The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-04 00:00:00

•••••••
.JAOlSigsr: 077, ":" resirrter;
4

Eato Entttlfacrat
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Present: the Lord aumeellor, Lord Brougham. and other here.
Kelton!' V. THIt GNSAT WESTEUM RAILWAY COMPANY
LW I CONTAA.—CONTRACIN FOU WORKS.—FORFEITYR6B
AND PENALTIZL—Thia was an appeal and II cross appeal
against a decree of the Vice-Chancellor of England, pro-
nounced in 1844 upon a bill filed by the above appellant
against the Great Western Railway Company, and also
against three of the directors., aa mortgagees of property of
the said appellant. The principal facts which gave rise to
the litigation were these :—Soon after the passing of the act
of the Great Western Railway Company in 1836, fur making
a railway from London to Bristol, the directors of the com-
pany divided the intended line into two district', the one
calkul the Bristol district, the other the London district.
tha antracts to making the pm. of tale Itr!scol dtaslct wee.
designated letter B, and numbered 1,2, 3, &c., and
the contracts for the London district ware designated by
Ihe letter L, and also numbered. In 1836, William Ranger,
the appellant, then of Dean's-yard, Westminster, made Min-
cers. for and obtained contract* for executing two portions of
I he:Bristol line, marked I B and 2 B ; for the first of which
(about 2I miles at the Bristol end) he was to have 63,0001
cdd, and for the second (which was in continuation, and
tbout the same length) he was to have 69,0001. odd. In a
later period of the same year he obtained a third contract, for
making about six miles of the London District line at Read-
leg, 8 L, and for that he was to have 186,0001. odd.
The written contracts were very specific as to the nature of
the works, the meaner and the time of executing them ; and
for delays or imperfect exeeution,the appellant was subjected
to forfeitures of his plant and materials, and of all moneys then
owing to him from the company for work done. Payments
were to be made to him every 14th day for the quantity of the
work done by him in those peettatle upon certificates of the com-
pany's engineers. The laments were to be of four-fifths
only of the prices so certified, the other one-fifth being re-
tained to act:amulets sal it amounted to 4,0001., which was
to be disposed as the contract provided. In the course of the
year 1837 the engineers and superintendents of the line often
represented to the appellant that the works were not pro-
gressing fast enough, and he on the other hand complained
that the Payments were net duly made to him; that the cer-
tificates did not put the proper estimates on the work ; that
the delay was partly caused by the deviations and extensions
of the line. He was also obliged to borrow large sums from
the company on the security of his plant and materials,
while—u he alleged in his bill—larger sums were due
to him from the company. In 1838 the company took
possession of the three portions of the line, excluding
the appellant from the works, seized all his plant and mate-
rials, and further insisted, that according to the contracts all
the monies then due to him were forfeited to the company,
and they employed other contractors to complete the works.
The appellant then filed the bill in this case, praying relief
against all the forfeitures and penalties, and an account
against the company of all the monies due to the appellant
for the works. The Vico-Chancellor, by his decree, die.
missed the bill, except as to certain mutual accounts, for the
taking of which he directed a reference to the master. Sir
F. Kelly and Mr. 0. Turner have been heard for the appel-
lant against U.. decree for now three days, and have not yet
finished their arguments. The further hearing stands ad-
journed to Monday next

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Mester of the Rolls.
LEAAR e. Kt:teI.—PRIORITY Or INCERBRANCEB.—ME.
John King, by his will devised his real estates to trustees
upon trust for his wife fcr life, and on her death he directed
6,0001. to he raised out of the estates, one moiety of the income
of which he gave to Sarah King, his brother's willow, for
life, and the other moiety he gave in three equal shares to
his nephews John Shaw King and Robert Shaw King, and
a niece of his. And he devised his estates, aubject to the
raising this 6,0001., equally between his nephews, Robert
Shaw King and John Shaw King. In 1829, Robert Shaw
King wanted to borrow a sum of money from the Norwich
Union Insurance Oftlce, which they agreed to lend him if
his mother, Sarah King, would join in the deed for the purpose
of releasing his moiety of the testator's real estates from her
share of the 6,0001. This she agreed to do, and she joined in
the deed, and released her interest accordingly. Afterwards,
in 1833, Sarah King borrowed money, by way of annuity,
from Mr. Morris, on the security of her interest in
a moiety of the 6,0001. Notice of this incumbrancs was
given, as it was alleged, on Morris's behalf, to the trustees
of the will before they had notice that Sarah King had re-
leased Robert Shaw King's share of the real estates front her
shero of the 6,0001. And Mr. Cooke, on behalf of Morris,
claimed a priority by reason of such notice for his annuity
over the insurance company, in respect of the ?time they
had got from Sarah King, and of which they did not give
notice to the trustees.—Merars. Kindersley and Hades for
the insurance company.
The Muter of the Rolls took time to consider the case.

b4O;;ITWO:VAIIX7II7.-5/813 OLr7 702,1-07
—This bill prayed a diendution of partnership between the
plaintiff and defendant. It appeared that Mr. Parker was
to go to India for the of the partnership, and that
ens of the clauses us e articles of partnership contained
stipulations which, in effect, amounted to a provision
kr dissolution of partnership in ease Mr. Parker
Was obliged, by Ulnas, to quit India for more
than a year. Mr. Parker attired in India in
October, 11141 a lunatic, and parties there who
w_,ere interested Is him, immediately gent him back again.
The question was, whether this was each a quittanee of
India as was ontemplated by the article, of partnership.
It was contended, that it was not an intentional leaving of
the country, inasmuch as the party was not a free agent, and
therefore net within the articles.
The Mister of the Rolls thought that the only rational in-
terpretation to be put on the words was one which would
comprehend this ease, and he therefore declared that the
partnership was dissolved.

Bebe. the Tke.Chaneellor of England.
HANSARD V. HANSARD.—MOTION )O1 AN INJUNCTION
TO RESTRAIN INTERYERRNCE IN A PARTNERSIIIP.—Two
applications were made in this case under the following cir-
cumstances. It appeared that when Mr. Luke James Han-
sard, the father of the present gentleman of that name, who
is the well-known printer to the Houses of Parlia-
ment, retired from liminess, he inado arrangements
that it email ha swim% as by his me, who was to
pay the arm of 23,0001. The son in the yew 1844, took into
partnership with him his cowinfee.kwmwito, for a certain
remunerabon, was to receive tithe profit of the
business. Henry ELenurd baths been loch dissatisfied
with the eamiaet of his einsin, Lao hems, in the manage-
ment oldie Whin, lately advertised a dimeekation of the part-
nership. Lira this, the repreasaisliese tithe father, Luke
.1,4 haithniemsa awassmialewlat remained duu.e
nofdtt
a:Am eh
was reads ea Tarday lot ea behalf of the son,
L isms, hr an injeastlem to restrain the issuing out of
mattes rad the prommilag fora the sof the goods which
had been Wind by the sharer. This applicati m was ordered
to stand over till Momiffe, en the ground that the defendants
had not had tias be sneerer the affidavits ; the defendants
undertaking not te passed ha** in the mean time.—
A motion was this illay mile en paste in a second snit filed
by Henry Hansard ergot Lake Jens's, the son, for an in-
;unction to MOWS the &bedew from interfering in the
partnership except yoke the direction of the court, upon
the Found that he bad heprepssip dealt with the affairs of
the partnership is Awl sit oii distress to be put in, and
also wpm tho ground lint be bad denied the plaintiff's right
to a den ia the benlatin.
The The-Clienesilsr granted the injunction.

Fox e, Ma LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST
RAILWAY COMPANY.—INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE
ETA/lON OP A PATENT.—Mr.Bothell and Mr. Prior applied
for an injunction to restrain the defendants, the London,
Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, from evading
the plaintiff's patent for the construction of guide rails and
moveable switches used upon railways, for enabling
the carriages to pan from the main line to a
side rail, or from a aide rail to the main line.
It appeared that much danger laving arisen from the old
method of effecting this object, both from the negligence of
persons employed upon the railway in omitting to move the
points, and from mentions persons in fixing the points the
wrong way, the plaintiff had invented a guide railway and
moveable switch for the remedy of this evil, by means of
which the train in passing over from one rail to another,
might do so with safety, whether the points had been previ-
ously prepared or not. The defendants contended that the
plaintiff was not the solo inventor of the improvement
claimed by him, and that there was a total difference in the
principle of making switch** according to the invention
claimed by the plaintiff, end that upon which the de-
fendants bad been making the switches and guide
rails used by them; that, according to the invention of
the plaintiff, the whole main line of railway, as well as
the points, were fixed with en interval between the main line
and the point, whilst, according to the mode of arranging
the switches adopted by the defendants, the railway coo.
pally, the main line of railway was continuous, without an
interval, the tongues being 'Loveable, and that the switches
and rails, made upon the principle adopted by the defen-
dants, were a material improvement upon the plaintiff's
alleged invention, and that there bad not been any infringe-
ment or colourable imitation of the invention.
Mr. Bethel! and Mr. Prior appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Roll and Mr. R. Palmer for the defendants.
The Vice-Chancellor said that, as the plaintiff's patent bad
been obtained in 1838, and bad existed ever since, he must as-
sume that it was valid ; but,from the statements upon the affida-
vits, and upon the plaintiff's specification, it appeared that the
plaintiff described his invention to consist in this, that the
main line was always to remain immovable, whereas the
defendants claimed the use of that portion of the plaintiff's
invention which consisted of the nameable twitch, but to
adapt it in such a manner as that the main line was no
longer immoveable. Re thought that there was a fair case
for a jury to decide; he should, therefore, allow the case to
stand over, in order that the question might be tried at law.

Before Vice. antler Knigbt Brace.
ATTOIMET-GENERAL v. 1311318.—ALDERMAN GLBRO'R
CASE.—Mr. Swanton and Mr. Bates moved that the de-
fendant, Mr. Alderman Gibbs, might pay into court
1,2141.165, ld., being the amount appearing, on hts exami-
nation in the Master's Office, to have been received by him
since July 9, 1844, up to which period only the former
accounts extended. By the original decree, made by the
Master of the Rolls, it was, by the consent of Alderman
Gibbs, ordered, that the alderman should pay the rents,
issues, and profile of the trust property received
by him sulneenently to July 9, 1E144, into the banking-house
of Messrs. Willis, Percival, and Co.. to the joint account of
himself and Mr. Whittaker (the other churchwarden). with-
oat-prejudice to the alderman's right to be repaid what
shogiLbe found due to him on taking the accounts. On the
g on tcrahnibeard upon further directions, after
the master had made hie report finding a balance due to the
alderman, it was referred back to the master to continue the
reientinte, mid to inquire why the direction in the former de-