The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-26 00:00:00

lar7N AT TEI WT END.

carnera ev7L7 io su it, 12 to 1
apt The lamb (t sit se), 18 to I met Newman (1), 20 to 1 art
Casters Mmes. PI to 1 asst Clermont (t atoll), 20 to 1 apt Frio
go Bragh (t), 23 to I set St Lawrence, 25 to 1 Nat Mickey Free, 25
To. to 1 sgsnheritreen, 26 to 1 apt Annandale.
Comml CCP DAT.—Some misconception having arisen with
regard to a proposed special train from the East ogre motion to
Cheater, on the cup day. It will be as well tornention that nothing bat
yet been detemuned ; should the directors resolve on startini one, It
will in all probability leave at eta in the morning.

Xato Enteltfixtrat.
EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Chancellor.

TN THE MATTER or BRITTEN, 4 BANIETET. —RE-
HEARING • PETITION.—A petition to supersede the com-
mission in this case was heard by the Lord Chancellor some
years ago, and was re heard by Lord Lyndhurst, but his
lordship resigned the great seal before judgment. The par-
ties had consented to take his lordship's judgment after his
resignation, but they afterwards withdrew that consent, and
applied to have the petition set down before the present
Lord Chancellor. Upon Mr. J. Russell now mentioning the
matter, his lordship said he had conferred with Lord Lynd-
hurst, and as the parties did not communicate to his lordship
the retractation of the consent to abide by hisjudgment until
i was out of his power to give jddgment with-
out their consent, he, the Lord Chancellor, must
now decline to hear that petition. Had the rstrac-
lotion of their consent been communicated to Lord Lynd-
_

burst in proper time, be moat probably would have given
judgment before he retired from office. Such a mode e
dealing by the parties with the court most not be encouraged.
—Mr. Anderdoa said, the parties were entitled to have their
petition re-beard.
The Lord Chancellor repeated that be must, under the
circumstances of this petition, decline to re-hear it ; what he
weld be disposed to do in respect to any other petition, it
week be time enough to determine when such a petition
uses before him. •
ARNOLD O. ORRNIIR.—CRAROR POR BROIRRAGE.—The
plaintiffs were brokers in Liverpool, and, upon the advance
of a sum of money by them, on mortgage, to one Garner, a
merchant there, trading with the coast of Africa, it was
agreed that they were to have on the, sale of the imported
merchandise a commission of 4 percent. Several transactions
took place on that understanding, until the death of Garner,
after which the plaintiffs tiled a bill against the widow and
personal representative, obtained an injunction to restrain
per front disposing of the shipments, and were themselves
appointed receivers, with directions to sell and collect the
roprty of the deceased. They had told one cargo which
had arrived before Garner's death, and three which arrived
afterwards were sold under the order of the court. They
claimed brokerage en the four cargoes. The Vice-Chancellor,
Sir J. Wigram, decided that they were not entitled to
brokerage on any. of the cargoes. This was an appeal against
hi. Honour's decnien.

The Lord Chancellor, after hearing Mr. Walker and Mr.
Ede en one Ode, and Mr. Romilly and Mr. Prior on the
other, said that, according to the evidence, the cargo that
arrived before Garner's death was sold by virtue of the
agreement, by which the plaintiffs had a commission on the
sale. They stood in the position of trusters uto that cargo,
and were not entitled to any remuneration for their labour
from their costal qua trust. But as to the other cargoes sold
under the order of the court, which must have been sold by
broker, and brokerage allowed, there was no reason
opium giving the plaintiffs the same brokerage that should
heave& to any one else. It should be referred to the master
to Empire into the amount.

Before vlemCbancellar wlgram.
Waits a. GA /Mlle& —SPECIFIC PERPORMANCL.—
This wee a suit to enforce the specific performance of as
=t alleged to have been entered into by the late
Dam 13ardner to appoint the plaintiff steward for
life of siestas mamma in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. The
bill allord that in 1808 the plaintiff contracted with a Mr.
Knight ter the purchase of the manors in question, and
ailliewords, in 1814, entered into an agreement with the said
Winos Dunn Gardner, under which the latter was to hare
the bum& of the plaintiff's contract with Knight, and in
ecatilegotion thereof, to pay the purchase money due to
Knight, end appoint the plaintiff steward of the purchased
mama tor We life. The agreement had been carried out
by a dire* esaveyame from Knight to Gardner ;
add it mere& that from that time, down to
the Ohs of the bill, the plaintiff had in fact
helm dowerd of the manors. In 1832, Gardner
died, awl the maces In question were then enjoyed under
erill by his widow tin her death in 1839. The defendant,
the plum* tessmat far life, then came into the possession of
this peenhes, nog being dissatisfied with the plaintiff, in-
, MOM mem Ye
_eight to appoint a different steward. The
pleiatii that far= playing a decree of the court,
the se devisee maw the will of the
peadeen the
egreseasat. rearl e=stassmillearelaweeeied.alia=
he Begot haw whither the ens in molting or
tahreliell ern eartsla of et pest pesdaromee es en-
titling Ma le the relleM the vaggimmin hill,
however, OD ISMINONit, is hew been MONA Into
writing, wee Mill eat. pond oast aseerdly,
The Wino et NB agnopaik yes denied by Ae
. - • .

defendant's answer ; and the plaintiff having tailed to
produce it at the hearing of the cause in February,
1846, or to adduce evidence accounting (or its non-
production, the court on that occasion directed
reference to the muter to inquire whether such an agree-
ment bad ever been signed II W. D. Gardner, and, if so,
what had become thereof. The muter found that no such
an agreement bad been executed, and the cause having come
back upon further directions upon the master's report, was
argued on the 14th and 15th instant; Mr. Homily, Mr.
Wood, Mr. Smythe, Mr. Prendergast, Mr. K. Parker, Mr.
Pittman, and Mr. Hilton, appearing for the different parties
on the record.—His Honour now delivered hie judgment,
observing that be could rot grant the relief asked for by the
hill. The plaintiff was bound tither to prove ;he agree.
meat in question, or to adduce evidence accounting for its
absence ; and as he had tailed in both respects, the bill must
be dismiseed, with coats, but without prejudice to the plain-
tin right to file a new bill.