaintiff to Me
exceptions to the answer after the date at which the plea had
been overruled.
His Honour, after referring to the statute* 6 Vic., chap. 5,
by which two new Vioe-Chancellors are co. d,
said
that it would be plainly illegal for him to disohalZra an order
of the Master of the Rolls, even though the order was Mtßajr