The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-19 00:00:00

not having paid

BAIL COURT.
HAWKER AND OTHERS V. HALL.—RAILWAY COMMIT-
TEEMEN.—Mr. Martin showed cause against a rule obtained
by Mr. Carrow in this case, for judgment in case of nonsuit.
It was stated by an affidavit that the action was brought
against a provisional committeeman of a railway company,
and the cause was entered for trial at the last Lancaster
assizes; but as several similar eases had been tried, by which
it appeared that the law was in a state of great uncertainty,
inasmuch as verdicts were found under exactly the same
circumstances, at one time for plaintiffs, and at others for
defendant•, rules to show cause why new trials should be
had had been granted, and were still pending; by the advice
of counsel the record had been withdrawn.—Mr. Martin
slid it was now matter of history that Mr. Justice Cress-
well, before whom the cause was act down, had taken a
different view of the law in these cases to the other judges
He (Mr. Martin) and Mr. Atherton therefore advised their
clients not to try the case, but lo wait till the law was
decided. He hoped the rule would be discharged, on a
peremptory. undertaking to try at the next assizes.
Mr. Justice Patteson : The law is certainly unsettled. I
doubt if you will get a decision before the next assizes.
Mr. Martin : There is • case of Gresham v. Worth, in
the Queen's Bench, which will be argued before that —Rule
discharged.— The court rose before 11 o'clock.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
Before Mr. Secondary Potter and a Special Jury.
Pirtle v. VINES.—This was a writ of inquiry to assess the
damages in an action to recover compensation for the breach
of an agreement. The plaintiff, Mr. Hugh Pyke, is an agent
and negotiator and the defendant, Mr. Samuel Vises, is a
corn-merchant. In Match last, being in want of a partner,
the defendant advertised for one, and in reply to one of his
advertisements. he received a letter from the plaintiff, inti-
mating that he would be glad to treat for a partner for the
-defendant in case the advertisement failed. Upon this the
defendant instructed the plaintiff to procure him a partner on
these terms:—That 5 per cent. on the whole capital of the
new firm should be paid to the plaintiff, but if he failed, he
was to receive nothing. A partner was procured, who paid
into the concern 2,0001., with a promise of more if the busi-
ness required it. The defendant supplied 1,0001., and it
was an agency claim of M. per cent. on the sum of 3,0001.
that constituted the ground-work of the action.—Mr. Pyke's
son swore to these facts. In cross-examination he said he
was an ex-barrister. The fifteen judges had confirmed
his expulsion, and he had now a petition to the House
of Commons pending on the subject.—Mr. Serjeant Dowling
having addressed the jury in mitigation of the damages,
they returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1021. 3s.
itYLAI.ID V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY CON-
PANY.—This case was withdrawn upon its being called. The
plaintiff is Mr. Ryland, the banister, who had retained Sir
F. Thesiger in his behalf. The action was to recover com-
pensation for an injury sustained through an accident on the
defendants' line of railway.

COURT OF REVIEW
ET-PARTE MORRIS—RE WILLIAMS AND SAWTELL—
COSTB OF ISSUING ANNULLED FIAT ALLOWED TO PETI-
TIONING CREDITOR UNDER EXISTING FIAT.—The bank-
rupts married two daughters of a provision merchant at
Gloucester, named Phillips, and, after his death, carried on
his business, under the name of Phillips and Co. It was
generally supposed that his widow was also a twiner in the
business, and, upon this supposition, a fiat was issued against
her and her sons-in-law. This fiat was afterwards annulled
for want of trading on the part of the widow, and a friendly
fiat issued, under which the petitioning creditor, who sued
out the former fiat, was chosen creditors' assignee. He had
instituted investigations with reference to the former fiat, by
which, he allered, benefit had arisen to the estate, and he
now asked to be allowed the costs of his former proceeding.
The commissioner (Mr. Serjeant Stephen) was favourable to
the claim, but thought be had no jurisdiction to make the
allowance. Mr. Roxburgh, in support of the petition. cited
" ex-parte Cousins " (2 Glynn and Jameson, 270) and " ex-
' parte Christy " (3 Montagu and Ayrton, 90). The Chief
' Judge said it was • new case. All he could do was to
direct that the commissioner should be at liberty to allow
the costs of the proceedings eo far as the estate had bene-
fited by them.

COURT OF COMPENSATION.—SotrotwAnx.
THE WARDENS AND COMMONALTY OP THE CARPENTERS'
COMPANY, CLAIMANTS, AND THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.—A Special Session was held
at the Town-hall, yesterday, before the Recorder, Alderman
Johnson, and the High Bailiff of Southwark, as a Court of
Compensation, under one of the numerous acts of parliament
obtained by the South-Eastern Railway Company for ex-
tending and altering the several lines of railway under
their control. So long back as the year 1651, a person named
Reed, then belonging to the Carpenters' Company, be-
queathed by his will to the Wardens and Commonalty of
the Company, certain land and premises in Bermondsey,
then known as Naked Boy-alley, upon certain trusts for the
payment of annuities and other charitable purposes, and
in the year 1791 the company agreed with one Richard
Woodyear, on consideration of his laying out a sum of 5001.,
to grant him a lease of the premises in question, at a rent
of 211. per annum for 61 years. Woodycar dying some time
after, the lease in 1791 was granted to his executors, of
which lease there are now 14 years to run; the present
public-house was erected, which was afterwards let by the
lessees to tenants on under-lease at 801. per annum, and
abort 1839 the railway company, their line passing close
to the house, became the owners of the under-lease,
and relet it to tenants at 601., but owing to the non-
performance of the covenants of the lease, John Wood-
year, the party then entitled to the reversion in
the lease, brought an action of ejectment against
the company and recovered possession, although it appeared
that a sum of upwards of 3,0001. had been asecrsed by a
jury, and paid to the outgoing tenant, and the premises were
again, in 1842, let to John Oman, at a premium of 2001., he
building three cottages in the rear, on lease for 16 years, at a
rent of 601. per annum. This lease the Eastern Countiesßail-
way had again porchase't, and now sought to satisfy the claim
of the freeholders, the Carpenters' Compa, who had sent
in a claim for compensation amounting to 2,lool.—Evidence
having been adduced on both aides, the jury retired, and
after being absent half-an-hour, returned a verdict for 1,800!.
being 9001. leas than claimed by the Carpenters' Company.

POLICE.—yESTERDAY.
G C I LDHALL.—Ta Err AND Folio nay.—A well-dressed,
good-looking woman, whose maiden name was Louisa Buck-
land .4ppleyard, and who had been lately married to a
foreigner of the name of Dulstane, was brought up before
Mr. Alderman Musgrove, charged with theft and forgery.
—A respectable man of the name of Fuller, residing in
Shoe-lane, said that Dulatane, at the time he married die
prisoner, resided in his house, and that he continued to do
so after his marriage. The union was not, however, a
happy one, and Dulstane left the prisoner. She told him
(the witness) that she was a native of Crookhorn, and that
her friends were respectable, and would willingly pay him
for her board and lodging. She accordingly forwarded
several letter to them, and so plausible was her manner
that also gained his entire confidence ) and he paid a
bill for clothes for her, as she said she expected
a respectable situation. lie discovered, however, that
the letters which she sent to her friends were again procured
by the prisoner, and that she and a man of the name of Arm-
strong, who resided in Union-court, Holborn, manufactured
feigned answers to them. The prisoner disappeared, and
went to reside elsewhere. He gave information to the po-
lice, and she was apprehended.—Mr Alderman Musgrove
said it was a very bad case, but there was no evidence be-
fore him to sustain a charge of forgery.—A Mrs. Gibbs said
that the prisoner had lived in her house, and had stolen two
blankets.—Serjeant Brennan said that the prisoner was ex-
amined at Worship-street on the latter charge, but as the
blankets could not be found she was discharged. She had