The Express.
London, England, 1848-12-05 00:00:00

MILITARY.

MOIILTAN AW.—Wati Memos to the titter deed
dedwi, OILS% dada he ea yedulei It ammo eel the
bra enimpuilillags NNW& et drib* wee tdee ear
=mbar lets be idlifilllld •111 et te esedit et 14,4100 ma Twin
at Wind to add lie et lbws Veep elect e,elle an vb.,
1.400 mashy end 4.lllllleidert Wide ediewbri ere is
liter IlidoWe id Idel d itte=melts imam the VIM,
ittrUNA iosiewe
MOW Vefaidtre Min. mil* on to embark tor
Ms meat/ Nat de le to dm dietridet : The
t illiLltireatoot
to he Sweboy id the Toth W INA la the Fwd.
more
id whether ire netwoste wM ream the these to to.
tore hada. et be so lestere is die Mishit:gni /ad* vM *rod
ea the some ;demi le the Pettish.

SPORTING%
TATTIRSALLM—Mmaar.
BMW= was extremely dud, and beyond eliciting a
narked.ea dliepedlea Yet awls e far the Derby, was entirely with-
oat d filimiL
ts rower on the Owner Om WDaley will be
hea meenasty wiry imams with thole renamed lam week.
WoVrannhatrrea Cavis (seas in seg.—
9to I opt lorry (t I to I), le to I ern Parelm, la to I apt ltieberd
eta MM. 10 to I get rollaway (t), 10 to l apt Nanywas.
WoLvizammon Hueums ItAca.—Clistlua was &-
dared sot to Mart at 10.mlautse bloc b. _ _

Plato( colt, moo
61 l 0 .pt' PaPeaky-Boy (t), 1,006 to LI opt Cesatktur (I), 2,000
to 23 apt Plus tit Mak (4000 to 15 L6l mos), MP to 20 opt
Lee's P 1 (t), 1,060 ft 16 apt liostion (t).
Diall2. —6 to 1 opt Tito YlyL. Dotdtatiut (t to 100..),12
to 1 or IP
opt lirepomb fits SOO, 1, to IS opt 22,00130 (t her
42 to 1 apt luppow 0h660
1,000 so IS apt awes oh
1,0011 to U apt Itopoisa (t) 3,000 to 20 !Primo&

tab inteilt2auf.

NOIIC/38.

CiWlCLlT.—AasnabatZ;;;;2; Oillea—Notlea—The treader
broke el tae leak d 2seteed will due Wednesday, Dee. 16. ib
ledmistrlairt.omtreed t edam rateeeteor nsUarer's urtilkates at de
odes will be detardey. Dee. 9.
aluede Baca, Geoasau.—Leads watt jury adadatessab.
_Nitsads Dea 0 s 1214aore .. Rut; Hest v.lleuetues ; T. v.
Bra ,y: Riker v. Benerthirelse ; Dewlag Oa; Beeye v•
ittdOwit ad rather; 1.41126.111 Bredlay. Vue&y, Des. : Wll.
eaa .. Reda ; D'lleace v. Reetberteed ; Hand .. Maitland ;
Deter sad rata Ilreedriale; ammo v. Tudor; Nemaltli
v. &dia. Weileaby, Dee. MI s Met ad sarder v. attired;
12•1191d1 Mere ; Woke lad ethos v. Plala end sestrar=
o•ra nil Benne. Oequey v. Mewed Hangar v.
der. Dee. 21 Derry tr. Slaws t Raney v. I=l,ltuer
haled ; Cobbold awl earelher v. lleramen sod dime; layer V.

Or em rd ssYrs Wan v. Ards. ,Dr. s Thin v.
limbed rd mars; Ire v. lard ard IMMO&
Cosmos Piar Gonauu.—Losaa arms
—Weir Dr. 11 Zara v. ; Mules inerMria a.
la.d
isr ; Wirt v. lei; Mims v. artMhilis v. Orr ;
Vas Wes v. ; Ordleer v. rams; V. al Raw
sr sorry adrirriast ; had. v.
drer.—Lardis
Mr* drs. rprWWmwilltoroarWiry, U, add

EQUITY COURTS—YiternaniY.
Before the lard Thaseseer.
Hie Lordship gave judgments in the following case, which I
was argued before hint is the last week of last terra
ROLAND O. MOSOAN.—BROUEST OF PLATS, JIIWRIA"
wro. as Hushoors.—This was an appeal from a decree of
Vice -Chancellor Wigrany nen the construction of two be-
quits in the will and ooffiell of Hurv, late Earl of Aber
plumy. By the will, dated in 1839, he gave freehold ,
estates of his own purcheite to trustees, to the use of hi
eldest son John, then Viscount Neville, and to go with the
title, to which were annexed the family estates by act of par- ,
lament of Philip and Mary; and after main other pro- ,
visions by the will, he "gave and beguesthed to his mid SOS
John, Viscount Neville, and to his heirs, Bari of Aberga-
unny, all hi gold and silver plate, pictures, books, leo*,
pearl neekles4 diamonds, robe., , to be held as heir-
looms; and he directed that his executers should make an ,
inventory of al each chattel. and accts." By the second
codicil to they'd', made ia 1842, the testator declared his ,
will and Will to be, " that, in addition to the articles and
things be had in his will made heirloom., all miniatures and
pictures, and silver Shires Indian articles, ornaments, and
various other articles, contained in boxes numbered and .
deposited in a drawer in the library and in thepllesy, should
be considered and taken to be heirloome; and "he gave
and bequeathed them to his executors as heirlooms in his
family, and he authorised and directed then to make an in•
vento of all the articles thereby bequeathed, and sign the
same." Ou the death of the testator, soon after the date of
this codicil, the title and the family estates descended on his
eldest son, the said John, Victount Neville, and he died in
1845, without issue' and was succeeded in the title and
estates by William, the present Bari of Abergavenny, who
was the second and only other son of the said testator. The
various articles contained in the above-recited ,
tents remained undisturbed at the family mansion during !
marl John's life, but after his death they were claimed by his
executors es having vested sbeoletely in him under the terms of ,
the bequests. The claim was resisted by the present earl and
his sons—who were born in testator's litetitas—insiting that,
by virtue of the bequests, they became heirlooms annexed to
the title, to descend therewith, so long as the rules of law
against perpetuity would allow. The bill was filed by the
surviving executor and manse of the testator, against the ex-
ecutors of Bart John, and against the present earl and his ,
thrones for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the court
on the bequests. The Vice-Ctiancellor declared that the gifts
of the various articles were gifts executed by the tense of ,
the will and codicil, and that they vested absolutely in John ,
Viscount Neville on the death of the testator. The appeal I
was against that declaration.—The Lord Chancellor now, ;
giving his judgment, said the question tor his decision was,
whether this case fell within the principle of the eases which ,
were referred to is the argument, for he had no authority to ,
overrule them, whatever might be his own opinion upon this
case. In 1808 Lord Eldon, in a ease in the House of Lords,
" The Countess of Ltheols o. the Duke of NNICSItIe" (12
Veen), reviewed the movies oases, and thought himself
concluded by the &deism in the late eases at that time, and
so Isere he (the Lead Chansellor), however much he might
lamest these ikelekus,felt that he was bound by them. His
lordeblp thee easeitiewed the oases of " Gower e. Grosvenor"
end " IP. Trolard," before Lord Hardwick., which
were oversulsit by the subsequent case of " Foley v.
Burcell," • &whim of Lord Thurlow's, affirmed on
rehearing by the Loads Commissioners (Lord Lough-
borough sad two common law judges), and " Vaughan
o. Bunion " which followed the deeisioa in " Foley
e. Burnell:" Then came the case of "Lord Deer-
burst e. the Duke of St. Alban's" (5 Maddock), which was
the subject of appeal to the House of Lords in " Tollemache
o. Earl of Coventry" (2 Clark and F.). Then followed the
case of " Meckworth v. Hinxman," before Lord Langdale
(2 Keen. 668). It remained to inquire whether the present
ease fell within the principles of those decisions, by which,
as be said before, he felt that he was bound. Ris lordship
read the above bequests shorly, and said he was bound
to adhere to the cues tadto the opinion declared in this by
the Vim-Chancellor, that the gifts ware direct and not exe-
cutory.—The decree wee therefore affirmed.
VISCOUNT MELLEN'S! V. THE EARL OF MORNINOTON.—
APPOINTMENT OP • Huey/ea.—This was • motion to dis-
charge an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England for the
appointment of a receiver over large estates in the counties
of Mee: and Southampton, which formerly belonged to Miss
Tilney Long, and were comprised in the settlement made on
her marriage with the defendant. Ender that settlement, and
duedssfuer mentiened,he is tenant for life of the estates without
impeachment of waste, and the plaintifi, the first son of the
marriage, is tenant in tail. In 1839 the plaintiff, upon
attaining his age of 21 years, joined his father, the decad-
ent, in a deed for the purpose of raising 482,0001. by sale
or 'soigne of part of these and of other estates. Mr. J.
Wright, late banker (now bankrupt), and the Rev. Mr.
Greenly, were appointed trustees of the deed for that pur-
pose, and to keep down and pay off with the sum, se to be
raised, the incumbranties on the estates which included not
only the debts of the defendant charged on his estate,
but various other charges, prior to the debts, and comprised
in the settlement. From 1834 to 1845 both plaintiff and de-
indent resided together abroad. Some put of the estates
comprised in the deed of 1834 were sold or mortgaged, and
cousidersble sums were thereby raised. Upon the death of
the late Bari of Mornington, father of the defendant,
in 1845, his Irish estates descended to the defendant,
and then he and plaintiff entered into another ar-
tenement, by which the defendant was to superin-
tend the management of the English and Irish
estates consistently with the possession of the amid trustee. in
the former. The plaiotiff, in the course of 1848 and beginning
of 1847, became dissatisfied with the defendant's conduct in
regard to the management of the Eeelish estate', and he
filed • bill against him, to set aside thi deed of 1845, and
prevent all interference of the defendant with the estates.
The defendant did not appear to that bill, and it was taken
against him pro conlesso, and the arrangement of 1846 was
set aside to the extent thereby preyed. In that cause
a motion was afterwards made in the Rolls Court for an
injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with
the management of these estates in any way inconsistent
with the pommies of the trustees sad for the appointment
of a receiver. This injunction was granted, but the receiver
was refaced. A second bill wee filed in the present year,
charging the &readmit with cutting down and selling timber
on the estate', and granting leases and taking large fines
from the tenants at small rents. Upon a motion in this
mooed nit before the Vise Chancellor, his Honour granted
• reesiver over the estates—Mr. Mali= and Mr. Sperling
wen heard last Saturday in support of the motion
to Iffiesharg• the Vice Chancellor's order. They ecom
touted that the second bill was wholly unneetemey,
and eight not to be filed. The object was to go to another
kiwi of the court with a pretended new ease for a rember,
with* the Matra of the Rills refined. If there were may
sets dens by dahndest sabenuently to that Teruel, the a}
lin eemyit to be made before the se me
jtidgaisa• es •=ite seat* the sew matter ; or if nememery,
ma meshed se a emplementel will could he filed in Worm
meet. They also emended that, notwithstanding the am
min. affidavits (38 la all) Sled in support of the motleakm
/ego the VismChansaller, sad la this evert, to sustain his em
dee, se laric Ms of the date la regard es the am
were item, me wee there say new
matAwriVer mate el
la the it
bill. which onlo re-
stated Ike hem' bill he the greats part, and then, to
mks an appsaresse se dilemma, stated other matters,
which were elder Milieu/ se setrue.—Mr. Bothell, Mr.
Bondi, and Mr. Odin wepseeted the VisuChenoellor's
order and amdmisi that the present bill was
mematially Moms* hem the first. They pointed out
the material lists dimmed in the second hill, and
reed affidavits he the abet Set the defendant solicited se•
veral tomato Meese of missy in the shepe of fines on
Wan remewahef their Isms, that be ordered timber to be
cut down mg eau We it UAW" et the Injunction, so
that a user' is dwie Um, steassisaty: The reason the
Master tithe RIMIEMENd te meta a receiver was because
W traitor weal as. thea esasent, but they have since
pies* their wromml. The AIM of the deed of 1834 was to
keep down the heemissiesst an the estales. That has not
besides' aseCtles_hthenne ea them sew exceeds the rental of
the estates MOM • year) by
_about 2,0001. a year the seem
mulations whisk will 611 en Viscount
Wellesley,
although he dm not receive any part of two annuities
of 8,0001. and 1801. which he was to have under the deeds.
The rffidavits, from which long extracts were read, con-
tained various imputation and recriminations not necessary
to mention her.—Mr. Mains replied.—Judgement was
postponed.
Tun SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY CONPANT 11. MARTIN
AND FOT.—SURTNTOSS' AND RNOINRESS' CNAROSE AND
Accounre.—This wee an appeal motion for an injunction to
restrain the defendants hem procesding V an ashen at law
brought by them spurt the *Jade he works Esse and
expenses incurred by them es surveyors aadmilessee for the
company. The modes had born previously stede heft,* the
Vice-Chancellor and rideeed. The Lord -Chancellor said he had
looked into the bill since the argument, and he was of opi-
nion that it did not make out a ems for the *jimmies, Be
femme was made in the course of the argument to what was
said in the house in the ease of " The Teff Vale Railway
Company e. Nixon " (1 House of Leeds OMNI 315). The
observations there made by noble bads applied to the peril-
, cedar ewe, and he was inclined to think that they were not
intended to be applied to a cue like the present. The juries
' diction in matters of debt generally belonged to the courts of
' law. The only matter in contest between these parties ie the
amount of these defeadants' claim for the surveys and other
works done for the company. Tao, fernished their bill in
I Oct., 1847, and biot their action mNovember following,
I and the bill was not filed metal last summer, sad he was NOW
I asked to restrain the action. The motion must be dimiend
with costs. _ _

---1500DWAN O. Dl BI AIITOIII AND 07•1128.—PNACTICB.
—APPRAILILACII ZNTZRED POZ • DILZINDANT WITHOUT
CONBANT.—This was • .OD= to strike out the name of
Capt. Feller as a defendant to the bill, and to elder the so-
linters for the defendants, who authorised so appearance to
be entered for Fisher, to pay thr costs of the mottos. The
Tuition was whether those solicitors bad authority to do
what they did. His lordship said that in reading the an-
davits, be sound some facts stated in them which world
lave mud mach of the argament in the MUMS, if he bad
knowa them. Ths Tumuli& wee, whether the appearanos
was entered without sallieleat authority. He was Wilda
smolt the stemmas in the papers before him (from which bin
lordokipnadeceaspomeges)thatthe s‘licitorshad saflishataa-
thority for what was done. The defendant was one of the
governing body*: the company ; the bill was filed by a
aharshslder pleat them. By the resole, ions of the direc-
tors it appeared that the 'minority was to be bound by the
acts of the majority. The majority resolved two& the diem-
hullo of the company. The clews had, as appeared to
bis lordship, distinct authority to appear to the bill for the

oempany—tko dineton. The acts of the company had
eagerly sonsdtstod Fishier a director, Wand by the majority.
An injunction had been granted agar the Nil was tiled, the
olgest of which was to prevent the directors from dealing
with ths funds of the Company. Fisher did not then object
to his having been made a party, but he now, after going
out d ths jurisdktion, disputed the power of the majority
to hind him, and Marta that the solicitors empowered to act
for ths majority bad no authority to act for him. Bat it
was his lordship's opinion that they had sufficient authority
to enter the appearance for him, and
.the motion must bie
refused.