The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-23 00:00:00

tended a Roman Catholic place of worship, in company
with his lady, and two, at least, of his children. It is
mid that Ills notions of religion were latitudinarian ;
that circumstance may in some degree account for
Ste fleet which I have just mentioned. He appears
to have had no objection to his lady attending a lloman
Catholic chapel, but on the contrary he offered togo with her
After the absence of a few weeks, ho appears to have re-
turned in an ill state of health, to a place where there was
So Roman Catholic chapel; and he died. having refused to
relive the attendance of the rector of the paruih. It does
n_e_deffear that any proposal was made to him, or that he ex-
any wish far the attendance of a Roman Catholic priest.
illness and death appear to have taken place without the
wish for the attendance of any clergyman. It is not
alleged that he ever conferred with any priest of the Roman
Catholic religion ; it is not alleged that his children
ever conferred with any priest of that religion ; and it is not
stig;ested, that this gentleman, whose religion was prates.
tent, had ever professed a departure from the religion of his
youth; but irons the facts that I have stated, it is inferred
that a change of religious sentiments, or a conversion, was
in progress. It is said that he was what Mrs. North
describes as • catechumen ; but if so, that must have been
without a teacher, for it is not suggested that he received
any instruction preparatory to his becoming • Roman
Catholic, though it is suggested that he would have done so
if ho had lived. Upon the materials Wore me I must
take it that he did not become a Rennin Catholic, but that
either through curiosity, or latitudinarian principles,
he attended some services of the Roman Catholic
Church, without changing his religion. It is im-
possible to say what might be the conclusion of
the court upon receiving further evidence. Upon
the present evidence I must assume that, having been bred
a Protestant, he continued a Protestant to the end of life.
'Upon the present evidence I must assume that, as he died
intestate, so he never expressed a wish as to the religious
education of his children—a remark which I make, subject
to the qualification (if it is one) which may be supposed to
arise from the facts which I have mentioned. What, then,
is the duty of the court as to the religion of these children ?
That it should view the subject of their religious edu-
cation with indifference is out of the question. That
their religious education should depend upon the
mere will and pleasure of the person or persons
who may happen to be the guardian or guardians,
especially where there is no testamentary guardian, seems
equally out of the question. As it is the duty of this court
to superintend the management of the property of infants, so
more especially is it its duty to superintend their religious
education, until years of discretion have arrived when they
may think fit to choose their religion for themselves. I ap-
prehend the rule of the court to that where • father has
not left any disectiun or instruction as to the religion in
which hie children are to be educated, it is to be presumed
that his wishes are that they should be educated in his reli-
gion. I ..fin ofopinion that upon the materials before me,
and for the purpos.s of this petition, that is the pre-
sumption in this case. Unless this case should be varied
by subsequent evidence, I think-it is the duty of this court
to direct these children to be brought up as members of the
Church of England. That, it may be said, does not dispose
of the question of the interim custody, which may reasonably
be entrusted to Mrs. North. Recollecting, however, that
Mrs. North (of whom I do not wish to be considered as speak-
ing otherwise than with the most perfect respect) comes before
the court under such circumstances, that it is impossible not to
es that she is a recent convert, I cannot but fear, that pith
the kindest and best motives on her part, the children may
receive in her custody an inclination towards that religion in
which it is the duty of the court to see that they should not
be educated. I cannot, therefore, give her the interim cus-
tody of the infanta.
His llcnour then said that the infants who were in Norfolk
must be immediately removed under the habeas corpus ; and
that the Muster must approve of proper guardians, and that
in the mean time the children must be consigned to
the custody of Miss North, and Mrs. Wilson, and for
that purpose be removed to Hastings ; Mrs. North having
liberty to visit them for two hours every day, in the pre-
sence of one of the above-named persons ; but no religious
topics to be introduced into conversation.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.--Gctuntat.L.
SCTTLIM‘ AT Nun flays—netere Lord Denmanand a special jury.
birwrOre e. STEWART.—LIABILITY OP A MEMBER OP A
PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE OP A RAILWAY COMPANY FOR
ADVERTISEMENTS OF THAT COMPANY.—Mr. Crowder, Q.C.,
and Mr. Bell appeared for the plaintiff in this case, who is
an advertising agent, and sought to recover the sum of 2341.
for advertisements inserted by him in several newspapers, of
a projected railway company, called the Canterbury and
Herne Bay Railway Company. For the plaintiff it was
shown that the advertisements had been inserted by the order
of the secretary, who stated that he had the authority of the
directors to insert them; that the defendant's name had
been inserted in the list of the provisional committee, and in
a prospectus which was published on the 16tn of October,
1845, on the authority of a gentleman, named Bain ; that
the defendant attended at the office of the company, on the
15th of November, signed the consent to act as a member
of the committee, and the agreement to take shares, and
stated positively, that he had authorised Mr. Bain to insert
his name in the lists of provisional directors of various rail-
way companies, and that he approved of his having inserted
it in that of the Canterbury and Herne Bay Railway Com-
pany ; that the defendant subs( quently attended a meeting
at which an auditing committee was appointed, by which
committee the accounts of the plaintiff were afterwards
allowed ; that a list of the claims on the company was for-
warded is the defendant by the secretary, with a demand
for his quota ; and that the defendant paid the quota so de-
manded. Mr. Keane, with whom was Mr. Fitzpatrick,
objected to the formal proof that the advertisements had been
inserted, and also to the admission of an unatamped consent
to act as • member of the committee. Lord Denman took a
note of the objections, and directed that the case should pro-
ceed. Mr. Keane then addressed thejury for the defendant and
contended that u the cues of"Wylde v. Hopkins" and " Rey-
nell v. Lewis," showed that there was no partnership nor quasi
partnership between the members of a provisional committee,
they were only responsible in the event of their having
pledged their credit in express terms, or having been made
specially cognisant that the credit of the committee was about
to be pledged in the particular instance, and not having tas-
sentell—ili view which had been entertained by the Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas and the Chief Baron of the
Exchequer in two recent cases. He submitted, that if there
had been an implied authority to pledge the defendant's cre-
dit for the purposes of the company before the 15th Nov.,
that authority did not extend to advertisements inserted sub-
sequently,because that would be during the panic; and to show
that the liability of the defendant commenced on the 15th of
November only, would call Mr. Bain, who would state that
the defendant had not authorised him to insert his name in
the committee lists of various railways, or any railway. If
Mr. Bain should so depose, it would be for the jury to de-
termine whether the statement of the secretary was to be
believed. Mr. Bain having been called, and having deposed
to the effect above stated, Mr. Crowder replied.
Lord Denman told the jury that this case had been put
by the learned counsel on either side as depending on the
statute 7 and 8 is , c. 110, which, ho must say,
had introduced little, if any, novelty, into the law,
and furnished but scanty means of guidance. By
the provisions of that act, the promoters of a company
were bound to register themselves as such. And having
done so, wore entitled to do certain things specified in that
act, and described these generally, as necessary for constitu-
ting the company. The first question, therefore, which the
jury would have to consider would be, whether the inser-
tion of advertisements in the public newspapers was an act
necessary for constituting the company. If it was not, of
course the verdict must he for the defendant. But, assuming
it to he necessary, then the question was, first, whether the de-
fendant had rendered himself liable at all, and secondly, from
what time that liability was to be dated. If Bain could be
taken as having a general authority from the defendent to put
his name down as a provisional committeeman, then that lia-
bility must be dated from the 16th October, and would cover
the whole of the plaintifFs demand. If Bain had no such gene-
ral authority, then the defendant's liability must be restricted
to the period from which be had himself signed the list of
provisional committeemen, and had begun personally to in-
terfere in the affars of the company. They would say whe-
ther they believed Mr. Bain or the secretary in respect of the
authority to insert the defendant's name ; and on this head
they would also consider whether the conduct of the defend-
ant did not raise a presumption that he had given to Mr.
Bain a general authority wbinb Mr. Bain 'hid forgotten.—
The jury retired for two hours, and on their return into
court, put a question to the learned judge, which elicited an
answer repeating the remarks in the preceding sentence,
whereupon they gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Ourtnisatn.
PlLlUK—Before the Lord Chief Justice Wilde and • Special Jury.
You; lo e. QVINCEY.--THE CAMPHINE LAMP.—ALLEGED
Imeiirsosmaxv OP THE PATENT.—Mr. Seleant Byles,
Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Dowdeswell for the plaintiff; Mr.
Montague Chambers, Mr. Cleashy, and Mr. Webster for the
defendant —This was an action brought by the patentee of
the ramphine spirit lamp against the defendant, fur an
alleged infringement of his patent. The date of the
plaintiffs patent was May 28, 1842: and it appeared that on
the 25th of March, 1844, the defendant obtained a patent for
the invention of • lamp, which it was contended amounted
substantially to an infringement. The plaintiff, by his
specification, claimed the mode of applying wood or other
non-conductor of heat between the flame and the reservoir
containing the spirit, " as a means of preventing the con-
ducting down of heat into the spirit." Another portion of
his claim was a new mode of raising the wicks by means of
the outer moveable guard, so as to exhibit more or less of
the ignited cotton as required. The lamp so constructed was
called by the plaintiff the " Vesta," and that of the defendant
the " Standard." The ground upon which itwas alleged that
the invention claimed by the defendant was an infringement
of the plaintiff's patent, was that the former had adopted the
same medium of insulating the flame of the lamp, and keep-
ing the heat from travelling into the reservoir containing the
spirit. The principle adopted by the defendant was an im-
provement upon the old argand burner, and his method of
interposing • non-conductor between the flame and the
spirit was by placing in the reservoir a glass tube which
ascended more than half way up the metallic tube, with a
stratum of air between, and tile material used for cement-
ing the one tube to the other was plaster of Paris. The
plaintiff contended that his patent had been infringed by
this mode of interposing a non-conductor, inasmuch as it
was substantially the same process of insulating the flame.
A great many scientific witnesses were called on the part of
the plaintiff, and amongst them Professor Brandt and Mr.
Cooper, the former of whom stated that the principle of
using a non-conductor was not new, but the particular
method adopted by the plaintiff was new. Mr. Brandt,
however, admitted that there was a difference between
the plaintiff's invention and that claimed by the
defendant, namely, that in the one use the object
was to prevent the heat from travelling downwards
into the spirit, and in the other to avoid the posdbility