The Express.
London, England, 1849-02-21 00:00:00

tab fatettatnce

IQUITT COURT.
Mee ileaCheratior L 3.—Terrusoaright amen
Arronmer-G„nmet e. Giant-Br. grirmist's
Warazooa.
This well-known suit tame as to be deafly disposed
yen further dim-Moos.
The Viee-romemiller said he had, upon the last bearing,
Wheel is die fay emote sabreinmet to the original decree,
-the mead eltheagb it was right that Mr. Alder-
84y pep the web up to the degree el the wait
eisselemeaW b *inhaled to secowit, ym as abs mosowle,
when taken, peeved that the history whia he bed stymie' the
mew wee truatizeild that he lied boaestly GEM seilthe
had, a baleen due te his which he ma by me d peed-
baby nomer, his semi had Wes there^ sot still
*sight it nameable that me eats shed& be gives ea either
ids sallempteatly to the wigged Wins. The atm sow to
hi ride visit proceed ups the sews hating. With regard
W the beams, the Weary saigpreedee paroshial amounts
imam, that the year's ingeimdken should sot 'timed the
Pore wolliett: sad upon that priaciple the present balance
awl be paid. His Honour inquind whether Mr. Alderman
lIIMm waited to continue trustee, and oa being anserend
Wig be did ast_ , hie Honour said that, although it must be
NitAktorosta Gibbs hid bees greatly in error
hi sot modsciag his esseants, still there was not the slight-
ing lords*. spas his integrity, and the order would state
Wig Ws Minimum was by has own consent. Then must he
a whine, is the Maims to appoint new trustees. The
Ws% el the nekton wadi emu out of the fund. It would
see be sossomy to reserve tanker directions.

Beane MenChemed:ler Minim
Moon s. HlNDlNloll.—lh7Chertoh.
Ili. Hetherington, on behalf of the plaintiff in this ease,
awed for a special injunction to restrain the defendant from
berl4ing the plaintiff's copyright in en engraving taken
treat Laedseer's well known picture of " The Highland
Breakfast," by publishing and selling daguerreotype copies
et seek engraving. From the affidavit in support of the mo-
tion it appeared that the engraving had been taken in 1840,
by order of Mr. Sheepshanks, the owner of the picture, and
OM the eepyrieht therein had been sines swiped by him to
the plaintill.—His Honour mated the injection as affidavit
of genies of notice of motion apoa the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUlR—Tairrianar.
Menage In Bence after Whey Wm.
TIE 3 Leans AND INDIAN RALLWAT U 0 M . FIAIIII-
- Or INFANT TO RAILWAY CALLS.
The was a demurrer to a plea of infancy to a declaration
kr ends. Prom the pleadings, it appeared that the defend-
ant limply pleaded that at the time of Wing the calls he
was as Islam.
Ur. Cowling, for the plaintiffs, contended that the plea
of Musty was not an answer to the declaration which
alleged that the defendant, being a ehareholder, certain calls
Walt made.riginal subicri The plea did not allege that the lief-I:plant was
aa ober, as in the ease of the Enniskillen
Rahway Company the other day, or that he had repudiated
the shares during infancy. These embalms make a wide
dialer:doe between these mess, for that went on the 214
section of the general act, and the fact that the infant there
was an original contractor with the company, and the court
there held that the act, when speaking of shareholders,
generally meant such persons se were competent to contract
and become sharehoders. Now it may be tree that the
defendant became al shareholder by operation of law, and
mit by hie own acts. If so, and the law clearly contemplates
the ease of infanta holding shares, the plea is bad, otherwise
the compenies would be placed In an awkward position. If
infante, Be a broad proposition of law, cannot be seed for cells
ender any circumstances, and the companies ma sicklier yo-
kes to register them as slareholdere, nor declare their shame
/whited for ass-payment of calk, how are they is be dealt
with ? He then referred to the " Cork and Basks
Company' v. Commove," where the Court of Ow=
had (leaded that an infant was liable for Calk under Ike
general term of shareholders.
Kr. Prentice, for the defendant, contended that the phial
In the present case was substantially the same aa that in the
Manishillea Railway Company, and the averments Ogled
oat as emisions here were saperiarms in that MP, and did
sot skeet the broad question is both eases, which 4, whe-
ther tbedeihndamt, b aa intuit, is liable for calls. It is
:hts:=lnelaghteebrdraereZrai
tetiolefocorathe inaftft
he we of age,
. that ought to be replied. He cited " Cohen
e. Armstrong, ' in 1 Y. end 8., 724, and " Williams and
Moore" (11 M. and W., 266), in support of his armament.
The policy of the law is to protect infants, end it makes in-
hag a print facie answer to any action or contract, and if it
as be removed by a replication, the plaintiff must put it
es the record.
Mr. Hama Parke—This is not a ease of contract, but of
purchase. The defendant is sued as a purchaser, and he may
purchase if he pleases, but he cannot contract, and though
mere infancy would be a sufficient plea to • declaration on a
contract, the question is, whether you ought not to have
gone on to aver that you had disavowed the purchase as you
might do. no doubt.
Mt. Prentice—TlN—plea '4OOl virtually contain such an
averment In the allegation of infancy, which destroys the
'Detract
Mr. Cowling haviag replied, relying on the case of the
Cork and Bandon Rsilway Company, the only most of
which in ezirence did outset out the pleadings,
Mr. Baron Parke said that the court would endeavour to
satisfy themselves as to the state of the record in that case
before it would give any judgment.—Judgment deferred.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COU m
Mr. Cowsimbiber RT.—TINTIRDAT.
Bei Harris.
- - - - -- - - - - ----

IR riti—tirrria OF JOHN ontrrnme.
"." In this ease, Mr. W. H. Watson, Q C., wee specially in-
structed on the part of Baianel Platt, Esq., to oppose the
application by the insolvent under the Protection Act, and
was sssisted by Mr. Ifiebol• Mr. Cooke appeared Mr seve-
ral creditors, sad Mr. Bargood supported the application.
The ease occupied several hones, and involved two questions
—whether the insolvent had improperlv got into Mr. Platt's
debt, and whether he was • partner. For 30 years the insol-
vent had been consorted with the establishment of " Cooke
sad Godfrey," the well known sitentia's in Southampton.
street, Strand, end Coadnlactreet, liced-stroet. At the
latter shop be bad sated ea lishanesr, sad alleged that he was
to have a share in the pelts, bet Kr. Platt (who cru exa-
mined) denied that shypelimeeldirbeilenisted, sad that a gra-
tuity he had annually made had hem, by the insolvent,
mastraed into a partnership. Mr. Oahe died in 1842, and
Mr. Platt, his son in-law and ezeenter, became the sole
owner, although the names of Godfrey mad Cooke were still
seed. In April last the insolvent was flisderged for de-
&Wiens ia his account', having et the Ms* ed Ids dlecniwal
4001. a year as a salary, sad • yearly present, es Mr.
Platt stated, bat which the imams alleged was a share of
the profits. He now claimed a set of for his sham. The
two questions—the manner in which Mr. Platt was a
creditor to about 1,4001., and the alleged partnership, were
examined into. Mr. Platt denied the alleged partnership,
and Dlr. Inc*, the other manager of the badness, said he
did net consider himself a partner, whilst on the other hand
the insolvent set forth that he was to have had a shore of the
profits, and had drawn money out of the ormeern. Several
witnesses were examined, and at the rising of the mart the
further hearing yea adjourned to Saturday.