The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-11 00:00:00

tats intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord ammeter.
VANDELEUR T. BLAOKOte. REDEMPTION OF AN.
NVITY.—DouIILE AGENCY.—FRAIID OF AORNT.—The Lord
Chancellor gave judgment in this case. which was an appeal
from • decree of the Muter of the Roll., and was argued
some time back. The facts were complicated, but were in
substance, and u far as it is material to elate them here, as
follows —ln November, 1827, Mrs. Blagrove, the defend-
ant, then residing near Bristol. granted to the plaintiff, Mr.
Vandaeur, of the county of Limerick, in consideration of
2,5001., an annuity of 5001., payable during her life, but
redeemable on aix months notice. There were various col-
lateral securities for the due payment of the annuity. The
transaction was 'effected through the agency of • Mr. T. C.
Yates, then a barrister, who was for some time before in the
confidence of Mrs. Blegrove, who introduced him to Mr. Van-
deleur, whose confidence in him was so great that he allowed
the annuity deed and other securities to remain in his tun.
tody. Yates also received the annuity for some years regu-
arty every half year from Mrs. Blegrove, and paid it into
Mr. Vandeleur'e bankers to his account. In 1830 Mrs. Bla-
grove authorised Yates to give Mr. Vandeleur notice of re-
purchase of the annuity, and he (Yates) proceeded to Li-
merick, and persuaded Mr. Vandeleur to execute a release
on the back of the annuity deed, promising him that the
money for the repurchase was ready and would be remitted
to him on his (Yates's) return to England. Mr. Vandeleur
did not write • receipt for the money. Yates after-
wards informed him that it was not convenient
to Mrs. Blagrove to pay the repurchase money, and so he
paid the annuity as before. But Mrs. Blagrove had in fact
given Yates 11,0001. odd in 1830 for various purposes, among
which was the payment of the purchase-money of the an-
nuity, which he told her son be bad repurchased, and he at the
same time showed him' the release endorsed on the deed.
That was all false ; and the annuity was paid regularly by
Yates up to 1836, when he absconded, and died soon after-
ward' insolvent. Upon Mrs. Blagrove's refusal to pay the
annuity in 1836, the plaintiff filed his bill to compel pay-
ment. The chief difficulty in the cause was, to decide
whose agent Yates was in respect to the repurchase of the
annuity ; for there was no doubt that Mrs. Blsgrove gave
him the purchase money, and it was equally certain that Mr.
Vandeleur did not receive it. The Master of the Rolls was
of opinion that he was more the agent of Mrs. Blagrove, and
that she must bear the lose. [His lordship's judgment is re-
ported very frilly in the sixth volume of Mr. Beevan's " Re-
Ports.")—The Lord Chancellor, after stating and comment-
ing on the fads as proved in evidence, came to the same con-
clusion as the Master of the Rolls, and affirmed the decree.
WRIGHTEION O. MACLRLUY.—WILL CONSTRUCTION.—
LIMITATION 07 REAL ESTATE.—TIME OF FERTING.—CON.
VERSION OF PERSONALTY INTO REALTY.—His LOrthalip
also gave judgment in this case, which was an appeal from a
decree of Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Wigram, on the construe-
lion of the will' of John Heber, dated 1775 ; and of his son
and heir-at-law and executor, Reginald Heber, dated 1779.
The circumstances and the questions that arose on them are
too long for a report here, but they are given at great length
in the reports, 4 Haze, 487, and also in 14 Meeson and
Webby, upon • case sent for the opinion of the Court of
Exchequer.—The Lord Chancellor, after a full review of
the facts affirmed the decree, with the exception of one
point in which he made an alteration ; but as that did not
affect the interests of the appellants they should pay the costs.
FORDYCE O. BRUN:M.—DECREE IN AIifiENCE OP A PARTY
lIMRISTIID.—APPOINTMENT AND Powza OP Tantalite.—
This woo an appeal from a decree of the Master of the Rolls,
which his loedshllordship reversed • decree made by Sir John
Leech, M.R. in 1833, and consequential orders. The bill
in the present mit was filed is 1844 by Alexander Dingwall
Fordyce to set aside the decree of 1833, which directed a
large sum, part of the residuary personal estate of a testator
named John Dingwall, to be invested in the purchase of
lands in England, although the testator left it to the discre-
tion of his trustees to vest it in the purchase of lands in
England or Scotland. The testator had considerable
landed property in Scotland, and some in Eng-
land, where he had • large personal estate. In
1807 he executed deeds in the Scotch form, and made a
will by which he entailed his estates in Scotland on different
members of his family, in the Scotch form of heirs institute
and substitute, and settled his English estates in strict set-
tlement, giving his personal estate to trustees, with a discre-
tionary power to invest it in the perch* e of Scotch or Eng-
lish lands, to be entailed or settled as he had entailed his
Scotch and settled his English estates under the said deed
and will. The residuary personal estate amounted to about
280,0001., and of this sum the trustees laid out 173,4431. in
the purchase of Scotch estates, and 1,5201. in English estates,
and these were duly settled. There remained a large sum
with accumulations uninvested, until the death of the ori-
ginal trustees. The heirs institute having failed at that
time, • bill was filed by J. Dingwall, the substitute heir,
who thereupon cameuinto poseewen under the Scotch entail,
and who was tenant in tail under the will, praying the ap-
pointment of new trustees, and that the residue of the per-
sonally might be invested in the purchase of English lands.
Sir John leach made a decree in compliance with the
prayer of the bill, disentailing deeds being afterwards exe-
cuted. The money was taken out of court by J. Dingwall
and bequeathed by his will to Sir Henry Bridges, who was
his father-in-law. J. Dingwall had no issue. The present
bill was filed by the next substitute heir in possession under
the Scotch deed, praying a declaration that the de-
cree of Sir J. Leach was irregular, as this plaintiff
was not a party to that cause, and asking that Sir
Henry Bridges be ordered to pay back the money
transferred to biro, in order that it might be invested
according to the intentions of the testator. The Muter of
the Rolls being of opinion that the heirs of the Scotch estates
had not been duly represented in the former snit, that the
proceedings had therefore been irregular, and that the money
paid out to John Dingwall ought to be replaced by Sir
Henry Bridges out of the assets (nearly 100,000/.), of Ding.
wall, which came to his possession as his executor and
devisee, made a decree to that effect. The present appeal
was against that decree, and has been argued for the greater
part of three days, beginning last Monday; by Mr. Bethell,
Xr. Rolt, and Mr. J. Anderson, in support of the decree of
the present Mader of the Rolls; and by Mr. J. Russell, Mr.
Roupell, Mr. J. Parker, and Mr. Sidebottom, in support of
the decree of Sir J. Leach, and of the appeal against the last
decree. Mr. Stuart and Mr. Purvis appeared for other
parties, but were not heard.—Judgment postponed.

Before Vloe-Cbancenor Knight Bruce.
Ex PARTE BELL, RE TX:METALL AND CAsII.—RE-
PUTRO OWNEESHIP.—This WU • bankruptcy petition, pre-
sented by the public officer of the National Provincial
Bank of England, and claiming a lien on a certain quantity
of oil, part of the bankrupts' estate. The bankrupts, who
were al merchants at Bristol being already considerably
indebted to the banking company, obtained from them on
the 2nd of June, a further advance of 7371. 10s., on giving to
the agent of the banking company at Bristol, an order to a
Mr. Johnson, upon the 20 tuns of oil as a security. The oil
was not then in the podevion of Mr. Johnson, but was on
its way to him. On the sth of June the bankrupts applied
for still further accommodation, and received from the bank-
ing company two drafts on London, amounting together to
Before the Vice-Chanordor of 8161. 16•., but only upon the terms of their giving another
TEL GREAT WESTERN R•ILWAYE=ANY O. THE order upon the oil, directed to the keeper of the WEITIXOUESS
BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD RAILWAY COMPAN T.—BILL of the Birmingham and Bristol Railway, where the oil had
101 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE or •N A NT. —Da- then arrived. This order was given by the bankrupt
Bethell opened the case in support of the Tnnstall, who, being a quaker, dated it the 4th of the 7th
ball, and said he believed a very few statements would serve month instead of the 6th month. On the mistake being dis-
t° maks it clear that the plaintiffs were right in filing covered on Saturday evening, the order was brought back
this bill, and that all the arguments which had to him to be altered, when he wrote another correctly
been used In support of the demurrer would melt away dated, but said, at the same time, that it would
when the bets were properly understood. He thought that not be required, as the oil would be delivered to
if the counsel on the opposite side had well considered the Mr. Johnson early on Monday morning, on the account
they would have seen that these questions were of too of the bank. On the Monday morning, the director of the
s a nature to be disposed of upon demurrer ; it was branch bank at Bristol received a letter from the bankrupts
habit of the court to decide such important points saying that they had examined the oil, and found its condi-

Before the Monter of the Rollo.
LIMES 12. Ktno.—This cause' which was heard upon
exeeptions to the Master's report, respecting the priority of
certain membrane's, before the long vacation, and were
then reported in this journal, came on now to be heard, for
farther directions and costa. The material questions were
disposed of on the hearing of the exceptions, and the directions
now given were in conformity with the decision of the court
on the exceptions.

Lion so bad, that it would he unsafe to move it. This being
considered unsatisfactory, the company's agent caused the
order to be presented to the warehouse-keeper of the railway
at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of Monday, and was informed
that, early on that morning, 16 tuns of the oil had been de-
livered out by the order of the bankrupts. The remaining
four tuns were also afterwards delivered out under the same
order, and it appeared that it was mixed with other oil of
the bankrupts.—Mr. Bacon and Mr. Humphreys appeared
in support of the petition.—Mr. Russell and Mr. Osborne,
who appeared for the assignees, said they had no intention
of defending the conduct of the bankrupts in the transaction,
, but that, as the petitioners never had possession of the oil,
they could not claim a lien. A mere order would not give •
title until notice was given to the party in possession, and
that notice was here wanting.—The 1 ice-Chancellor
said he was sorry that there should be occasion
to decide such a question; upon which, however, the
assignees could not be blamed for taking the opinion of the
court. His Honour was satisfied that there was a valid and
available contract of lien before the bankruptcy, and the only
question wu, whether the reputed ownership clause of the
Bankrupt Act applied. If, however, the oil was in the
order and disposition of the bankrupts at the time of the
bankruptcy, it was not so with the consent of the banking
company, and his Honour therefore thought the 72nd section
did not apply, and that the petitioners were entitled to the
usual order in the case of an equitable mortgage, as regarded
the 20 tuna of oil.

Before Vice-Cbsseeilor Wifirsm.
SIMMONS b. SIMMONN—His Honour delivered judgment
in this cause, the particulars of which were reported in thin
journal on Monday last. The principal question strutted
was, whether a husband could chum, jure mariti, property
belonging to the wife prior to the marriage, but
omitted in the marriage settlement upon the faith of a
promise by the husband that the omissionshould
make no difference, and that the property should be enjoyed
in the same way as if it had been included in the settlement.
The furniture and chattels about which the question erase
had been let to a tenant, together with the house in Wilton-
place, at au entire rent. The demise had taken place be-
fore the marriage, and the tenant had ever since been In
possession, under a tenancy the nature of which did not
clearly appear.—His Honour, after going through the fists
of the case, as stated in our former report, said that,
at the conclusion of the argumnt, he had ale. n
his opinion to the effect that the plaintiff had failed
to establish a ease for the interference of the court,
by injunction, to protect the chattels in question,
or fur a decree for bygone rents in respect thereof. The
question which remained was, whether the plaintiff had a
right to have the future accruing rent apportioned. The
furniture and natures claimed were clearly not comprised in
the settlement, and the plaintiff would be entitled to them,
unless the circumstances mentioned by the defendant gave

her an equity to prevent the assertion of his right. itithe
face of these circumstances the least that could be required
of the plaintiff was, to prove strictly his right to proceed in
this court. There was nothing, however, in the evidence
to show that the remedy might not be at law. For, although
the demise to Mr. Grieve was stated to have been made with
the concurrence of the plaintiff, yet, for anything that
appeared on the evidence, that tenancy might have
been determined, and a new one adverse to the plaintiff's
title hive commenced. As there had been no proof that
such was not the case, the plaintiff's remedy might still be
at law. His Honour then dismissed the bill with costs, but
without prejudice to any question the plaintiff might raise in
any suFsequent suit or proceeding.
GREEN V. BRIOOII.—LIEN OP SHIP'S HUSBAND ON
FREIOII2 FOR REPAIRS.—The plaintiff was ship's husband
of the ship Thames, of which and of the freight earned by
her ho was entitled to one-eighth share. The defend.
ants, Messrs. Briggs, Thurburn, and Co. were the
mortgagees of the remaining seven-eighths of the ship
and freight ; and the question was, whether the defendants
were entitled, as mortgagees, to the whole seven-eighths of
the freight, or whether the plaintiff had a right, as ship's
husband, to deduct therefrom seven-eighths of the expense
which had been incurred by him for repairs of the ship pre-
viously to her voyage.—At the conclusion of an argument
of three days' duration his Honour reserved his judgment.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.
THIS QUEEN v. PHILLIPS AND ANOTHER: MAY A POOR
HATS BE ISIPOSED IN ILEsPECT OP THE BIRMINGHAM NEWS-
Room ?—A writ of mandamus had issued, commanding the
defendants, two magistrates of Birmingham, to issue a dis-
tress warrant for levying a sum due for a poor rate imposed
in respect of a building, known as the Birmingham News-
room. A return was made to the writ ;it was traversed and
otherwise pleaded to ; a trial was had, and a verdict found
for the crown. On motion for a new trial, or arrest of judg-
ment, it was agreed that the questions in dispute should be
submitted to the court in the form of a special cue. That
course was adopted, and a case drawn up which set forth
that the Birmingham News-room is the property of certain
persons, and is supported by the contributions of subscribers,
who pay a subscription of two guineas annually. The
management of the rooms is vested in a committee of 15 of
the proprietors, who are also subscribers. The daily papers
and periodicals are taken in, and none but subscribers are
entitled to use the rooms. There is a library of books of
reference, containing about 300 volumes, and two Testaments
are kept for the use of members who may have to administer
oaths there. The rules are signed by each member, in token
of his consent to be bound by them, and they contain provi-
sions for the payment of the subscription, and for a certain
notice of the intention to cease being a subscriber. Money
is also taken for hanging up advertisements and notices
in the reading-room, and applied at the discretion of the
committee. The building had been certified by the barrister
appointed under the 6th and 7th Vic., c. 36, to he one
exempt from rateability under the first section of that act,
which provides, that no person or persons shall be awned
or rated to any parochial or other rates in respect of env land,
buildings or houses, or parts of lands, buildings or houses,
belonging to any society instituted for purposes of science,
literature, or the fine arts exclusively, either as tenant or u
owner, and occupied by it for the transaction of its business
and for carrying into effect its purposes, provided that such
society shall be supported wholly or in part by annual volun-
tary contributions, and shall not, and by its laws may not,
make any dividend, gift, division, or bonus in money, unto
or between any of its members, and provided else that such
society shall obtain the certificate of the barrister-at-law or
lord advocate as thereinafter mentioned. The question for the
opinion of the court was in substance whether the proprietors
were exempt from rateability in respect of the building, because
of its being within the meaning of this section.—Mr. Miller,
with whom was Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., for the crown, con-
tended that the subscribers to the Birmingham News-room
did not form a society instituted for the purposes of litera-
ture, science, or the fine arts, exclusively; that this society
was not supported by annual voluntary subscriptions ; that
it did give a bonus among its subscribers by applying to their
use the profits derived from patting up advertisements;
that its laws did not prohibit the making a dividend ; end
that the certificate of the barrister was not conclusive.—Mr.
Mellor, with whom was Mr. Hill, Q.C., for the defendants,
contended that the certificate of the revising barrister was
final, ea to the fact of the institution being within the first
section of the statute ; and that if the certificate was not
final there should have been an appeal to the sessions against
it, under the 6th section of the statute.—The court took
time to consider the judgment