The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-14 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.--InnaDAT.,.

- -
Nest Pattm—Besoas BM P.
cPounce, C. 8., AND • MIDOLLIZI Con.
m Jeer.
Thus sittings commenced yesterday. The printed list
contains 146 dues, of which 66 are-new mates, and SO are
rtnanets Of the entire number, there ere 68 antes to be
tried be special juries.
Tan WINSMINSTSIL IMPROVEMENT COMPANIES tr. FULLER
—ACTION UPON AK AOISSEMENT.
Sir F. QC. and Mr. were counsel for
the plaintiffs; Mr. 1). Hill, Q.O , and Ur. O'Malley, for
the defendant.
This was enaction brought to recover 600/. upcn an agree-
ment to forego opposition in parliament to a measure called
The Metropolitan Sewage Company Bill." It appeared
the defendant wes the vice.che bonen of the committee of the
Sewage Company, who, in 1646, applied to parliament for
an act to empower them to carry out the objects of the com-
pany, The plaintiffs oppcsed them before a commit's., of
the House of Commons, on the groue.d that the Sewage coin.
pane woul I interfere with the improvements coot( mplated
in Westminster and its vicinity, and the r.sulr was en anti.
cable arrangement was entered into at the ruggettion of the
present E tri of Carlisle. It was formally agreed, in writine,
that the plaintiffs sheald receive 6001. for withdrawing their
oppositian to the Sewage Company's bill. The opposition
was accordingly withdrawn, and the present action was
brought against Mr. Fuller (who was by profession a sur-
geon) to receive the cum agreed to be paid to the plaintiff..
The secretary and stlicite.r of the Sewage Company were )•ut
into the witness box t, show that the defendant had lane-
timed the agreement, or ren ered himself personally re•
sponsible for the fulfilment of it. The evidence, however,
b.telly failed respecting the personal responsibility of the de-
fendant. It was contended that the action should have
been brou6ht against the parties to the agreement or the
directors instead of the defeniaet personally.
Sir F. Pollock, C. 8., was likewise of that opinion. He
could see ne distinction between the present cue and actions
against provisional committeemen of railway timpanist, who
could no: be made responsible for debts contrasted by the
company sinless they had rendered themselves personally
liable. There was no evidence here that the defendant had
done any act to render himself personally responsible, and
the jury were therefore bound to find a verdict for him.
Sir F. Thesiger then tendered a bill of exceptions to his
lordship's ruling, and the jury returned a verdict for the
defendant.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.--YESTERDAY.
817011 Ma. B.1o:1 PAWLS AND THE JUDGES or TEE COMEON PLEAS
AND BAEONS OF LICKSIVES, PALM 11011 THE COVET OP

Quern's BENcti.
THE CORPORATION 07 BIRMINGHAM V. THE QUERN.
—LIABILITY 07 THE BOU01:011 OP BIRMINGHAM IN •
PROPORTION OP THE PIJACHABB MONEY OP THE COMITY
PRISON OP COVENTRY.
The writ of error came up on a judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench, on a demurrer to a mandamus callicg upon
the corporation of the borough of Birmingham to pay to the
justices of the county of Warwick the sum of 11,7421. 3,.
the balance due from the said corporation for expenses in-
curred in the prosecution, maintenance, and permanent sae
custody and rare of =ironer( committed from the said
borough to the county gul of the said county since the
grant of a separate court of quarter sessions to the said
borough, for offences which have ari•en within the same, and
for a proportion of the oast of purchasing the gaol and court- I
house of Coventry. The qui stion arose under the act 5& 6
Viet., e. 110, see. 4, which provides that the county of War.
wick should pay to the city of Coventry the fair value of the
gaol seal house of corrects m and court-house at Coventry,
which that statute provided that the county should purchase;
and that the prism, from and after November then next
ensuing, should become the common gaol for the county of
Warwick. The 5& 6 WMU. IV , e. 76, sec. 117, makes the
b cough of Birmingham antributery to the county rate,
" for other purposes than the costs arising out of the prose-
cutioit, =Mammies., and punishment, conveyance, and tress-
sport of offenders committed for trial in such county ;" and
it was contended that the pure h lse of the gaol and =or;
house of Coventry was within the fair meaning of that coo
tim. The Court of Queen's Bench held that they
could not bring the case within the EleiniOF of the
cords of that section, nor did they thi ik that
the torough of Birmingham was so entirely ea panted
from the county of Warwick with respect to prusonets,
as to justify them in leading the statute 6 & 6 Viet. e. 110.
as if, in defining " the county of War& k," the legislature'
intended 't the county of Warwick except the borough of
Birmingham." The court, therefore, held that the borough
of Birmingham was liable to contribute its proportion et the
sum to be paid under the statute 5& 6 Vict., e. 110, and
which was to he levied under the provisions of 6 & 6 Wm.lV.,
e. 76, s. 117.
The At'orney-Ocafral, in support of the writ of error, ssid
the b cough of Birmingham hod been at great ax• tine in
the I rection of a new gaol in that town, and the print fur the
deci-ion of the court was nowlimiud to the question whether
the coerce tion of Birmingham were bound to pay t s the
county of Warwick a proportion of the expense incurred in
paTcha.ing the gaol end court-I ouse of Coventry. The gum-
non would turn on the true construction of two clauses in
the sets cited, whether the borough of Birmingham, having
a court of quarter sessions of its own, was liable to a proper •
tion a the lump sum paid by the county as the purchase.
money of the gaol; or whether, as the corporation considered
lieu the true meaning of the statute, they were only liable to
that proportion of the tax requisite to pay for the
maietenance, &c., tf prisoners while in custody. He
contended that the borough was not liable. Before the
pawing of the act 5 & 6 Win. IV. the borough was liable in
vs proposal n of the whole county expenditure ; and by the
117th section it was still liable for certain sums expended out
of the county rate, "for other purposes than the costs arising
out of the prosecution, maintenance, punishment, &0 , of eft
fenders committed for trial in such county, in the case of
boroughs having a separate court cf quarter steams of the
peace other than out of coroner's inquests." On this ground
he submitted that the b nough, having a separate Court of
Quarter Sessions, was entitled to exemption, unless the
learned Recorder should find some morning that an act of
parliament had deprived him of his (nice and that the
learned judges had been sent to Coventry. (Laughter) The
learned Attorney-General was proceeding with his argument
when he was interrupted by
Mr. B con Parke, who said that the court were omen--
=weedy ufopioinn that the Court of Queen's B: rich was quite
right in the judgment given. They were clearly of opinion
that eh- borough of Birmingham was found to contribute
voter the 117th secsion to c very expense except the temporary
cost arising out of the prosecution, maintenance and punish-
ment of prisoners committed for trial. The burden was
cast on the whole county of Warwick; it was an squat
charge on all. It there was any injust;ce in charging Bir-
mingham with a proportion of the cost of the gaol o' Co-
=atm, it should have been urged at the time the at was
passed. It was, therefore, the opinion of all the's. lordships
that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench ought to
be affirmed.
The judgment was affirmed accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YESTERDAY.
Swaim Ma. CONNISSIONAIFONBIANAVR.
Its J. Da MONTE ARBUTHNOT.—GAMBLING AND lIONSB-
RACING.
The bankrupt's adjourned applination for his certificate
was again supported by Mr. Lewis, and opposed by Mr.
Steele.
After a protracted hearing, in which scarcely a new argu-
ment was advanced,
Toe learned Commissioner gave judgment. He said that
this was the most melancholy owe that tad ever e woe hr.
fore that cu t. It was the case of a yourg man who
on coming into the passess'on of a handsome fortune, had
more than dissipated it in the course of two years by gambling
end lune racing, and the most extravagan• expendieure.
His balance sheet showed that his lines by horse ra ing
alone exceeded 5,0001., and his peewee] ex'revstance
was of a similarly reckless character. It appeared diet he
had fallen into exceedingly bad hands. On one ocession he
had lost with two associates, he would not say
accomplices, a sum of one thousand pounds i .
two days at the game of Millard,. Anj thing
more disgusting seldom came wore a criminal court, and
be wished it had been before a criminal court on the present
occasion, not so much on aeclunt of the bankrupt's part in
the transaction, as en account of the part Mk by others
His Honour next proceeded is state the reasons why he con-
sidered the ease before him cam- under the statute of the
5 & 6 Victoria against gambling by traders, and that he had
no power to grant the bankrupt his certificate. Were
there no such law in bring, he might 'seriously call in
location his right to grant a certificate to a pence who
had lost mYney by gambling in the minuet- the bankrupt
had, se • person who was again we'rthy to enter upon trade,
or a person in whose hands the mono or property of fu-
ture creditors ought to be periUed. With respect t I the
severe penalty which the law imposed upon traders who lost
their money by wagering, his view of the operation of the
statute was that it was a wholesome s-v• city, and highly be-
neficial to the community. Although the penslty
was only inflicted in cues where the le i•
should amount to 201 in one day, or 2001
in one year "game not at all " should be the t set of e, cry
trader. His Honour next referred generally to the statute,
5 & 6 Vie., 6 Geo. IV., and 5 Oro. 11., and distinctly stated
that the last not on the subject contemplated every cis,
where the chances of a wager of any kind were incurred, and
*elan amounted to the specified sum. In the present cue
it was clear the bankrupt had lost 2001 within one
year next preceding his bankrurey, and to fiel!y
concurred in the opinion of Mr. C onmissioner Choi-
I burn that the act included any 1 cs, although
the loss might not have been plied He did not think t •at
the law contemplated dealing more favourably towards he
man who added to gambling the improper or dishonest part
of not paling his losses. This remark if dishonesty
did not, however, apply to the bankrupt's ease or con-
duct. On account of his lose with Mr. Benjamin Growl
and Mr. Stebbings, he did give to Mr. Own a bona
upon which he had obtained judgment. The bank-
rupt was, he considered, on almost every ground, ea
person whs was not entitled to have his certificate; but
as he had tome doubt upon one or two points, and he could
not but take into his ewe sideration—lst, the extreme youth
at which he entered upon his fortune ; 2nd, the exceedingly
bad hands into which he had fallen; and 3rd, the frank
ness and sincerity which be hadshown in answering all
ques'i ns put to him, however much those answer, necessa-
rily told against himself, be would not go so tar as to