The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-15 00:00:00

mmtbemameratmuuL

PEPINT O. W/L;;;;:LPILACII&I—EXAMISATION OF WIT-
NENB.-I'hi.. as a motion to dirchiage an order made by
the Master of the Rolls on the 29th of July last on the peti-
tioa ol the defendant, John Watts, for liberty to examine
witnesses touching the credit of one of the witnesses esa
mined on the part of the plaintiff.—Mr. Basilitette, for
the p!aintiff, contended that the order ought to te dls.
charged f r irregularity as having been obtained after the
cause had been .et down for Leming, sad on the ground of
the defendant not having stated when he obtained the order
that another order made by Vies-Chancellor Knight
Bruce to further truss examine the witne-s, whose credibi-
lity was now sought to be impeached, had afters iris
been di•eharged by the Lord Chancellor —Mr. Roupell and
Mr. Rogers, for the deteodant, John Watts, opposed the
motion, which was refused by the Master of the Rolls with
costs.

Before the Vleatnanosliar of England.
Suuttolan v. COCHILANE,—PISTITION BY ♦ CRIDITOB
TOR LSAT{ TO TROTS HIS DS/IT IN A CIIRDITOR'S
This was the petition of a creditor named Richards, tor leave
to prove his deb in a aveditor'ssuit, instituted with reference
to the estate of Purr C gluons, atter the ordinary time for
proving debts in the suit had passed. It appeared that the
petitioner was a woollen-draper, and • per-on named Cur-
lows, a tailor, having become largely indebted to him in t►e
course of his trade, handed over to him a bid tor 1,5311. 154.,
drawn by him upon Peter Cochran*. The suit was insti-
tuttil so long ago es the jeer 1836, but the petitioner alleged
that he had not beard of the Putt until alter the time a.-
lowed for creditors to come in prove their debts. The
Master had disallowed the petitioner's claim to prove.
Much evidence was go.. into, for the purpose of showing
that the bill in question was given as a security for the
debt. and that such evidence was now properly admissible.—
Mr. R. alt and Mr. Glasse appeared for ere 'minim, and Mr.
&obeli and Mr. 13. Smith contra —The Vice-Chancellor
said the only question was whether the Master woe right or
not; and fur that purpose it was incumbeat upon the peti-
tioner to make out a clear case as to the reasons r r which
the bill of exchange in question had been given. It did
not &nicely appear whether this was a simple bill for
money owing or whether it was given as security for a run- i
ning account between the voollen-draper and the tailor. lie
did not think that the whole circumstances of the cue had
luen brought forward, and be would not teierefore be justi-
fied in co ',ling to the conclusion that the Muter was wrong
in disallowing the claim. 'fhe Mater's report must conse-
quently be confirmed, and the petition refused.
L►Y IL HARTRIDOE.—INJUNCTION TO !MATRA'S INTER-
ERMINES WITH A WATER COEUR ILITLIIED.—Mr. Bothell
and Mr. finebbeare moved in this case on behalf of the
plaintiff, who w A the occupier of a mill, near Sit ingbaurne,
for an injunction to re strain the defendant from interfering
with a watercourse, which supplied the elaintiff 'a mill. I;
appeared that the defendant, who was the owner of another
mill, situate at a short distance from that of the plaintiff, had
some time ego built up a wall aerms one portion of the
stream, and otherwise crested an obstruction, by which the
plaintiff alleged a serious injury bad been caused to his mill.
The defendant had since that left the mill unoccupied. For
the defendant it was contended that he had a legal right to
act as he had done, and that the effect produced was not in-
jurious to the plaintiff's mill.—Mr. Stuart and Mr. G.
Coleins appeared for the defendant.—The Vice-Chancellor
said that s mulch-table time hal now clamed since the csa-
carcase of the matter in dispre, and he should therefore
follow the wholesome rule laid down in the use of " Pick-
ford v. The Grand Junenion Canal Company," that under
such circumstance a of delay the court would not interfere in
a summary way by injunction. lie would therefore allow
the motion to nat.4l over, with liberty for the plaintiff to
bring such action at law as he might be advised.
Before Vios.Chancellor Kalght Bruce.
ATTORNIT.OESSRAL e. MoNRO —Scotcu Ktax.—The
temporary order tor permitting the key of the chapel to re-
main in the pasersaion of Mr. Shepherd having expired, Mr.
Selvryn contended that having regard to he debt secured on
the chapel, the plaintiffs ought not to be permitted to retain
the key.—Mr. Ru-s 11 and Mr. Little appeared for the
plaintiffs, and, atter some discussion, it was arranged that
another temporary order should be made, giving the custody
of the key to Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Giant till the last peti-
tion day in Raster Term.
Rosette v. Sorra WALES RAILWAY Coanataf.—lte-
rottettors.—An interim order had been granted in this case,
restraining the defendants from erecing a bridge or carry-
ing their railway sages a Warren a creek called Patton-
pill, on the ground that by se doing they disterbed an ease-
ment to which the plaintiff was entitled.—Mr. Russell and
Mr. Green now moved, upon notices, for an thinned a to the
same effect; Mr. Kenyon Parker and Mr. G. L. Russell, for
the defendants, contended that the plaintiff had net eeta-
Wished ►is right to an easement, and must do so at law be-
fore ►e was entitled to the interposition of the Dona —The
Via-Chancellor having inquired whether the plaintiff would
undertake to abide by such orders a the court mi. ht make
as to damages, and upon the plaintiff's counsel declining to
give any each undertaking, declined greeting an injunction ;
but directed the rretion to stand ewer, with liberty for the
plaintiff to bring an action.

adore riesamneetice larigram.
Warn e. Cater.-BoUttroa eau Cttax.—The plaintiff
in this ease was a solicitor demi:siege, in whose service
the dekadant had been for assay years m confliential clerk,
and the of jut of the sit was to set saide a deed of grist,
executed by the plain iff in 1842, by which he charged cer-
tain of his estates wit • the payment of 601. a year to the de-
fondant fir his life. The defendant had be n dew-barged
from the service of the plaintiff in 1847, and had then pro-
ceeded to distrait upon the premises !harped fur the arrears
of the annuity. The bill sought an injunction to restrain
him from sodoing. The ground of the Mier rayed was
that the plaintiff, prier to the transsetion in question, had
agreed to sign a memorandum of agrement to pay 501. a
year to the defendant in addition to his salary, so lone ae he
shoAld continue in his service, and that he had executed the
deed in question in the canoe while in a harry and about to
leave his office on business, and under the impression that it
was the memorandum he bad agreed to sign, wbereu the
defendant by fraud had subs hided the deed of
grant for the memorandum. The case was argued
in Decenahtr last, when the Bolicittra, weal and Mr.
Hare appeared as behalt of the plaintiff, and Mr. Wood and
Mr. Hales for the detendmat —His Honour, in delivering
judgment, said that, assuming the deed in questioni to he
been executed by the plaintiff, and to be rad at law, he
thought there was no ground to impeach it ispiza. There
as w nothispi in the relative positions of the and de-
fendant which would render the latter limpid& of buttat
lag by the gift, and it was no Apart of the pleintiff km,
that the detintent, by undue inlitenos, had ismissed hint to
sign the deed. The we was, that the plidadirhed deed It
wilik ender the impuesien It was not the iiewwwist it pur-
deed t be ; but hew could this be seessillsd with the
The tiotteutt guidon WS sot a more utewsews•
an el eirnmeat, but • deal kewolly apeselpil

and attested, and with • 35e. stamp ; and the
content* thereof were clear and explicit. Was it then ere-
dible that al. experisaced attorney would execute a deed of
such • character, to 'team &Wary which he might at may
time stop by discharging the defendant from his service ? It
mast be seemed, thYrefeee, that the plaintiff knew the cha-
racter of the instrument be was mgnieg ; and on that
assumption he must be held to have failed in proving the
ewe of fraud on which he had founded his title to relief.
The gift, moreover, wee not of so earraordilary a character,
that the curt on that ground alone would not suffer it to
stand. If it were necessary to prove that the case was
righteous in the sense of the awhoritie,,, he chi:tag:it it must
he taken /2 to be. The proper course, therefore, would he,
to establish the v Aidity of the iestrument at law, which
might be done by allowing the ease to stand over, with
liberty to the plaintiff to bring such tendon as he might be
advised, the defendant admitting that nq payments bad been
made under the deed.
Puritan V. FOWITES.—SITTLIEMENT ON WAIiD OF
Couar.—Mr. Bagshawe appeared in support of • petition for
• reference to the Skater to inquire into the validity of an
all ged marriage at Uretniogreen, procured by one Scott, a
labourer, with a young lady of 16 years of age, a ward in
court. The petition deo prayed that a settlement of the
lady's fixater should be made for the benefit of hermit and
family, should the marriage be found valid.—The defendant,
I the alleged husband, having been attached fur want of an
answer, had fur some time conticued in prison, being under
the impression that by persevering in his contempt till his
. wife should have claimed her mejerity he would become en-
titled to her property, discharged from the obligation of
making a settlement. Having bimn undeceived upon this
r point, be had slue obtained his discharge, and now offered
to join in any settlement the court might approve.—Mr.
t Fl,ming appeared for the plaintiffs in the suit —llls Honour
made the order prayed, observing that the lady's friends
would doubtless see that her intereym were properly pro-
t Meted.

COURT OF QUEEN'S ISM NC H.-11-...ATVILDAT.
Nttinp in Banco.
Tun Quint, V. BRENT —PROTHONOTARY OF TH
PALACZ COURT.—The Attorney-General applied for a rule
calling on the defendant, the judge of the Palace Court, to
show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding
him to allow Mr. Bellamy to act as deputy-prothonotary
of that court, and to take the seat there usually occupied by
the prothonotary or his deputy. The choler of Crarles II ,
constituting the Palate Court, created a iuri-clictioa within
certain limits around the palace, for particular actions. It
also appointed the judge or steward of the court, and the
prothonotary, to act by himself or his deputy. It appeared
that a gentleman of the name of Elew:itt (the father of the
gentleman who was now acting as deputy-prothonotary of
the court) was appointed by Sir H. Campbell the protho-
notary. Upon the death of Mr. Hewlitt, the father, in
November, 1848, Bir 11. Campbell revoked by deed any sap-
posed autoority which the present Mr. Hewlitt, therefore,
might claim to have. entitling him to act as deputy-pro-
thonotary, and caused to be served on him a notice of such
revocation. Oa the 28th Nov. 1848, Sir H Campbell, by
deed, appointed Mr. B•llanty (eon of the clerk of the assize
on the Oxford circuit) to act es his deputy. Mr.
Brent, however, refused to allow him to act, admitting his
qualifications. but alleging that the appointment of deputy
prothonotary was vested in himself as the judge of the court.
—Lord Denman inquired what the practice had been?—
Toe Attorney-General said the appointment had been in the
prothonotary • but there was some doubt as to the mann, r in
which the elder Mr. Hewlitt hut been appointed, Sir H.
Campbell having been absent on the continent at the time
of his appointment.—Lord Denman said it did not follow, as
a matter of course, Seams* there was a deputy, that tb.
principal should appoint him. —The Attorney-General said
such had been the practice, and the charter so stated it. It
tppeared that Mr. Hewlitt, the gentlemen at present acting
as deputy prothonotary, pretended (he did not wish to
the word offensively) that he had an appointment from Sir
H. Campbell, but be had not produced it.—Lord Denman:
Take a ride.

BAIL COUR I.—SATURDAY.
xm Paws.—Bsfore Mr. Justice Erle sad a Cowman Jury.
CHAMalith e. BLaTER.—ADIttarstON ST A Wretches tHAT
Ma HAD eoIIatITTID PERJURY —M.. Seek. Muse was coun
sel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Knowles, Q C., appeared for
the defendant. This was an action brought to recover the
sum of 381. les 6d., the &menet of a bid for bows and shoes
which the plaintiff had supplied to the defendant. The de-
livery of the articles heving bean duly proved, Mr. Knowles,
for the defence, proceeded to contend that the Roods in ques-
tion were supplied to the defendant by one Yates, of whom
the raintiff had lainnht the business et a bent
and shoemaker, which that person bed carried on,
and, therefore, the defendant was not liable to
the plaintiff. To pram' this fact a whams of the name of
Aylett was called, who swore that the ponds in question
were delivered to the defendant as coming from Yates, in
whose employment he was, end to whom the hoots and shoes
belonged.—Thise itness was cross-en mined by Mr. Beriesnt
Bhee. He said he knew Burdon's Hotel, which was a place
some people called Whiteerma street Prison. Witness him-
sell bad been there twice, and had twice been an insolvent.
Witness had not been examined in a case in which one Jor.n•
son wee concerned. Mr. Berjeant thee : Do ru
mean to swear that you did not appear as a witness
in the county court in a ease is which s Mr.
Johnson was a party interested ?—Witness : Oh, yes; I was
a witness in that ease. I recoll.ct it now you mention the
Ceunty Court. —Mr. Bcrjeant Bhee : Did you not, on that
occasion, swear that son were in the service of the plainetf,
Mr. Chambers?—Witness: I acid.—Mr. &dram Bhee : You
swore that positively ?—Witness: I did.—Mr. Beejeea•
:Thee: You were not in his envies at that time?—Witness:
I was not.—Mr fieriaant Shee : Therefore what you swore
then was false?—Witness: was.—At this stage ot the
proceedings ens of the jurymen int. rpoeed end said, that
aster the admission just made by the witness, the jury could
not put any fai h in what he hid &poem' to on behalf of the
defendant —Mr. Knowles observed that be respected the jilt,
too much, after the observations that had just been made,
to press the ease, but tie dssfeneent for whom he appeared
was qu to unaware that the witness Aylett would make such
an admission a. he had done.—Mr. Justice Erie said the
only question in ►u mind was, wheth, r he ought not to
direct All •tt to be prosecuted for perjury, but his lordship,
after consulting with one of the uflic- is or the court, raid
should not commit the witness, al hough he mum ohne.e
that dating all his experience he had Dame beheld so bare-
' faced a confamion of perjury. He howevet wrald hint to
the parties concerned an the case, whether the witness
Aylett ought not to be prosecuted as an exempla to
others. The learned judge then directed the jail to
find a verdict fey the plaintiff, but the foreman
remarked that ome of them were not satisfied that the
plaintiff was entitled to their verdict, because no invoice of
the goods in question had been pr-dtased.—Mr. Justice Erle
replied that, suip sing two parties met, ni ither of whom
could write, and one sold goods to the other, did the jury
think that the goods ought not to be paid tor because there
was no invoice produced ? The jury had had proof of the
order, and also of the delivery of the goods to the defendant.
The only defence to the action rested upon the evidence of
the witness Aylett.—The jury then immediately returned a
verdict for the plaintiff fir the amount claimed, 381 10a. 6d.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—SATURDAT.
teittiop in Banco.
WEST e. BAXENDALB.—FALAII
was so action tried before the chief justice, at the last Mid.
dieser Sittings alter term, synod. a 'verdict was given for the
plaintiff—damages, 251.—Mr. Serjeant Byles now mov, d fur
a new trial on the ground of misdirection, and that the ver-
dict was against the evidence. It oas an action of trespass
for falsely imprisoning the plaintiff, an: the pleas were—not
guilty, and, secondly, a plea of justification, which stated a
felony had been committed, and that there was reasonable
and probable CILIVP for defendant'a b. beyinit the plaintiff was
the person who committed it; and set out a; bligth the
ground of defendant's suspicion against him. At the trial it
appeared the plaintiff was formerly 'coachman in the service
of Mr. de:midair, defendant's father, who resides in &country
house, near Finchley, bet was dim unsaid from the service early
in 1848, and had since been living in Gloucester Mews, at the
west end of London. On M.inday, the 6th of March, in that
year, a quantity of plate kept in the butler's pantry, in the
house of Mr. Barendate, was stolen. On that afternoon the
plaintiff wain the neighbourhood of Finchley, and made some
appointmenm, ti take place abut the time of the rebb- ry,
which he failed to keep, and he returned to London during
the course of that night. Next morning the tray on which the
plate wea kept was f and on the lawn, and Sutton, the then
coachman, proved be had observed a person coming In the
direction from the house at the lodge-rate just at the hour
when the robbery was committed, and the dot which usually
barked at sunnier, did not bark at that person. It was also
proved the paintiff es coachman had care d the dogs, and
was web acquainted with the premises, and knew where the
plate was kept, and the hour when thei servants would be
out of the way of the pantry. There was also some slight
evidence offered of identity of dress on the person seen at the
gate on the night in question, and the dress worn by the
plaintiff. Such was an outline of the facts proved as regards
the plea of jus.ification ; but it was amongst other grounds
of suspicion alleged in that plea that the plaintiff mend ned
to " one Osborne" net to cemmunicate up at the house that
he was in tne neighbourh.md, but this communication, it
turned oat, was made by the plaintiff to some one else, and
an application was therefore made at the trial for leave to
amend the plea by Inserting the name of the right
person, which application was, however, refused. The learned
judge at the trial said the plea of justification was not
proved, and lett it to the jury to say whether the facts
stated in the plea which were proved am'unted to rea-
sonable and probable cause of suspicion against the plain-
tiff The learned counsel now submitted the aniendaisnt
asked for at the trial ought to have been allowed, and
ansoodly the Tuition of reasonable and probahle cause was
amicirdiag to recent authorities, entirely a watts, tor the
judge, and it ought to have been merely left to the
jury to say whether certain facts were proved, whether they
came so the knowledge of the plaintiff, and whether he
acted wader the influence of that anosrledge.—Rule aid
granted.

COURT OF EXCHRQURR.—aertraDAT.
Nm Puma Werimlastor.rßriore Mr. Baron Bolts mid a Mkirnesbz

Oonms jefT.
FOLBT V. exam.—Ltamaas Durrams.—This woe on
action to recover emojessa-den fa damages for Mite" which
the Onntilf alloottl Le had ameMeed by the mizore of hi.
code by the thodirai the Minollon of the detentions on ars-
frontt of a debt deny maim pros. Mr. W. H. Watson
and Mr. Barstrell amend foe tho_Ltlaintiff who tarries on
barinfos as a sail dealer, at Boon Wharf, LoophMago; and
Mr. Martin and Mr. Browns for the defeniont, the auditor
•et a person named Soatimo. who formerly _Wed on
°lnsida-on is tits plaintiff's ponthro Lsa-ipdhso.
'leer Trinity torn an aides wader the Intaryiendor Ant
Ito dotorraias whether Out Joel sag= dew ewe
'do property of thoadoin Cr the itmo ire Mr. Kr, Bane p and a COMM jam ere/ •toodist
lone he the *kW. Tar *Wig sow spoil* Immo

damages Sot the loss be had angelus d through the illegal
distress, On the Bth of May Isar, the goods on the premises
were *tired on a judgment obtained by the d, fondant Snell
aslainst Sanders for 4021. 2s. 3d. The business, as was
proved on the former trial, had oreeiously been transferred
td the plaintiff Foley, who ltd he n many years in the ser-
vice of Sande's. On the officer taking go: session he was
inlorssed by the plantar that ore pt. mi.es and goods were
his, but as he did nut produce the deed of as,ignosent, and
as a sister of Sanders was resident on the premiers, the
ohlcer, under the dirvtion of defendant, proceeded with
the levy. In the manse of the evidence, Mr. Hough
ton, toe plaintiff's attorney, and who prepared the
deed of assignment, d posed, on cross-examination,
that at least a tortniglat before the B.h of May he saw
Fuley's nerve over the premises as the sum-seer to Sanders.
—Win. Perry, who had occasionally assisted fianslers in his
fleshless, stated that shout the 6th of April he effaced the
name of Sanders on the sign hoard, and afterwards painted
that of Foley as his successor. Foley's name was op by the
24. h —Mr. Sharp, of the firm of Smith and S tarp, coal-
merchants, City-road, who wisp fed she plaintiff with coals,
said that on he anog of the execution he declined to give fur
Cher credit. Since the interpleaeler issue was tried he had,
however, resumed the supply.—Ocher evidence of damage
was given.—Mr. Martin, fur the den rident, contend d t at
under the circumstances of the case tile jury ought only I.
award the smallest amount °idealizes—The jurr, after a
brief consultation, returned a verdict for the phuntiff—da-
usages 401. 7a 6d.
H•wxixts v. HAILWOOD.—ATTOKNEY AND CLIIIINT.—
' This was en action at the instance of a builder to recover
compensation in damages for loss and itjury sustained
through the alleged professional neglect of the defendant, al
attorney, in the conduct of a law-nit. The plaintiff's case
we. only partially gone into at the rising of the coat, and
as the facts stated involve serious charger, we postpone our
report until the conclusion of the case.

COURT OF_BANKRUPTCY.7.IAx. 12.

Oualbw a

A eronallho PußLlCAN.—Jasper Taylor, public:is, of
N Mr-street, St Mertin's•le-O rand, applio d for his certificate,
supported by Mr. Lawrence ; and oppsod by Mr. Sturgeon
o•r a creditor named Bou•8tld, and by the attorney for the
assignees. The fiat was dated the 2004 November last, and
take.' out by the bankrupt himself. His !alance-she.t co m.
menced let January, 1817, with a 8. fici. racy of 2481 ; hi.
debt, d liabilities were 4,6191.; assets in stock and furni-
ture, 6951. He had spent newly a twelvemonth in fit.n.at
up au inn, which be opened on the Ist of January, 184 x, anu
oecuAed about ten months. Ho trade expenses Led been
1,6271. (including 2851 for law expenses, intarist, and dis-
count); domestic expeine s, 8911 ; estimated low*, 1,0911.,
inclu•tiug 8401. on the !ease of the N-w Post-• face Motel.
The principal grounds of oppositoon were reckless trading
mud dialing in accommodation bills to the extent of I,loo'.
In the course of his examina'ion the bankrupt stated that
while he kept the New Post ;foe Hotel, in Noble-street, he
had received money for bets made at the bar, which war
either paid to the parties or accounted for by bills. A Mr.
Newell received such bills. Was not in the habit of en-
tering these sums in his cash book. A betting-ho -k was
kept at the bar, in which various parties wrote. He had lost
a bet of 251., to a person named OA, in the latter part of
1848, he thought in September ; he had not paid that bet
—Hr. Lawrence submitoid teat this was net sufficient to
brim( the haukeupt within the 36in es 'Aims of the act, which
deprives a bankrupt of hie certificate if Le had lost more
than 201, by betting in one lay. Hoye the bet had nut been
pe'd, and cans' quently there was no injury to the estate
Mr. Sturgeon contended met the clause was directed against
the morel effect ist the boting, ►nd cite in support of this
view, the cies Ex ~arte N MAU" (2. Olyn and Jameson,
329) , where Sir J. LOS h tad held •hat the toeing was the cis
cu catgut* to which the 1 e-ached. A man bad nn
right to brio.g his bet!ing-ko k I oru court to sc. off hit gains
again 4 his bosses; if this w re al owed a party ould never
At brought witl•in •lie a st —Toe Commissioner directed Mr
LIIITHICe'R att••ntion t., another cue, in Buck's Reports,
where the Cucorrel. r hod bed the rest of losing a bet mufti
;Sent, sad had directt•i that issue to be tried at law.—
Mr. Lawrence erect; that pecnitery Lou only was contem-
plated by the act. Th.• el rat a: 6 .red 6 Victoria was a
highly penal one, and unfits the ;offence was complete, by
the wager bting inst and mid, the penalty did tot at ech.
Here the Mary rail net been paid, neither could it be
recovered ; benne she ...weir ent•e.iied no injwy. The case
was the It.lllllJ with !ha laws • at. s• stock inbbine—a man
must have paid 'o• I.os e- co n wi Inn the penal clauses
In the cue of i.e..nl before Mr. Commissioner
Pane, a bat of t.thl ves or v'd • o have been made on
the pooh.rile, ; ,mo•i-ai•.wt allowed the books
to be CO Cialllttli to : . , it, and though he suspended the
cat& :ate foe tw• • • • •..r . eh. rat retkleasne;s, he would
not deal wax t. ••••• o. t.e highly penal cl.uae now
undo r ..•, 'o gut ;only hatred the bankrupt
Ir m , !.fio ,1 , b..t prevented the do ciseon
beieg eppea.• clo ennt. oe •• d Tte Cammisaionier, alter re
terrine to the. a. •'• Et ',art.- Cr net" (3, Deacon and Chi ty,
417), said the ease 'au as of ...owe importance. His itn-
preadon was adverse tin. vi iw of Mr. luerranee. that
actual ',tenni try !,•s le ....hr. Dar, to constitute th• offence,
and in this he we, t ti .1 lee tn.. only two reporto d cases
hearing on Use e..quo. iia o waived the off; loco ass ..001-
plete •oy the het bony 'soot. ; hut be would c-moult
the own omasimdo• .•• (1(.4 and Fonblanque) forming
the subdivision dour.; a •is tee matter, if decided accord
ing to his erste,i• •.‘• o sa.d altogether prevent the certoti
sate beieg gra,ted. coevirrent course would be to
adjourn •he rasa .u.'sey, the matter was aojourne
until 114-oelay next