The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-06 00:00:00

81.1PINLI VICI.FeIIa•CSI3.IIII44 RWHAIL KINDUEOLZT.

IN ME BENNY.* TiII'aTIIM—RAILWAY COMPANY.
cooTA tfP otIPAININO /LONNY OCT UV COCKY.

The View-Chancellor said that no investment upon lease-
hold. could be allowed without a re terenoe to the Master to
aseertiin wheth. r it would be tor tin bent tit of the persons
entitled nadet the settlement. All the court could do
upon this 'algid.. make the ord. r simply for pay-
ment to the trustees upon the trusts of the settlement.
Paw/tea or Tilt Ai TO ',MAIM.. CLAIMS.
Mr. Shen applied to the court for leave to tile a spi eta
claim against a solicitor to account iu a use where it was
alleged that a client had put iato the hands of the solicitor
• lam of mosey for investment, and the solicitor had re-
fused to give any account of the food.
The Voce-Chancellor said it appeared to him this was not
a proper caw for a special claim, as the plaintiff might
bring his action against the solicitor.
Mr. Stuart suggested that as the solicitor wu an officer of
the court the court might take upon itself to make him ac-
count. it had been usual however when a party applied
for leave to 11:e a special claim, for the court to make the
order upon the credit of counsel, and not to inquire into the
merits of the case. if the Plaintiff turned out to be in the
wrun; he would of course have to pay the cogs.
The Vice-Chancellor said that appeared to be a very com-
fortable way for the court, and if it was the usual course he
would certainly follow it, and as counsel had in this case
signed and settled the claim, he would make the order.

Barons TICIXILINCIUML P
Porn V. TUB lIIAML3 11 Arts DO4:ii. AND RAILWAT

CuMPANY.
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Hallett appeared in support of this
claim by trustees against the a'nere company to colorer the
specific performance of a contract, arising from a notice to
purchase land fur the purpose* of the railway company.
the claim came on for hearing in May last and stood over
at the defendants' request. 'llia plaintiffs now asked for
the usual decree tar specific performance. They cited
" Walker e. Emtern Counties Railway Company" (6 Hare,
594).
Mr. Wigram and Mr. Shaffer, fur the defendants, ob-
jected that the plaintiffs, being trustees without powers of
sale, could not tiwke a good title, except under the provi-
siuns of the Lauds Clauses Consolidation Act, lE4i, see. 9;
and that inasmuch so the plaintiffe had nut shown that they
had dune all in their power to procure a valuatioa to be
made under the provisions of the act they were not entitled
to the order asked. They cited "Agar r. Maeklew" (2
Sim. and St., 410). They also insisted that specific per-
formance to sell at a prim to be hard by arbitrators amid
sot be enforced—. 44 ilks r. Davis."
The cause WY ordered to stand over to the first day of
Trinity term upon the defendants undertaking within a
fortnight to concur in appointing yore to ascertain the
value of the hind.
sae OuI•HAY AsYLUM C. STuLES.
In this emu a reference had been made to the Master to
inquire as toe bequest made to the Orphan Asylum, West-
minster-road. The Master found that " Asylum tor
the Reception of Orphans " was the charity tor which the
legacy wan intended.
Mr. Russell now asked that the legacy might be directed
to be paid to the charity.
Counsel for the Attorney-General and the other patties
not objecting, the order was made accordingly.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.-iESTERDAY.
5m.... Is baxecf.—Uarlela& wru Ca gnu MIL JI:1111C1

M.
ABSENCE uE MII. JcYT ICE COLERIDGE AND M&.
JEsTIEZ WIWITMAN.

At the sitting of the court •Lard Campbell said lam
sorry to state that my brother Coleridge is prevented from
attending the court in consequence of the dangerous illnets
of a near relatire—bis daughtr. My brother Wightman
is also prevented from attending here today from his uwn
indisposition. 1 hope, however, that it is only temporary,
and that he will be able to resume his dude' tomorrow.

In this CAA. a ;ignition was presented fur the payment of 1,
dividends upon a sum ul money paid into court by the
Ilanche.ter and Birmingham Itailway Company upon
taking land belonging to a tenant fur tile.
Mr. Chauilli-o, in support of the petition. asked that the
costs might hi. paid by the railway company according to
the provviions of the Lands Clauses Act.
Mr. Follett, ion behalf of the company, opposed the pay-
ment of costs int the ground that the petition was unne-
cessarily long. The act incorporating the Manchester and
Birmingham Railway was repealed when that company
was amalgamated with the London and North Western
Company, anti several clauses in these acts were set out in
the petition. ablob ran to no fewer two nine brief sheets.
The whole .ula to be paid out amounted only toil. Ils.
accumulati it dividend and It. 13.. lid. future dividends, for
both of which sew ono order might base been Liken long

ago, instead of :Wowing the dividend to accumulate.
The Vice-Chancellor said he did not think this petition
3 unnecessarily beg as to make the statements imperti-
nent. The wts which were stated were in the nature of
private acts. if the Lands Clauses Act had been set out,
that would certajnly have been unmeemary. The subject
matter might be i.`ry smell, but that did not alter the prio-
ciple, and the smallnOis of the dividend might account fur
its not having been previously received. Ile thought, wader
the eircurnstancea the coLapuip ought to pay the costs.
IN CC 1111.011 TCLOT.-1 %COTE T UPON
LIAANNULDB.
A sum 0(2001. having been paid into court on behalf of
the trustees of a settlement under the Metropolis Improve-
ment Aet, for property purchased in the eonstmetton of
New Oxford-street, a petition was presented to the
south that the money might be paid out to the trustees.
Xr. Bagaitawe who appeared in support of the petition,
need tint the trustees might be at liberty to invest the
k the "mane of leasehold property.

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 6, 1851.

the plaintiff. This was the 'second time the ease had been
tried, it having been previously tried before Lord Cran-
worth, who did not think the correspondence could be
taken to lie privilcged. and it was therefore received in
evidence, and a verdict found fur the plaintiff. The learned
coemel now contended that the decision of Mr. Justice
Brie was wiong ; and that, therefore, he was entitled to
a rule.
The court granted a rule nisi.
Tax EAST LANCASHIEE RAILWAY COHPASIT V. ETTES-
TIELIL—SILLING LAND TO A RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action brought against the defendant as an
agent of a gentleman named Turtle to recover the sum of
100 i., which had been paid to the defendant as a deposit on
recount of sonic land which the plaintiffs had contracted to
parehase of Mr. Turtle. It appeared that the plaintiffs
usgelmed some land to build a s ation, and for other pur-
poses, and knowing that when railway companies
wiring to buy land they were asked enormous prices,
they put forward a Quaker gentleman named
Bradshaw, the publisher of " Bradshaw's Railway
Guide," es the ostensible purchaser. Mr. Bradshaw
employed a Mr. Addshead, a land agent, to obtain the re-
quired land; and he agreed with Mr. Ettenfield, the de-
fendant, as agent of Mr. Turtle, that the company should
give 2.21/01. fur some land which was situated in the town
of Salford. Upon the trial, the jury found that Mr. Etten-
field had acted unfairly towards his principal, Mr. Turtle,
in agreeing to sell the land for 2,2001., when he knew that
2,6001. could have been obtained for it. It appeared that
upon this fact coming to Mr. Turtle's knowledge, and that
the company were the actual purchasers, he refused to carry
out the contract, whereupon the company sued Mr. Etten-
field to recover the paid to him as a deposit, and 'suc-
ceeded in getting a verdict against him. The case was tried
before Mr. Justice Williams at the last astliSCO held at
Liverpo:l.
Mr. Atherton, Q.C., now moved for a rule to show why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a nonauit en-
tered. The ground of the learned counsel's motion was,
that there was not sufficient privity between the plaintiffs
and the defendant in the transaction to entitle them in law
to recover the deposit money. Although Mr. Ettenfield
might have received the 1001., and the contract had been
rescinded, yet the defendant was only liable to his pricei-
pal Mr. Turtle, and the railway company could not sue
him for money hail and received.
The court granted a rule.
LEETE r. THE GETAHANIILIFE ASIICHANCE SOCIETY.—

LIFE Pouctes.
This action was tried before Mr. Baron Parke, at the sit.
tings in Middlesex after Trinity Term last, when &verdict
was found for the defendants.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., now moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial had on the ground of misdirection. The action was
brought by the executor of the late Mr. Odes Poynder
Clements, whose life had been assured in the office of the
defendants fur 3.51.8. The policy was founded upon a de-
claration in the usual form, made and signed by the de-
ceased on the 18th of December, 1849, at which time he
was in his twenty-second year. In this document he made
• declaration of the sound gate of his health and of has
temperate habits. The defence set up to the action was
that these statements were false, and that the assured was
afflicted with a disease likely to shorten his life. This
being the state of the facts, it became a question at
trial on whose side lay the affirmative issue, whether the.
plaintiff ought first to prove that his statements were true,
or that the defendants should establish their untruth. Mr.
Baron Parke decided that the defendants ought to begin •
and the present rule was applied for on the ground that th;
learned Judge in so deciding had taken a wrung view of the
case.
The Court were of opinion that Mr. Baron Parke was
riaht in ruling that the defendants ought first to begin.
The court and the jury would at first consider that the
allegations of the plaintiff were true, and when they wore
put in issue it was right that those who disputed them
should prove they were incorrect. The plaintiff was nn
more called upon to prove the truth of his allegations than
a criminal was to prove his innocence of any offence with
which he was charged.
Rule refused.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YESTERDAY.
fIYMYR Ms. 11411111.10 MM FaNI.
PRIVATE. ARRANGEMENTd.
In the matter of a petition which bad been presented
under what are called the arrang ment clauses, hi, Honour
said that a person who could not pay his own debts had
no right to accept accommodation bills for others, and then
seek to have his conduct huddled up under the private or.
rsismement act. In this cast• the bankrupt owed 4,800'., and
had PO assets, tamp, a claim under a marriage settlement
of doubtful value. Persons who acted as he had done ots4lit
to have their conduct investigated in a public court ; and
the petition must be dismissed.

IN Hr. litteNsittm..
This was the certificate meeting in the caw of W. Brun-
skill, silk and ribbon manufacturer, of ratcrnoster-row,
trading under the firm of Charles and Wm. Brunskill. The
accounts, which arc very calumnious, extend over 111
year prior to the failure in July last, and show a sum of
7,3301 due to trade creditors; ditto on bills 3,0211.; ditto
cash, 4,000/.; ditto holding security, 23,1001. The assets
were in good debts, 943/.; in cash, 834.; stock and ma.
chinery, GAO/. ; plant, &c. at Battersea (held by a credi-
tor), 5,123'. The profits had been on sales, 229,GG4/. ; rents
received, 5,5291. ; discount of bills, 7,0711. ; rebate of in-
terest, 4,490/. Trade expenses, 50,5331.; private ditto,
18,703/. (14.452/. of which was the expenditure of the de-
ceased partner) ; losses, 3,317/.
Mr. Maynard, fur the assignees, offered no opposition.
Mr. Lawrance appeared on behalf of the bankrupt, and
applied for a first class certificate, stating that he was the
last surviving partner of a very old firm. Mr. Charles
Brunskill, who had married the daughter of Mr. Tinkler,
the principal creditor, was the moneyed partner. Upon
Mr. Tickler putting in force a security he hchl over certain
plant and machinery at Ilatterma, Mr. Wm. Brunskill, the
bankrupt, came to this court and put himself in the hands
of his ere ditors.
Mr. Maynard hail nothing to say against the bank, upCs
conduct. Mr. Charles Brunskill had lived in very good
style, and the creditors were thus led to believe that he was
trading on has own capital, but instead of that the capital
had been borrowed of Mr. Tinkler, who had held security
for the last fifteen or twenty years. The point at issue was
whether Mr. William Brunskill, being cognisant of this
state of things, had been justified in continuing to be a
partner and allowing the expenditure of his brother to
continue.
Mr. Lowrance said that the bankrupt considered the
claim of Mr. Milder would never have been enforced.
Ilia Honour observed that the expenditure of Mr.
Charles Briaaskill was between 1,200/. and 1,300!. a year,
the expenditure of the bankrupt having been very mode-
rate. The question was whether, in a commercial point of
view, a partner ought not to make a stricter cognisance
over the expenditure of his partner. In these heavy cases
the court did nut like to conic, to an hasty conclusion, and
he (the Commissioner) would decide upon the question of
class in a few days.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY—TUESDAY.
Suet. Mx. 0 1011.10111[1 HOLSOTD.
IN b.E T REGO.

This was the certificate meeting in the case of W. Trego,
who had been extensively engaged in the budding trade in
Colemanatrect, City.
Mr. Sheffield, fur the assignees, said there were several
grounds on which he had to ask that the certificate of the
bankrupt should not be immediately granted. The tint was
bad book-keeping, owing to which it had been impossible
for the creditors to ascertain the true state of his affairs, and,
more especially, of his transactions with a Mr. Yeoman.
The bankrupt claimed to be a creditor of Mr. Yeoman's for
a large amount ; on the other hand, Mr. Yeoman claimed
to be the creditor. 'I he next objection was, that the bank-
rupt having commenced busmen in January, 1845, with a
capital of no more than 701., had entered into transactions
of a magnitude far exceeding so limited a capital. In five
years tney had amounted to 228,68614 and whilst his
debts and liabilities were now 54,800/., his assets
were so small, that, in addition to the dividend
of 2s. Id. in the pound already declared, there would only
be a further dividend of 2d. This state of things had been
mainly brought about by extensive bill transactions, many
of which were of an accommodation character. The bank-
rupt had entered into contracts in the most reckless man-
Der, to the extent of 70,0001., and upon every contract there
had been a considerable loss. Otis accounts showed trade
and personal expenses to the amount of 12,1491., which,
with losses, made a total of 20,813/. His accommodation
transactions had been such that 2,721/. had been proved
against the estate for acceptances in the hands of Mr.
Cooke, 7,2141. as given to Mr. Crawehaw, and 6,750/. as in
the bands of Mr. Yeoman. He submitted that the bank-
rupt's certificate must be suspended.
Mr. Liuklater contended that Mr. Sheffield had not given
a fair representation of the case, or done justice to the bank-
rupt. His losses had principally originated in this way :
He had been under contract to build very extensive works
at the time of the bankruptcy ; he had already expended
considerable sums on them ; and their non-completion had
led to a serious loss. At the time of the stoppage he had
contracts amounting to between 150,000 L and 160,0001. A
considerable sum had been received in respect of these con-
' tracts, and there had been an actual loss of 20,000/., the
assignees receiving about 7,000!. The bankrupt had con- ;
tracted to build the City Prison at Holloway for 77,5001. ; '
he bad done work at the time of the failure amounting to ,
61,100'. ; the amount received was 56,000/., so that the
difference between the contract price and the amount re-
k
ceived was 21,000!., from which after deducting 14,0001. for
the completion of the works, there would have been a sum !
of 7,0001. coming to the estate. The work., however, not
being completed, the building committee of the City Prison
had token it into their own hands; and the result was that
the assignees received only 1,0001. in respect of that contract.
He had also contracted to build the Lewes Gaol at a cost of
32,000/., but upon that contract, for the reasons before
stated, there had been a loos of 1,5001. He was engaged in
various other works at the time of the failure ; and the
balance between what he would have received it he hod
completed these contracts (and he had tried to make an
arrangement to do so) and the loss, was upwards of 20,000/.
That proved him to be • solvent man about or shortly
before his bankruptcy. The assignees having had '
an ample opeortunity of investigating these trans-
actions, it would hare been more fair to state the facts
as they were. The bankrupt had been preceded in the bu-
siness by his father, who had carried it on successfully ; and
the bankrupt having thus inherited a good name and a
flourishing business', thought to carry it on with equal suc-
cess. He had in no case entered into reckless contracts. He
had had to deal with his father's creditors, had had the use
of his father's stock, and had 3001. or 4001. of his own ; said
during the course of his trading he bad received no less than
10,0001. from his father and the different members of his
family. The father's business was what might be tuned et