The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-26 00:00:00

Kain intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.-YESTERDAY.
DtroaS Vicm-Ciumcvu.oa trvAay.
rIARRISON v. TUE AIATOR AND DUNGEON= OF

SOLTHAMPTON.

This was a suit instituted by the erecittors of a testatcr
of the name of Hartley, against the defendants, the mayor
end burgesses of Southampton, in favour of whom the tat-
tater had made a will, giving the whole of his residuary
estate, ronsiatiog of a mixed loud of real and personal pro-
perty, in trust in eery genteel words, to found a uitheum of
natural history, a _library, and en institution fir
the promotion of science and elsasical literature
in the town al Southampton, to which he recommended
that the Louse in which he residcd and the aej helm; kcuse
and the gardens attached to Hum should be dedicated. A
reliminary inquiry was directed to ascertain who was the
heir-at-law and mat of kin of the testator, and this had led
to the consideration of the circumstances under which the

testator bad married Miss Clara Ann Crowther in 1798, art
a suit in tho Ecclesiastical Court, by a sentence in which
the marriage was declared void in June, 1602. Upon the
proceedings in the Master's office the circumstances of the
marriage and of the decree declaring its nullity were gone
into at great length. The Master found that he was
bound to admit the decree as valid, and that the
lad y who claimed to be the legitimate child of the testator,
as the daughter of the marriage, and who was born before
the decree declaring the marriage null, was illegitimate.
The cause now cause on upon exception by the lady, who
claimed to be the daughter of the marriage, to the Master's
report.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Cole, in support of the exemption,
said the question was whether the decree had been ob-
tained by collusion between Mr. Hartley, the testator, and
the young lady he had married ; and if it had, then on the
authority of the Duchess of Kingston's case, reported in
the 2dth volume of Way State Trials, and in the 2nd volume
of Smith's leading cases, and other authorities, the court
would disregard the decree. They concluded their argu-
ments yesterday.
The cue was resumed to day—Mr. Malin, Mr. Giffard,
and Mr. Shebbear, appeared in support of the Master's
report, but without hearing them,
The Vice-Chancellor said, that if the evidence of eollu.
lion in procuring the decree in the Ecclesiastical Court hal
been clear, the decree ought not to be received. The suit
on which the decree was made was by the 'alleged wife
against her alleged husband, Mr. llartley, on the ground
that the marriage was void by reason that the young lady
was an infant at the time of the alleged marriage, and that
her father bed not consented to tho marriage. 1 ho sentence
sought to be impugned was that of a competent tribunal in a
Matter properly before it, and everything must ha presumed
in favour of the soundness of that sentence until it should
bu sufficiently rebutted by evidence. In this cue the evi-
dence on which collusion was attempted to be shown was a
bond which the husband hod given to trustees, by which
he secured an annuity of 1001. a year to the lady. This
bond referred to proceedings about to be taken in the
Ecclesiastical Court, and the evidence of a witness was that
at or about the date of the bond it was in contemplation of
the parties to take proceedings to avoid the marriage. It
did not appear to him that this was an im-
properact, or arrangement, or contemplation. The parties
had a right to have their status declared, and they did
no more. Then it was said it was a hard case to bastardise
the issue of such a marriage ; that might be true, but then
the sentence of the ecclesiastical court had been acquienced
in. The lady contracted a second marriage, on the faith of
that sentence, and there were children of that marriage,
whose legitimacy depended on it. Moreover, the sentence
had been allowed to remain unimpeached for fifty years,
and on the whole he thcught the Master bad come to a
right conclusion, and he must disallow the exception.
It is understood that the value of the residuary gift, for
the purposes of the institution to be founded at Southamp-
ton, amounts to nearly 100,000!., but the validity of a large
portion at least of the gift will be questioned in the suit.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YESTEEDAY.
snug.. Nvu huts is 1/111J011 —Orman Till LOW/ CHILI

1•11011 AND • SPICILL JUST.

STEPHAN, V. KIIIIIIIAN AND SON.—BILL TRANSACTIONS.
Sir F. 'l'h r, Mr. Horn, and Mr. C. l'ullock, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Serjt. Slue and Mr. T. Atkin-
son, were for the defendants.
This action was brought to recover 841. 10s., the amount
of a bill of Exchange, under the following circumstances :
—The plaintiff is a bill broker and the defendants are the
well-known pianoforte makers. According to the statement
of the plaintiff, Mr. Kirkman, sen., called upon him on the
10th April last, and requested him to discount four bills of
exchange; one of these bills was the subject of the present
action. The bills, amounting in the whole to 2171. 10s.,
were discounted and a cheque for 1001. on account, given
to Mr. Kirkman. Upon the 14th April Mr. Nash,
the clerk of Mears. Kirkman, called upon the plaintiff
and received a cheque for the balance (deducting discount) of
1491. ss. 7d. This cheque was presented at Mea.u.Strahan
and Co., and duly paid. All the bills were honoured at
maturity, except the one then in question, which was the
acceptance of a Mr. Boardman. Notice of its dishonour
was duly given to the defendants ; shortly after this, one of
the defendants, with Ii solicitor, called upon the plaintiff
and said there was something wrong about the bill, and
that Nash had been getting bills discounted without the'
authority of the fires. Previously to this time, Nash had
frequently called upon the plaintiff upon the business of
Messrs. Kirkman, and hu had transacted matters with him
as their confidential clerk. Upon the 12th October, the de-
fendants and their attorney again called upon the plaintiff,
who then produced the bill, and challenged them to deny
their handwriting upon it. The elder Kirkman then said,
" It is very like; Nash must have traced it at the win-
dow." The plaintiff's attorney subsequently called
at the defendants premises, and, presenting the signature
as it appeared endorsed on the bill, without showing the
bill itself, inquired whether that was the signature of
Kirkman and Son. Mr. Henry Kirkman replied at once
that it was, and then inquired from whom MI. Thompson
came. He replied that he came on behalf of Mr. Stephens,'
upon which Mr. Kirkman said, " Oh, then, it is 1.4 t our
writing." The defendants did not deny the endorsement
of the bill, but they contended that they had not drawn or
made it. This defence, however, could scarcely avail them,
because whether they had actually signed the bill or not,
they bad adopted the signgture as their owu, and Mr.
Kirkman himself bad actually carried the bill to the
plaintiff, and got the money for it.
The Chief Baron uid if that were really so, he thought
then was an end of the case.
Mr. Sark. Slice said that he could show a great portion
of his learned friend's statement as to the transaction to be
fabulous. So far from the defendant having called on tho
plaintiff on the 10th April with the four bills for discount,
he could prove that he was not in London at all on that
day.
The plaintiff was then put into the box, and distinctly
swore that Mr. Joseph Kirkman had called upon him on
the 10th of April with four bills for discount, of which
Boardman's acceptance was one, and that he had given
him a cheque for 1001. ea account. In a day or two after
Mr. Naal=titend ti gave him a cheque for the exact
WeMeese.dames and commission.
AS "Sagehe "IS yesterday the court rose.
Thk memo Sir P. ?hedger said, that in consequence
et
the statsmat of Mr. Serjeant She*, that the defendant,
Hr. Joseph Kkkman, was out of town on the 10th of
Age% the day on which the plaintiff stated he had &s-
-ensing Zhe bill in question, with others, he had requested
hie Ant to make further search among his papers in re-
*MN to his transactions with Mr. Kirkman, and he bad
Illeeri that on the 27th of March he had given Mr. Kirk.
ass a cheque for 1001.. is respect et fear or five bills
ANL he had discounted on that day. It would appear,
therefore, that he had mistaken the day, and attributed
what had occurred on the 27th of March to the 10th of
April. He thought this statement to be due to the high
respectability of both parties ; and he need only add, that
the parties had entered into an arrangement, there being
other bills, satisfactory to both. Under these circumstances,
he was willing to consent to a verdict for the defendants.
Verdict for the defendants accordingly.

PREROGATIVE COURT—YESTERDAY.
heroes Ma Joan DODSON.
This was en application for letters of administration in
the goods of Mrs. Ann Blake, late of Wiltshire, who had
died on the 26th of October last, a widow and intestate.
The persons entitled to her property were Mrs. Brett and
Mrs. Blake, her sisters, and several nephews and nieces.
In March, 1851, Mrs. Blake had been found a lunatic, and
Mrs. Brett end her daughter had been appointed her com-
mittees. Mrs. Pratt now alleged that a majority of the
nephews and nieces had requested her to take out the let-
ters of administration ; but this was resisted by the other

sister, who prayed that the letters might be grouted to her
solely, or jointly with Mrs. Evan.
Dr. Lusbington granted Mrs. Evatt the letters of admi-
nistration.

FELLOWS, HERETOFORE PERILS AND FELLOWS, V. PEERS.
This was a business of proving in solemn form the will
of Mr. Francis Perks, late of Stourbridge. The will hail
been opposed by the son of the testator, but the objection
had been withdrawn.
The Court therefore pronounced for the instrument, but
made no order u to costa.

COURT OF BA
Suess lia.

N.-YESTER DAY.
Possums.

IN 11 FOWL

This was the certificate meeting in the ease of Daniel
Merewether Ford, the extensive railway carrier, of Blossoms
Inn, Lawrence-lane, Cheepside. The accounts showed an
amount of 5,4661. due to unsecured creditors, and 8,2281. to
those holding security. The assets consisted of—rood
debts, 7281. ; doubtful ditto, 2,2761. ; property, 2,7261. The
property held by creditor, was put down at 2,6701. The
accounts commenced with a capital or surplus (on Ist of
January, 1860) of 3,0581. ; the profits during 2, years had
been 61,6391. Against these items appeared—trade ex-
penses, 60,7531. ; interest and discount, 8691. ; law expenses,

3631. t personal and house expenses, 3501.; lasses, 11,2031.
Afire Mr. Lawrance had recalled to the recollection of the
court the principal features of the cue, and the bankrupt
had been examined at some length,
Ilia Honour said he did not feel himself in a position at
that moment to pronounce a final judgment in the case ; but
as it was always desirable to exonerate a bankrupt from the
imputation of fraud at once, be had no hivitation in say itig
that he did not believe that, in the transaction with Wim-
berley, the bankrupt had any fraudulent or dishonest mo-
tive. lie thought the transaction was irregular; the bank-
rupt ought nut to hare engage! in such a transaction
without the knowledge of the company, through their pro-
perly accredited agent for ouch purposes. There would be
so suspension of the certificate, as the whole conduct of the
bankrupt, since the bankruptcy, h.di been meritorious, and
his books and accounts had been well kept.
Mr. Graham (the official assignee)—The book-keepiug is
beautiful.

The Commissioner—On those grounds there would be no
suspension. The abirdute terms of the condition to be
annexed to the certificate wou:d be further considered.
The principle dm court lail down, and which
was generally acquits ed in, was, that where
a party came to the court on his own petition, 'Urg-
ing, ms the statute required, that he had St. in tha pound to
distribute amongst his creditors, he must be held to that
allegation, of course making just exceptions. Ifs men
should state that part of Li, assets were u stock of drapery
worth 5,0001., and his premises should be afterwards burnt
down and the property destroyed, no one would think of
invalidating his certificate becatee he had nut paid dr. in
the pound. Here, if the difficulty of realising sonic portion
of the property and other t:ireninstancea had occasiimad a
loss, the bankrupt was entit:ed to consideration in that re-
spect. The court would therefore impose the condition that
he thanld maka good his aLegation el having Ss. in the
pound, deducting so muck cs his a sets had fallen &hen by
reason of matters not within his control.

Devote Ma. Co mmy:l4u ErAws.
IN Al TALUS BONLAL.-A 000 D ESTATE.

The bankrupt was a merchant of Mogadorc, Monmco.
Messrs. Ashuest and Son (Old Jewry) typeared far the
bankrupt, Taleb Dada!, and stated to the curt that his
estate has paid to his creditors 2Js. in the pound. It was
his intention to supenodo the bankruptcy, and he had now
to apply to the court to give the necessary sanction to that
course being adopted.
Ilts Honour gave the required sanction.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-VESTE/IDAT.
8111.011 TN/ CHILI COMM

IN THE MATTI& OP EDWAIW Amos TIII ZLDIR.

This insolvent, an old man, painter in the Animal, Wool-
wich, applied under the Protection Act.
Mr. Nichols opposed for Mr. Lynn, a licensed Tic.
tualter, and three other creditors. Mr. Ernest Heed sup-
ported.
The insolvent owed 601. to a number of creditors. His
own salary from the Arsenal, where he had been employee
20 years, was 3%. a week, and he now had only himself to
support. llis suns had lbs. 61 a week, and he assisted
them. Mr. Lynn had priteeeikd °gains: him in the County
Court, and he came to this court for protection. He
did not sue how he could make a proposal to pay bis cre-
ditors.

Mr. Niche!' insisted that it was a ease fora proposal, and
if the court gavo protecti,n it weuld encourage other per
sons in the Woolwich Arsenal to come, instead of paying
their debts. It was well known that labourers supported
their Wallies on much less than the insolvent received. At
the present time the Wiltshire labourers, who bad received
only is. a week, had struck for 9s.
Mr. Reed strenuously resisted the application, and said
it would bs a very harsh proceedirg to require a proposal.
The Chief Commissioner appointed a day fur the final
order (19th March), and should expect the insolvent to
make a propo•xl.
Protection was given in the interval.