The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-18 00:00:00

eluded his statement and argument. The petition com-
plained of the elections of a Mr. Bright end of
each o a Mr.
Conington to two fellowships in the college, for f
which the petitioner was a candidate, and prayed that he
might he declared entitled to be .utetituted for one or the
other of thim. The Brit was elected to a fellowship on the
foundation of Henry IV., which required that the fellow
should be a priest, oonstitutus in eacerdotis, whereas Mr.
Bright at the time of the election was only an A. 8., and not
of age to receive priest'sorders. Mr. Conington was elected
to a fellowship on the foundation of William of Durham,
which required the fellew to be a native of the diocese of
Durham, whereas Mr. Conington was born in Lincolnshire,
and of that diocese. The petitioner was duly qualified for
either fellowship. The learned counsel referred to and read
copious extracts from the statutes and ordinances of the col-
lege. The petition came before the Lord Chancellor, as
visitor of the college in the place of the Queen.—Mr. Bethell,
with whom were Mr. Taloa and Mr. It. Palmer, commenced
his argument in support of tile elections a short time before
the rising of the court. The arguments will probably occupy
another day or two.

Before the Muter of the Rolls.
PZEITERRI O. W PARTNEUSHIP DIBPVTES.—
There were two suits in this case : one by the plaintiff,
Thomas Arthur Pasterre, against Ueorge Willis, with whom
for tour years subsequently to the let January, 1832, the
plaintiff had carried on in partnership the business of woollen
draper, man's mercer, and clothier, in St. James's-street,
Westminster, for an account of the partnership dealings, and
seeking to fix the defendant Willis with certain eccounts
signed by the defendant at the conclusion of each year
of the partnership, subject to certain corrections thereof,
made by Messrs. Quilter and Ball, accountants, who were
employed to revise the accounts. The other suit was by the
seine party against Willis and Leopold Schmidt, with whom
the plaintiff had carried on in partnership the above business
for ten years from the Ist of January, 1836, when the former
partnership ceased; and it sought an account of the dealings
of this latter partnership. This suit prayed no special relief
beyond the usual accounts. The case was not concluded,—
Messrs. Purvis and Fisher were for the plaintiff; Messrs.
Turner and Willcock for the defendants.

Beene the vice-Chancellor of England.
CORE V. SPAIN.—CLIAROR OF AN ANNUITY I.IFON TUE
PROFITS ARISING FROM A PARTNERSHIE.—A question
arose in this case as to a charge upon partnership property.
It appeared that Messrs. Cork and Spain wire partners to.
gether as coachmeliers. Mr. Cork died, and by his will be-
queathed his share in the partnenhip to his son, in trust, to pay
out of the proceeds and profits of the business the annual
sum of 601. to his, the testator's, wife. Upon the
termination of the partnership • contract was entered into
for the sale of certain leaseholds which formed part of the
partnership assets. The purchaser required that the wife of
join the testator Cork should in the conveyance, for the pur-
pose of releasing her claim to the annuity of 601. A question
was now raised whether this annuit upon • charge upon the
assets of the partnership, or only the profits.—Mr.
Stuart, Mr. Role, and Mr. Josiah Smith were the counsel in
the case.—The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the tea-
, tator had no intention of charging the property of the part-
' nership, hut only the profits arising from the concern. Th
widow, therefore, waa not a necessary party to the convey-
e
ance ef the leaseholds.
SMITH V. PLUMMBH.—RELEASE OF A POWER OF Ar-
POINTMENT.—This was a bill tiled by the children of Wil-
liam Smith, and a question arose under his marriage settle-
ment, dated Sept. 22, 1807, which contained • power
in the usual form for Mr. Smith and hie wife jointly, or for
the survivor of them, to appoint between the children of the
marriage, in such theses and proportions as they, or either
of them, shoull think fit, and in default of such appointment
the property was to be divided amongst the children equally.
The trite died without any joint appoiutment having been exe-
cuted, and after her di ath the husband, on the '22,1 of Feb.,
1842, executed an instrument by which he professed to re-
lease his power over the trust hind, and in May, 1843, he
made his will, and thereby exercised the power, gising the
property in unequal shares between the children. The tes-
tator died on the 27th of September, 1843. This bill was
filed in June, 1844. and the question now Keened was, whe-
ther the deed of release of 1842 was • valid release of the
power, or whether the will of 1843 was to have effect M
r.
Stuart, Stuart, Mr. Melina, and Mr. Stoneappeared for the plaintiff
—The Vice Chancellor decided that the release of the power
executed by the testator in February, 1812, was valid and
effectual, and that the children, consequently, were entitled
to share the property in equal proportions under the marriage
settlement of September, 1807.
FANSHILW V WALTER.—PATENT ELASTIC PAVEMENT
COSIVAN T.—Accot NT or Pliorefe.—Thia Suit WU instituted
by the patentee of an invention for applying blocks formed
of India rubber mixed with small particles of stone and
other substances, as • pavement for roads, &c. The patent
was granted in 1841, and in 1844 a Mr. Galloway obtained
another patent for a mixture of India rubber with cork and
other light substances, and the material when manuiactured
was to bo applicable to boat-building, or for the lining of
men of war to prevent splinters and other purposes. The
defendants were the patios who were interested in the
Patent Elastic Pavement Company, who had obtained a
license from the plaintiff, and hid also purchased the
patent of Mr. Galloway. The bill asked for an
account of the materials manufactured by the com
pang, so that the plaintiff might ascertain the amount
due to him for royalties.—Mr. Stuart appeared for the plain-
tiff—Mr. Tuella, for the defendants, insisted that the plain-
tiff had already received full accounts of all the goods made
according to his patent; but the plaintiff contend that the
second patent was merely an evasion of his rights, and tha
he ought to have royalties on all goods made according to
that patent also. The plaintiff had not given any evidence
to support this claim, and his bill ought to be dismissed as to
that part.—Mr. Teed, Mr. Shibbeare, and Mr. Dumergue
appeared for other parties.—The Vice-Chancellor directed
a counts to be taken of the royalties due to the plaintiff, hut
would give no specific directions respecting Galloway's pa-
tent. The master, however, might state special circumstances
in his report.

Before Vice-Chancellor Knight Brum.
CLIFFORD F. TURRILL.—SOLICITOR'S LIRTL—Mt. C. P.
Cooper moved that an order might be entered up, which bad
been obtained by a former solicitor of the plaintiff in the
muse, the plaintiff having changed his solicitor.—Mr. W.
Terrell, for the discharged solicitor, objected that his client
could not be compelled to produce the requisite papers for
the purpose, without payment of his bill of costs.—The
Vice-Chancellor said that the solicitor's lien could not be
permitted to intercept the entry of the order, and directed
the order to be entered without prejudice to the lien of the
discharged solicitor on any fund to be paid into court for the
amount of his costs in the cause.

Before Vice-Chirooellor Wlgrern.
PHILLIPSON e. OALTY.—PAILTIEB.—His Honour deli-
vered judgment in this case, the argument in which was
beard yesterday. The object of the suit was to charge the
trustees of a settlement personally with the loss occasioned
by an alleged investment of the trust fund upon improper
securities, and for the appointment of new trustees. The
question upon which his Honour had reserved his decision
was whether certain parties on the happening of a con-
tingent evert might become entitled to the settled fund.
His Honour was of opinion that the absent parties ought to
be brought before the court, observing that the trustees who
had taken the objection had a right to have the question
decided as against themselves once for all, and that it would
not be so unless the absentees, who would not be bound by a
decree made in their absence, were made parties.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.
THE QueEN O. DOUOLAB.—APPLICATION TO INCREASE
THE NUMBER OP SURETIBIL—Mr. Peacock
.applied to the
court to allow Capt. Douglas to find six sureties, instead of
two, for the sum of 6,0001., for which he had been held to
bail. It was doubtful whether the 8 and 9 Vic., cap. 68,
sec. 1, required two sureties only, or whether it meant that
two at least should be necessary.—Lord Denman said the
application had better be made to a judge at chambers.
Ex PAETE DOBBIN V. LORDS OP THE TREASURY.—COM-
PENRATION TO • PUBLIC OFFICER.—MANDAMUS.—Mr.
Peacock said that, on the last day of Michaelmas term, he
moved for a rule for a mandamus to be directed to the
tion Lords
of the Treasury, commanding them to assess compsnsa to
a Mr. Dobbin, who had been one of the writing clerks in
the exchequer, in Ireland. The court then desired that a
letter should be written to the Secretary of the Treasury, to
ascertain whether they refused to make such compensation.
Such letter had been written, and Mr. Tmvelyan, in reply,
had stated that the Lords of the Treasurydid make such re-
fusal. He now begged to runes his application for a rule.
—Rule granted.
The court then proceeded with the pew trial paper, but
nothing of sufficient interest occurred to justify a report.
Ex 1,1.11. COMMIT. -We ehuuld have stated, in our paper
of yesterday, that the court refused to grant a writ of habeas
corpus directed to the wardens of the Queen's Bench
prison (for which Mrs. Cobbett had, on a previous day, ap•
plied) to bring up the body of William Cobbett, in order
that he might be diseltarged out of custody, on the ground
that they had not the power to order such discharge.
The new trial paper will be taken to-morrow (this day),
instead of the special paper, which will not be taken until
the sittings after term.