The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

Before the raw-Chantellor of England.
THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIM 8.—
ADMISSION OP A CORPORATION TO Co
in
he
arguments in this case, which was reported in this paper
Tue,:lsy last, were concluded. The only question was, whe-
ther the plaintiffs, the Grand Junction Canal Company, who
had purchased certain copyhold lands in Rickmansworth
from Jos. tkidmore, the copyhold tenant, fur the purpose of
their canal, could compel the defendant, who was lord of the
monor of Rickmansworth, to admit them, or to admit the
customary heir of Joseph Skidmore, the oritcinal vendor.—
Mr. Hethell, Mr. Humphreys, and Mr. Smithies appeared for

the defendant.
The Vice-Chancellor said, it appeared to him the whole
difficulty had arisen in this case from the fact that when the
act of parliament was passed under which the plaintiffs bad
power to make their canal, sufficient conside, ation was not
given to the circumstance that a portion of the land to be
taken was copyhold; if that fact had been brought to the
attention of the framers of the act there would have been
more special provisions introduced. As it stood, his Honour
thought that she act had authorised any person who had the
right, title, or interest in the land, by such a conveyance,
the form of which was pointed out, to convey all
their right, title, and interest. Jos. Skidmore was the copy-
hold tenant of this land, and the corporation purchased from
him, for valuable consideration, and the land was conveyed
under the act. lie considered that this act provided for the
conveyance by a party who had an interest of his own and
no more, and it could not mean that where a party by that
form conveyed his interest, that he should be taken to have
passed anything which trespassed on the rights of others.
Joseph Skidmore, in conveying his interest, had perfect
right to demand that his copyhold should be continued to his
grantee by the admission of l is heir, but it could never have
been intended by the act that he should pass the absolute
interest in the land which, in fact, would he passing what did
not belong to him. His opinion was that the heir of Skid-
more was a trustee for the company, and the company could
compel the lord to admit such heir. He should, therefore,
declare that Thomas Edmund Skidmore, the heir of Joseph
Skidmore, the copyholder, according to the custom of the
manor, was the person who ought to be admitted tenant on
the court rolls, and, when admitted, that he would be a
trustee of the estate for the company, and that there should
be a reference to the master to decide what fine was to be
paid by the company upon the admission of Skidmore'a
heir, and that the company should pay his costs, and re-
cover them from the defendant Dimes.
HALL v. Iltrooritx.—in this case, reported in our paper
of Saturday, the plaintiff's name was misprinted Hale,

Before Vloisthanceßet Knight Bruce.
NAYLOR V. SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY COMPANY.
FORPEITURL OP SHARES.—NON-PAYMENT OF CALLS.
This was a motion to restrain the directors of the above
company from declaring a forfeiture, and proceeding to a
sale of the plaintifl's shares. The plaintiff is a lady, who
held 401 shares in the company, and had up to the 15th of
October, 1845, paid calls to the amount of 10,0251. In
January, 1846, a further call was made of 101.. per. share.
Oa the 15th of April, the day on which the interest
on th., calls became due, the plaintiff, not hav-
ing paid the calls of the preceding January, the
directors sent her a cheque or warrant for interest on
the 10,02.51. only. The plaintiff then offered to pay the
additional calls with 51. per cent. interest, upon condition
that the directors made good her interest up to the 15th of ;
April. The directors insisted that they were not bound to
accede to any such terms, for that by the 35th section of
their Act of Parliament, no interest "accrued" to the
plaintiff, so long as her calls were unpaid ; and they threa-
tened, unless she paid her calls unconditionally, to declare
her shares forfeited. By the 35th section of the act, the direr-
ton may, uatil the completion and opening of the railway,
pay interest not exceeding 51. per cent. per annum in respect
of calls paid upon every share, from the day of payment
of such calls; such interest to accrue and be paid at such
times and places as the directors shall appoint. Provided
that no interest shall accrue to the proprietor of any share
upon which any call shall be in arrear in respect of such
shares, or of any other share held by the same proprietor
during the period while such call shall remain unpaid.—Mr.
Wigram and Mr. Stevens appeared in support of the mo-
tion, and contended that the word " accrue, in the proviso,
merely meant " become payable ;" and consequently that
their client was entitled to interest upon paying up the calls.
—Mr. Russell and Mr. Chandlers appeared for the company.
His Honour said thathe was sorry that, according to his present
impression, the plaintiff must lose the interest which she
would have been entitled to if she had paid the calls in
January. He would not however decline giving the plaintiff
a case for the opinion of a court of law if she wished it. His
Honour then asked Mr. Russell whether, in the event of the
court of law deciding
.against the company, they would
allow the plaintiff the interest.—Mr. Russell said that he
was not instructed to say that they would.—His Honour
What ! will the company decline to pay the plaintiff that
which a court of law may be of opinion belongs to her and
not to them ? I must consider this in disposing of the in-
junction. His Honour then directed that the motion should
stand over until to-morrow, in order that the plaintiff might
decide whether she should take a case for the opinion of a
court of law.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.
BLAGO V. STURT.—LIBEL.—PRIVILEGED CORMIINICA-
TIONS.—Mr. Moutagu Chambers, Q.C., had on a former day
applied for a rale to show cause why the plaintiff's verdict in
this cue. which was an action of libel, should not be set
aside and a new trial had, on the ground of the improper
reception of evidence, and of misdinction. The evidence
complained of was a letter addressed to Sir James Graham,
when Secretary of State, bringing to his notice alleged this.
conduct of the silsintiff in hh office of town clerk of St.
Alban's, which letter was the very foundation of the action.
It was urged that this letter was an application for redress
to a competent tribunal, and therefore a privileged com-
munication. It was further contended that the letter being
a communication to the official superior of the plaintiff in
the ordinary course of business, must be taken to have been
written without malice, so that even if it was not a privi-
leged communication, the judge ought to have directed the
jury that it was not malicious. The court took time to con-
sider its judgment..—Lord Denman now said, that the Secre-
tary of State was not a competent tribunal for redressing
the grievances complained of in the letter, and therefore the
letter was not a privileged communication. As to the other
point, the judge bad left it to the jury to say whether the
statements in the letter were false, and if false to infer malice
from the falsehood. The court thought that the direction
was right, and that as the jury had found the falsehood,
their verdict ought *at to be disturbed.
THE QCEEN R. TEE IRV. JOSIAH BARTLEIT.—CRIXT-
NAL 13croltmArtox FOR lenxt.—The defendant in this
case was convicted at the late assizes for Herefordshire, on a
criminal information, which charged him with having pub-
lished a libel on the honour of his sister-in-law, Mrs.
MariannaTozer, in a letter sent by him to her. The case
was repotted some time hack, when the rule nisi for a crimi-
nal intormetion was made absolute, the prosecutor being of
opinion, that notwithstanding a most ample apology and
retraetation by the defendant's counsel then made, It was
necessary to the security of Mrs. Tozer that the power to
bring the defendant to trial should be ensured. Almost
immediately afterwards the defendant, whose residence is in ,
the county of Eihreford, published a letter in a local paper
denying thst he had authorised his counsel to make the
npology. The information was then pressed to trial.
Mrs. Tozer went to the assizes, and tendered herself
for examination, butts'ss not examined ; and the defendant
was convicted.—Sir F. Thesiger, Q C., now moved for the
judgment of the Court ea the defendant, and affidavits were
read in mitigation of punishment and also in aggravation.
Those of the defendant were fruited for the purpose of
showing, not a jaatification founded on facts, but an excuse
for hostile feelings on the ground of the provocation given to
the defendant by his wife leaving him. Those in aggrava-
tion tended to show a continuing hostile and libellous spirit
in the defendant, and set forth a letter, not read, and ad-
mitted with difficulty, from the defendant to his wife, which
reiterated the imputations on Mrs. Tozer. without any speci-
fication of particular misconduct. —The defe,ldant was the
heard in mitigation, and Sir F. Thesiger in :Aggravation.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, after pronouncing the opinion of the
Court, that the defendant's aspersions on Mrs. Tozer were
wholly unfounded, adverted to the fact that the wife of the
defendant had left him at his own instance, and that his con-
duct since the rule fora criminal information had been
made absolute, had been such, as to deter the Court from