The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-23 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.—SsrdkuaT.
Before the lad Chancellor.
Werra V. HYDR.—PEACTICK.—ANIZNDIATST.—This ap-
peal from an order and decree of Vice-Chancellor Knight
Ines was heard this day week, and theme mstances were
stated in the report in oar paper Monday. The
Load Chancellor desired that the appeal should stand over
natal counsel might have time to search for eases, in rddition
to that of "YeAin a. Hill," cited from 4 Brown's Puse
oarlia-
f
mentary cute, ea having been decided by the Ho
Loads in 1720 sanctioning amendments of a bill, else. After
hearing on the merits, Mr. Bacon and Mr. Stevens (sup-
porting the order and decree appealed from) now cited several
other caw es s, " Wollol4'l V. Crouches," 12 Vesey, 174
" Magdalen College Oxford Sibthorpe," guasell, 164 ;
in 183 S
" Milligan a. Bland," before the Lord Chancellor,
and another au before the Vice-Chco ancellor d
this year.
ncs,,o of
Mr. Anderdon, for the appeal, ntende that
these cases was at all like the present cue, and was nt. autho-
rity fur the order of Vice-Chancellor Knish; 'Brooe._
The Lord Chancellor said the question now ratrad was one of
great importance in the practice of the court; and, before
deeding it, he should examine the authorejoi,
Babes the Mauer of the tor&
RAWORTHI o. PUNDIRTON.--11.431111CTIOS.—This motion,
which was noticed in our paper of Saturday, was or-
dered, by arrangement, to stand over. Wm. Galt, one of the
shareholders of the Direct London and Baster Railway
Company, who had brought his action against the plaintiff,
was to be at liberty to proceed to trial, and the other actions
were to be suspended.

_ _
Betoce the Vice-Mancellor of England.
EXPARTE LEIOR.—THE COURT WILL NOT DIRECT •
BUILDING LEAR' TO BB MALY OP AK INFANT'S PRO-
PRIETY, ENDER THE STAT. 1 WILL. IV., 0. 65, UNLESS THE
INFANT HAVE AN ESTATE IN FEE IN rosagagioN.—This
was a petition presented under the statute 1 Will. IV., c. 65,
for amending the law of property belonging to infants,
ferns coverts, and lunatics, praying that a reference might
be made to the master, to inquire whether it would be for
the benefit of certain infants that a proposed building
lease should be granted. It appeared that under a
marriage, dated in October, 1839, certain property, including
a mansion home and grounds, was limited to Edward Leigh
and his wife, Mary Leigh, for their lives, with remainder
to the sons of the marriage in tail male ; and, in case there
should be no sons, then to the daughters, as tenants in com-
mon in tail. The wife died, and there were five daughters
Of the marriage, and no son. It was now proposed to let a
portion of the property which would belong to the daugh-
ters upon Edward Leigh's death upon building leases.—
Mr. barker, in support of the petition, urged that the court
had power to direct the trustees to grant these leases, under
the 17th section of the let Wm. IV., e. 6.5, which enacted
that where any person, being an Infant, should be seized on
possessed of or entitled to any land in fee or in tail, and it
should appear to the court to be for the benefit of
such infant that a budding lease should be granted of
such estate, it should be lawful for the infant, or his
guardian, by the direction of the court on petition,
to make such leas., provided that no lease be made
of any mansion-house, or grounds held therewith for any
period exceeding the minority of the infant. —The Vice-
Chancellor said lie did not think the court had power to
make such an order, unless the infant had an indefessible
estate in pow/alien in fee or in tail. This question hadarisen
in the case of Expert. Evans o. Idyl and Keene," and it
had been there decided that the act did not apply. Having
regard to the last part of the section of the act, and the par-
ticular circumstances of the case, he considered that the
court could not exercise the power, and the petition must be

refused.
RUSSELL V. &MR.—INJUNCTION RF.STRAININO THE
PERFORMANCE OF MUSICAL COMrosFriume.—Mr. Stuart,
Mr. holt, and Mr. Chandless, moved to divisive an injunc-
tion, granted in April last, to restrain the defendant, Mr.
Smith, a public vocalist, from pirating, publicly performing,
singing, or reciting, the words or music of certain songs
composed and sung by Mr. 11. nuleall. Upon the injunc-
tion bell? granted, the court directed that the plaintiff
should bring an action at law in respect of his right of pub-
licly performing and reciting the musical corepodtions com-
prised in the injunction. It was now contended that the ac-
tion, which the plaintiff had brought, was only calculated to
try the right of publicly performing the songs at places of
dramatic entertainment, and that this was a much narrower
question than that which was intended terms of the
order, which would include the right ofperformance every-
where.
Mr. Bethel! and Mr. Matthew appeared in support of the
injunction. At the conclusion of the arguments the Vice-
Cnancellor reserved his judgment.

Before Vtee-asaneelke Werrem.
PENNINGTON v. BUCKLEY.— CONSTRUCTION OP WILL.
—BEQUEST TO CNAHITAPLE USKS.—This was a suit for
the administration of the estate of the late Mrs. Abel Collin
Laor.der, of Nottingham. The will, which was dated in
August, 1801, directed, that after the death or marriage of a
party named, a sum of Bank Annuities amounting to 40001.
and upwards, should be transferred into the names of the
Archdeacon of Nottingham and his successors, to be by them
held upon trusts, which were declared in the following terms
—that is, " Upon trust, to pay the annual interest thereof to
inch unbeneficed curates in the deanery of Bingham, Not-
tinghamshire, whose annual salary and income does not ex-
ceed 35/. ; and to such as shall be recommended to him
by • plurality of voices of the beneficed clergy of the
deanery of Bingham, at his official visitation, annually held
at Nottingham, after the following rate, namely, to an un-
married
curate, 101., to a married curate, with a family, 201.,
and this to so many as the interest of the stock will admit of
after all expenses are discharged. And my meaning is, that
no curate shall receive this donation more than once whilst
he remains in the said deanery." The question was, whe-
ther if, as was probable, it should turn out that there were no
curates in the deanery with salaries not exceeding 351. a year,
the gift would be void altogether as a bequest for a par-
ticular purpose, to which no effect could be given ; or whe-
thyer the bequest could be supported under the doctrine of
cpres as a permanent endowment for the benefit of the poor
clergy of the deanery. Mr. Walker and Mr. Simons ap-
for the plaintiffs, the trustees of the will. Mr.
k'iereiry, Mr. Romilly, Mr. Holt, Mr. Hall, Mr. Wray, Mr.
T. Bates, and Mr. Willkin appeared for the several de-
fendants. Judgment reserved.

Before Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce.
Rooxaa o. SEADI3.—VENDOR AND PURCIIARIL—TbiII
was a bill for the specific performance of an agreement to sell
the residue of a lease. The particulate of sale described it to
be subject to an underlease waiting fourteen days of the
term of the original lease. It turned out, however, that the
person described as an underlessee bad a term in the pre-
mise+ extending about three-quarters of a year beyond the
original lease. The question was whether this was matter
of compensation, or whether the purchaser had a right to re-
scind the contract on the ground of misdescription.—His
Honour was of the latter opinion, and dismissed the bill with
costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
At the sitting of the court, Sir George Grey, Mr. T. B.
Macaulay, and Earl Spencer, took the oaths in respect of the
efilem to which they have been appointed in the service of
her Majesty.
MaligaitY tg. MANSFIELD. SHERIFF& FEES.—MT.
Chilton, Q.C., showed cause against a rule nisi which had
bees obtained for setting aside the defendant's verdict in
this ease, and entering a verdict for the plaintiff. The ac-
tion AL brought by the sheriff of Brecon against the attor-
neyin an action in which execution had issued against the
bay of the defendant, to recover the sum of 31. 2s. 6d., as
and for the fees due to him thereon. The defendant in the
action in which execution had issued, had been taken, but
the fees had not been paid by him. As it is the plaintiff,
and net his attorney, who ordinarily is liable for these
alms* fees, an attempt was made at the trial to set up •
*mown binding for the counties of Brecon and Glamorgan,
by which the attorney, and not the plaintiff, is made liable
le the sheriff. Ultimately, it was arranged that a verdict
situdd be entered for the defendant, with leave reserved to
the plaintiff to have it set aside, and one entered for him in
theausa of 16a, if the court shoaled be of opinion that there
lailicen evidence ofonch a custom, and that it was a lawful
enstem. Mr. Davison and Mr. Wiles were heard in support
df the rele.—The court was of *pinion that there was not
any evidence of thesustom which it had been attempted to
setup ; end diechargedthe rule.
STENOS e. MITNELL.—RIONT TO RECOVER THE Ex-
Platalla CIF AN UNSUCCESSFUL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN AN ACTION OF TRDEPASS FOB FALSE IMPRISONMENT.--
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., showed cause against a rule nisi which
had heeniebtained in this case for increasing the damages of
one shilling, awarded to the plaintiff, by the amount of the
taxed coats of an unsuccessful writ of habeas corpus for the
liberationCl the prisoner, which would have been successful
but far thesubstitution,mben the motion to discharge was
made, of a perfect warrant of cominitment for the original
one, which bad been imperfect. Mr. Baron Rolfe, who
tried the cause, had Mid the jury that they must
not take into their eensideraLion the expenses of
the unes4ceesful writ, because, although at the trial
it turns out that the Plaintiff had been improperly
imprisoned, the failure ea the writ showed that it had
been impropei'll sued out. The learned counsel now sub-
mitted that the direction was eabetantially correct, bemuse
the declaration did not claim special damages, which these
expenses obviously were; for they were the consequence of
the attempt to procure liberalion from prison, and not the
direct consequence of the imprisonment ; and so being con-
sequential on • consequence were not coast laential damages,
and must be specially alleged.—Mr. Baines,. Q. C.. and Mr.
Hall contended that the judge should have told the jury to
consider those expenses as the measure of' the damages
to which the plaintiff was entitled.—Lord Denman said
got the argument for the plaintiff only showed that he
awe entitled to the fun amount of the costs taxi d, if he was
et titled to anything in respect of the matter in which they
we re Incurred ; but the courtcould not bold him so entitled,
because he had not expressly claimed damages on that ground.
—ltt.ie &Whined.

BAIL COURT.
Wtt,...ost e. CHAMBER/I.—SCUM FACIAL—Mawr or
PROVISIONAL ASSIGNEE IN INSOLVENCY.—CHAMBERS'S
Bastno.ncr.—Mr. M. D. Hill showed cause against • rule
obtained b v Mr. Martin, calling on Wilton to show cause why
the provisio lal Wisignee of the Insolvent Court and of WA-
' ton, shouM n'A have leave to sue out a scire facies on a bond
for 10,000/,. and be made a party to the record. The facts of
the case weiv staled at length, and involved numerous pro-
-- - law and in equity, which have been fro-
a public in the well-known case of the
Clambers, the banker, and with which
mixed up, having acted as the attorney of
oint In question, on the present occasion,
kv of the Lord Chancellor a sum of 7501.,
(0,,- which, among other things, a bond
bk•mben to Wilton, was referred to a
and by him taxed down to 1114, and
to be paid out of a certain hind
awe, which was mailable for that

Ceedings :I;tit at ]as
bankruptcy
quently before th.rke.
Wilton was often mit
Clambers. The polls
was? that by an order
4 • eats la this court, fb.
.bititliM grab, CI
MOM,
it was ordered to
of Cbstabott's tidal
•
- _
.•