The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-04 00:00:00

difierreneelMestrees the eel of a man who, at • low prior,
bays ire. a domestic eggesin goods which the buy. r knows
to have been treaehmmegy stolen by the servant from that
egrvant's master, andihe actor Mr. Judge in acquiring from
the inn, called Middleton, under the circumstances and in the
Wither in which Ms. Judge did acquire the disputed impres-
sions, there may possibly, I say, be a legal &Wooden.
Morellzasthere is none—equitably there is none. It men tip
peme whoa Mr. Judge obtained the impreanome lam
Mieldielen,Kr,bige knew the mentexioa which was saki-
fag benne& Kldfeton and Brown. It appears that Kr.
Twigs waist that time aware of the "right and authmoddy II
the works in quatiew, see ma it be supposed fee a nemeenn
by as llMerie rational being that lir. Judge amid have
imagined MICeMn to have become, I will not tay the seller
but the poessoper, of the impressions which Mr. ledge
bought of him without faithlessness, fraud, and treadeary
on the pan of that man. It would indeed bee slur
epos jurisprudence and • dishonour to the edministration of
jades, were • plaintiff, in mush a ewe to seek proteetion
and redress in vain. It has been said by 'tensed counsel
that there are objections to the frame of the bill in this case.
I think those objections have no weight whatever. Whether
the impressions were taken by the band of the plaintiff, by
the band of his consort, by the hands of both, by the band
of Mr. Brown, or by the hands of any of Mr. Brown's
servants or agents, is a point altogether without materiality.
It is true that the bill does net specifically distinguish the
works of the Queen from these of the plaintiff, but this
defect, if it exists, is entirely removed by the catalogue,
which Is stated in the MU and which forms part
of the evidenos. It is indeed possible that the
injunction, to the extent to which it is worded, with
respect to the works of the Queen, may be open, in point of
extreme strictness, to doubt or question, supposing any
question upon that sublet" to be now open. But assum-
ing the doubt to be well founded,—uguatieg the question
to be open, I apprehend it to be entirely without
materiality, for so far as in extreme strictness, protection
ought not to be afforded by an injunction in the protest
form, the protection most Le afforded in the other ease,
covering every thing which ought not to be considered as
covered by this. Still, if the defendant desires that the
language of the injunction to be now continued, or to be
now granted, should be framed upon an extreme and dose
attention to that slate of things, I thick him entitled to have
it dose, and it skill be done. Substantially be must remain
permanently under the prohibition under which he is now
placed; and must be placed under that further prohibition
under which his co-defendant Mr. Strange is placed. It
has been said that the court ought not to set, or ought not
to make a permanent or final order in this cue without
giving the defendant an opportunity. of defending himself at
law upon that question. Considering the current of mo
tern decisions (however strong my own opinion may
be on the point of law), I should perhaps
have thought him entitled so to insist had the
ease remained in that position in point of evidence
in which I considered it to be at the time when the questit a
of granting or continuing the injunction was before me. It
is not, however, now in tint position. The breach of trust
is clearly established, and therefore there can be no reason
why such a question should be withdrawn from its original,
its regular, and its proper forum. The breach of trust being
established, were the plaintiff's case to fail at law, I should
equally inferrer" in his favour. It is then said that neither
the copies of the catalogue, nor the impressions that have been
taken, can be delivered up, or be directed to be delivered up,
inasmuch as the defendant contends he is entitled to the pro-
perty in the materials on which they are printed. With re-
gard to the catalogues, I think no such question arises. They
must be either' cancelled or destroyed; and without
destruction they can hardly be cancelled. In re-
gard to the impressions, it might be right to
attend to the defendant's claim, had the impres-
sions been upon a material of intrinsic value—upon a
material, not substantially worthless, except for the impres-
sions which, by the wrongful act of the defendant, nave
been placed there. That ease, however, don not arise. The
material here is suheantially worthless, except for that in
which the defendant has no property. There consequently
can be no reason why the effectual destruction of the subject
should not be directed by the court ; in doing which, I re.
prat, I abstain from giving any opinion as to the particular
mode of proceeding which the court ought to adopt in a case
similar in all pointe, except as to the intrinsic value of the
material. With regard to the cost-, my own imprenion is
that it is according to the course of the court, where
the merits appear to the court to require such •
course, to direct a pauper to pay the costa up
to the time A which be became a pauper. If the
practice of the court doss not allow this, as to which
point the officers of the court will determine, and as to which
maned can address me at any future time, of course the
acts will not be given. If it is according to the practice of
the court, assuredly I am bound not to refuse the costa,
where the defendant's case appears to me to fail alike In
law, r quity, truth, and common honesty.
ROGIRB ratCl.--Wsorn.—WELSlt GOATS.
The object of this stilt was to restrain the defendant, in
lessee of premises in Glamorganshire, comprising a piacra.
tion called Craig Alpha Wood, from leading, driving, or ad-
mitting into the plantation any goats, or other domestic ani-
mals, noxious to young trees, saplings, wood, or underwood,
or from injuring by sash means any of the trees likely to
brooms timber, or any of the saplings, wood, or underwood,
or any part of the premise' comprised in the lean. By the
lease the lessor reserved all manner of timber trees, trees
likely to become timber, saplings, wood, and underwood,
then or thereafter to be standing on the premises, and the
lessee covenanted not to commit, °rause to be committed,
any waste, spoil, or destruction, by cutting down, lopping,
or topping any timber, &e.; bat should use and manage the
premises in a proper and husbandlike manner. An injunc-
tion bad been obtained on motion, end the cause bed now
been brought to a hearing. The evidence was conflicting
as to the damage done to the woods by the defendant's goats,
and also as to whether these animals are, upon the whole,
injurious to young plantatiocs ; the defendant's witnesses
deposing that they were, on the contrary, serviceable, by
keeping woods clear from ivy and brine, and would not
destroy the bark of trees, if they bad any other food.
Mr. Wigram and Mr. H. Prendergast for the plaintiff,
said that goats had been always held to be injurious to young
trees.
Mr. Russell and Mr. F. Bayley, for the defendant, con-
tended that the duty of fencing off the plantations, excepted
out of the demise, devolved upon the plaintiff, and that,
having regard to the nature of the property, which was a wild
mountain Wes, the damage (if any) was hardly appreciable,
and was much more than compensated by the service which
the goats did in keeping down the brambles.
Mr. Wigram replied.
The Vies-Chancellor said he was not satisfied that the suit
ought to have been ever instituted, and that the defendant
might take hie choice, to have the Injunction dissolved, and
the bill disaiimed without eons, or have the injunction con-
tinued, and the bill retained for a year, with liberty for the
plaiatiff to try the question in an action.
Mr. Russell them the latter alternative ; and leave was
given, at the hearing (which took place on Wednesday last),
to mention the case again, but no further mention has Imes
made of it.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.-SATURDAY.

ONZ OP TIM ARISTOCRACY.

The Hon. Adeiphtes Prederiek Capel (brother to Lord
Essex) applied under the Protection Act, and wu opposed
on the part of" forty-four" creditors. Mr. Dowse avd Mr.
Sagood represented thirty-eight, Mr. Bagley appeared as
counsel for two, and four were in person. Mr. Cooke and
Mr. Sturgeon supported the application.
The schedule filed by the insolvent was of considerable
dimensions. The debts, in the aggregate, were 32,1991., of
which no consideration was received for 8,8321., which were
railway liabilities, and 4201. were 'more than once entered,
leaving the bona fide debts from 1841, 25,1481. There were
no debtors, and only about 401. to be given up for the au-
ditors, numbering in the schedule 221. The inealvancy was
attributed to the great loss sustained on the sale of furniture
at Theyden house, Epping, to railway liabilities, and to the
failure of the accustomed receipts hem friends. He had
been in the receipt of 3001. a year from his brother, and his
wife's father, Lord Maynard, made him a gratuitous allow-
anee of 8001. His income, over the period of his seheclabs,
had been 9001. a year.
On the case being opened. an application was made on the
part of the insolvent that it might be adjourned, and one of
the reasons urged was that, u nearly fifty creditors opposed
and no previous notice had been given,time should be allowed.
The application was not assented to on the other aide, and u
many creditors were) in attendance from Epping, the
Chief Commissioner directed the case to proceed, declaring
that it must be heard as a common and ordinary matter.
The court was crowded at the time.
. . -

IliCe—lemOlTMi-t- liitiii;eti a Wig examination. It op- '
rand from his evidence that his debts amounted to the mon
already mated, to meet which he had only 401., arising from
the valuation of some property. He had incurred his debts
in about seven years, during which time he had devised his
allowance of 9001. a year, but there was no settlement.
The allowances were continued, but could be stopped
at any moment. He was married in 1835, when no
settlement was made. In 1842 be took Theyden-honas at
Epping, where he had continued till lest year. He had
expended a good deal of money for repairs on the house, and
stow owed money en the same amount. The furniture,
plate, de.. had met him about 10,0001., cue-half of which
wee laid out in furniture. There was MK at wasn't owing
for furniture. He was. hand to leave in Kay last year, es
several executions followed a leisure under a bill of sale he
had given to a Kr. Chard for 1,8001. money lent. The bill
of sere wee given in February, 1847, end the male we. in
Kay. 1848, and in the interval he had eantracted various
debts, among the rest a debt fee a deeming ems, doe., and fir
jewellery, and bad so any merry to the two particular
creditors. On being the ream ba had not submitted
to the jangled= of the court wide he had property. he
said he wthed he bed dome se. flethref his Minds adthed
him end some advised him not to do so. The result of tht
executions was, that he We left Pelthent property. He had
omitted to Mate in his SCOOliai 8001. he had borrowed from
a money-lender, and which had beeo_repeld by the sale at
Epping. He had a town residence in Paric-efteet, fbr !Writ
-how he paid 3901. •e•year, end lath& he only occupied 1
dung "the eases t" and beims mind the time " the
maim" lasted, said hem; Apeß to Jun& and be let it during
the remainder of the year. The pry at They4en
Hesse which had met shout 10, ~ wee sold for
11,8161., 101. Id.; and several mention' were , aa
well ea the debt of 1,8001. Sues he left Epping, he hold heed
maim name for ammelmest, sock le " " Olifihrd,"
41;e4slal IiPAINef," mil "' wiart}jai "C. m
bis Ilthit the by
feetag
Sq. mitsio. , Am M - •
Mooed endhe' *I
=TM aim bathe eempted more Mem two en
itVoultheeest Vespreposod, so es to walk the median
Pettus 10 *sown ; sad fo wm 81001, NW mit woo
$ Weiofk OS. watto 12Zbicsr 4bi labi 7 '
it wee .ornra it ...?*
most, and me ineelmntammaed an as
that day. TIM NM a good of lawast.