The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-18 00:00:00

Cabo Enttlitgence.

NAVAL.
(From lad night's Gazette.)
ADYIIIALTS, Nov. 9.—Doe. G. King Ml)., Dep.-Inspecto ;r of Naval ,
Ho-phial. and Fleet', to he Inapectew 'of Naval Hospitals and Flecin ;
J.Mortimer. Fog., and H. Parkin, Esq., Retired Deputy-Inspectors of
Naval Honpitals and Fleets, to he Retired Insiwn.torn of Naval
Itoepi-
tab and Fleets; Doc. J. Witch, M.D., Mr. W. colain, and Doc. J.
Scott M.D., surgeonßoyal Navy, to be Retired Deputy.lnspec. ,
torn of Naval HOP/Witt& and Iheeto.
COIPPS or ROYAL lanarivas.—Col. and Smond Corn. T. Aslett
Col. GM., sire .lone., prom. to be Major Gen. in the Army, and E. S.
Mercer to be Cod. Can., vice 13. atty, prom. to be Major Gen ; LicuL
Cols. W. Ferguson to be Col. and Second Corn., Lice Aslett, prom.,
and R. Swale to be Col. and Second Corn., vice Mercer, prom.; Capt.
and Preeet Major J. Wilson to be Lieut.Cel., vice Ferguson, prom.,
and Capt. IL Mercer to be lieut. Col., Mee Swale, prom.
J.
First Lieut.
J. IL Gascoigne to be Capt., vice Wilson, prom. and J. Urquhart to
be Capt., vice Mercer, prom.; Second Lieuts. T. C. Gray tote First
Lieut., vice Gascoigne, prom., and W. G. R. Mastees to be First lieut.
vine Urquhart, prom.
Nov. 16.—The name of Capt. J. N. Tayler, C.B , has been added,
under special circumstances rerrewented by him, to the list or C,lptains
of the Royal Navy who have accepted the rank of Retired Rear Admi-
ral of her Majesty's fleet ; and with reference to the announcement
of
in the London Gazette of 2nd Oct. last, respecting
the admimion
&Boers now residing abroad Le the retired list, the Lords Comniin-
Moneta of the Admiralty have been pissed to fix the 15th December
next, as the day on which the list will be finally closed.
Foirream-rw, Nov. 17.—The &aurae, Coin. Coffin, left
last evening to render waistance to ships becalmed in the xtel.
As the wind has now shifted she will probably return to Spitbead.
The Terrible, a. t., has put into Plymouth from inability to reach
Portsmouth. The Gorgon, P. R., Com. Crouch, arrived this morn
Rat-
ing,
and will proceed this evening to Slieernem to be paid off. The
tlesnake, Capt. Owen Stanley, In ordered to be fitted out with as much
expedition as possible, and will be ready for sea before the end of the
month. Extra hands have been put on the Ajax, steam block-
ship, to get her ready; the engineers having all their work for her
prepared. The office of comptroller of strati machinery, ted by
the appointment of Sir W. Parry to Hadar and Weevil, wall not be
filled up, but the bu.sinere of the office will in future be carried on
by a committee appointed for that purpsee. The Janus, Lord
Dundonald. will be reedy by the beginning of the year to make a final
trial, the Admiralty basing granted 10001. to make the necessary
alterations.

MILITARY.
Gavvrawm, Nov. 17.—This morning a detachment of the 37th re-
giment arrived by the Gravesend and Rochester railway, for embark-
ation on board the ship Castle Eden for Celton. Its strength con-
sisted of 11 aeleants, 7 drummers,' and 25. rank and file, with the
regular proportion of women and children of the regiment, unter
command of 3fajor F. blallv, with 1 captain, 4 lieutenants, 2 ensigns,
and I aMistant-mageon. *hie head -quarters of this regiment, under
command of Lieu.
-Col. the Hen..A. Spencer with 2 captains, S lieu-
tenants, 2 ensigns, and 1 surgeon leave th; garrison at C 1.1.1111112 to-
morrow morning, to embark onboard tie hip Minerva. Tbe strength
of the head-quarters are 17 noncan.,
8 drummers, and 287 rank and
Ale.
Lieutenant-General Sir Benjamin D'Crban will, It It is under-
stood, according to the present arrangements, proceed to Canbda BA
Commander-in-Chicf in the room of the Earl of Cathcart, who held
that appointment with the Governor-Generalship. Major-General
Brotherton, formerly of the 16th Dragoons, will, we arc informed,
receive the appointment of Inspector-General of Cavalry, in the
room of Lieut.-Gen. Lygon lately promoted. and not Prince George
of Cambridge, as reported. Major-General Sir Ilene Pottinger, the
newly-mmointed Governor and Commander-in-Chief at the Cape,
whose departure ban been so often poseponsd,will, it appears, embark in
the iladdington, expected to leave Southampton on the 3th of De- I
cember. CapL C. 11. Edmonstono, of the 81st Foot, died last week '
at Edinburgh. This officer, thoughbut 35 years of age at hie demise,
bad been in the army for upwards of 18 years. The government
are about to erect a district military prison at Cork, and it is ex-
reitstd,at the erection of such buildings will extend to tithe[ puts of

LAW NOTICES.—THis DAT.
Cotner 07 Gammen% Westminster, at 10.—Appeals D Ake of Leeds
v. Earl Amberwt, part heard; Prendergast v. Lielington ; Lacy v.
bitty; Miner v. Miner (2). .Vica-Cmisc-mamas' Cover., Weatmiuster, at 10.—Before Sir 1..
ShartwelL—Povey v. Gregory, to produce wil'. G... x, &e.: Parker
v. lhty (2); 1011.11/011 T. Forrester; Terry v. Wacher ; Sint;eon Y.
Holt ; Garrod v. Mare; Sings v. Itickfonl (2) ; Pe.smek v. Kennet;
Mormon v. Watkins; Wright T. BUIICICIIn Greenway v. Ilwitanan;
Walton v. Morritt ; Dobson T. Lyall. Before Sir 1. Knight Moos—
Coward v. Coward, to be spole to. Bankrupt petitions: ex parte
Fletcher in re Phillips; ex V. omit te ; ex Winterbotham re
Parker; ex Phillips re Phillips; cu Hildrew re Hildrew ; ex Gould
re Elliott; en Clark re Ma) bey; ex Bramall re Bra:nail ; vx Stevens
alias Green re Morena alias Green; ex Morris re Williams. Equity
Causes: Francis v. Francis (2); Edwards v. Browne; A nonmy-Getteral
v. Gardner ; Taylor v. Thomas; ; Hulbert v. Hulbert ; l'.llard v. Bate-
man. Before Sir J.Wistram —Causes, : BLiir r. liremley, part beard;
Preston:Y. Wilson, ditto; Emerson r. Emerson; Hammen v. Sedg.
wick; Warner v. Hodgson (2) ; Kirby v. Mash; Pennington v. Buck-
ley ; Tapperell v. Taylor.
ROIJA COLIN, IcTstialllfbrT, at 10.—Chase'. &e., Teistei v. King's
Cutler; Attorney-General r. Ludlow; Hopkinson v. Ellis; Utley
v. Gray; Willes v. Douglas; Howard r. Howard; Lockhart v. Hardy;
t Kitley T. ATharatlCT ; Hubbard v. Young' Stratford v. Kitson; Ken-
dall v. Granger; Thompson v. Clive. Notive Atterney-General v.
Magdalen College will stand at the head of Friday's paper.
'flue Courts of Queen's Witch and Common FICAs will sit in HMO at

:Coe"ilunin"et,ist. IL;
EnCo;Qine:nol sty..ylPtoressert.moo,u.:Gu. Guildhall, at 10.—(mean 00M111011
Juries: Macey,.
itlytaivida(
.4;
p,,Tho.;
Wes Inch
tminster,
jiy
ths,;;;..i.unk•; Barter e. Ke
s. mp; evicts-
Coler or
L
he
s
ch
Betta(h;n letaremttc:::::hoi
tdmoir.
isaottT:o introduction i
dismissing
rnaßgnntd appeal Al
letters
fxpos fa betweenti
ra.aittpsuNnui
.1‘
argued
tety.
ri "d
bot. h c
jarallel;‘,.E:rat
hetl)l
11: neel tie) Bt.
,pt:lyYthl
filed
on4attiE T
iEfi itult Sfflin; i
ltd:ni:r 0
:in
This was an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor Knight
early
f this
iw
e
nn
ment
ers
).
specific performance of an agreement alleged to have been
defendant for purchase by the former of a farm belonging to
'The Lord Cliencellor now, in giviug his j..dgment, said,
it must be a simple acceptance of the terms propose], with-
out
sub-
stanceshitphtehil.ann rgeuadagtew 000 f fLt;:rdi:nalee sle*lltilhet:troosinrn`anSe:cni.:llill:::.an'lpLdnhe:ll:hnee."wlfaytwlwreeie;.elleaeßigeth:
I agent?, Sad observed that they were deficient in the very
first requisite, a simple acceptance of tie terms of the pro-
petal to sell ; and in conclusion his lordship affirmed
order of the 'Vice-Chaucellor, dismissieg tho bill with
of the appeal.
BELL v. LOUD MEXPOILOCOH AND OTHEILS, RAILWAY
SHAILEROLDERB.—LLANILITT OF PUOVISIONAL COMMIT-
TEEMEN.—This was Ln appeal from an order of the Vice-
Chancellor of England, allowing a demurrer he the plain-
tiff's bill. The bill was filed by Robert Courtney Bell and
Robert Chadfield, on behalf of themselves and ml other share-
holders in the Direct Leaden and Exeter Railway Com-
pany, except the defendants, against Lord Mexhorough and
others, who were members of the committee of manage-
ment, and against Adolphus Capel, John Allen, and others,
who were members of the previsional cc:roulette of the said
railway company, but not members of the cormui .tee of manugc-
ment. • Thebill pmyed an account of the matte of the company,
and that each of the defendants might be compelled to pay
up the amount of the deposits on 130 shares, which had been
ailotted to each of them, anti accepted by them, and that the
same be held to be meets of the company. The defendants
Capel and Allen demurred to the bib. Mr. Hunt and Mr.
Hetherington supported the bill. This was one of those
r..ilway sculatio
pens which failed in its object, in conse-
quence of the misconduct of the directore. The plaintiffs
were shareholders( who paid up the deposits on their shares.
The defendants had allotted among themselves 150 shares to
each, but they did not pay up the deposits. All the defen-
dants except Allen and Capel signed the sulocribers'-deed
end the parliamentary contract. Capel and Allen were on
the list of the provisional committee, but not on the commit-
tee of management; and, on them grounds, they, by their
demurrer, insisted that they were not liable to the conse-
quences of the acts of the committee of management. But
they must be held to be partners with the plaintiffs to all in-
tenis and purposes, and the object of the bill was to fix them
as shareholders, liable to pay the deposits an the shame
which they accepted.—Mr. J. Parker end Mr. Daniel, in
support of the demurrer and of the Vice-Chuncellor's de-
cision, admitted that the names of the demurring defendants
were in the prospectus as provieienal committer:ten, and that
shares were allotted to each ; but they never took up
them ellen*, and did not interfere in the management of the
company.
The Lord Chancellor: The bill alleges they were share-
holders ; that shares were allotted to them, and that they
accepted them. Data not that allegation, which in this
matter must be taken to be true, constitute theta partners
with the plaiutifts ?—The counsel tor defendants : There
are several decided cases at law to show that
the directors could not compel these defendants, who
never took the shares, to pay deposits on them,
Tithe directors could 'not enforce the payment, the share-
holders could not. The echensu fell to tie ground in conse-
quence of the frauds and misconduct of the acting directors,
and the demurring def. admits were as innocent of that fraud
and misconduct us any of the plaietiffi. The conduct of the
directors operated us a release to these partite from all babe
lity. The ultimate decision in " Walstob v. Spottiswecele
(in No. 15, Lam Jeurnal), 'lowed that. there was no part-
nership in this case, and that all the innocent shareholders,
who paid, were entitled to get hack their deposits from the
d:rectors. Why did not the plaiutilie adopt Coat course ?
The entry of a man's name in a prospective es a Provisional
committeeman, was not enough to fix him with
unless he was shown to do someact in that character, or cor
firm or recognize some act of the directors.
Mr. Stuart, in reply, insisted that there was. a pertnerehi
between these defendantu and the plaintiffs, and the pray(
of the bill was grounded on that. The de fendante became
partners by met pting the shares that were allotted to them,
and that formed the strength of the eroc made ;iodine! them
in the bill.—The Lord Chancellor said the case was of great
importance, and he would take time to consider it.
_ .
Before the Mmliv tithe Rolla
PERRY e. ItEADOWCROFT.—DECULEJN ECCLESIASTICAL
COCUT ANNCLLtao Ileitatees.—Thia suit was instituted
to administer the °Mateo( Mr. Jamie feleadowerolt, formerly
a solicitor of Gray's-inn, who, by his will, gave his estates
to trustees to atountulnte the income for2l years, at the expi-
ration of which period he gave the estates and accumulations
to the male lineal descendant of his nephew, William Mea-
doweroft the younger, and in default of such object to the
male lineal descendant of Edmund Meadowerolt, The tes-
mho died in July 1821,and the accumulation ceased in July,
1t42. A reference having been directed to the Master,
whether there seas any male lineal descendant
of
Meadoweruft the younger, a claim was taken
in before him by one William itleadoweroft, who chimed
to be the arm of William Meadoweeoft the younger, by
one Mary Gregory. The muster received in evidence a
decree of the Ecclesiastical Court made in July, 1816,
declaring an alleged marriage betweett William Meadow-
erott the younger and Mary Gregory sull and void, as
obtained by fraudulent means, and he theallewed the claim.
To the muster's finding on this point William Meadow croft
excepted, and, for grounds of exceptis' he contended that
the master ought not to have received in evidence the
decree of Jaly, 1816, forasmuch as it was obtained by fraud
and collusion between the perks to the suit ; and that the
marriage was a good marriage. It appeared that the mar-
riage took place under the following circumstances:—ln
1814, William Meadowcroft the younger, then a minor, was
en articled clerk of his uncle, the testator, James Meadow-
croft, and he then met with Mary Gregory, who was the
widow of an officer in the army, and about' years of aac.
An attachment grew up between them, but their marriage
being distasteful to the testator, Mr, James aleadowerett,
from whom William Meadowcroft the' younger had large
expectations, it was put off. Afterwar4s, without the know-
ledge of the testator, their intercourse was resumed,
and a marriage by banns agreed upon. It appeared that
Mrs. Gregory sent written iestructions to the parish clerk
of Clerkenwell for the publication of the bonus, and that
they were copied by him into his private beok, and from
thence into the banns book, and were daly published. But
the name of the gentleman was written." Widoweroft " in-
stead of " Meadowcroft," though whether tlsis mistake was
in the instructions sent by Mrs. Gregory did not appear.
From her statement it appeared that when the parties met
in the vestry to be married, William Meadowcroft remarked
the mistake in the name, and that some scruples were enter-
tained by Mrs. Gregory respecting tbei sufficiency of the
publication of banns ; but her scruples being removed by the
clerk, whose representations were confirmed by the clergy-
man, and who stated that such mistidtes often arose, and
were immaterial, the name in the banns book was corrected,
the parties were married, and the names correctly inserted
after the marriage in the register. The parties cohabited for
a time, but disputes having arisen, Mrs. Gregory com-
municated the fact of the marriage to the testator,
who expressed great displeasure, and took active measure, to
set it aside by procuring the father of W. Meadowerott the
younger to institute a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for
that purpose. This suit was prosecuted, and
Mthe aGre- bove
decree was pronounced, annulling the marriage, Mary
gory being at the time enceinte with the present Mead cla
owero imant.ft
After the dissolution of the marriage, William
married a second time, but had no issue, and, on his death,
his widow applied for letters of administration to him. Her
application was opposed by the present claimant both in the
Consistory Court,and on appealbefore the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, but without success. The case of
fraud and collusion in procuring the decree dissolving the
marriage was attempted to be made out by evidence that
Mrs. Gregory, by her proctors, Messrs. Nichols and Bishop,
took active steps in the first instance to defend the suit, and
also expressed her resolution, so late as March, 1816, to
defend it strenuously, but that she was afterwards
induced by her husbhand,
he withhad large a view to pectaroptioitianste,
the testator, from whom exp
to withdraw her opposition on the promise of a second
marriage, after a decree, and before the child with
which she was pregnant was born, and that, accordingly, no
effective opposition was offered to the sentence of the court.
It appeared that after the decree, William Meadoweroft
refused to perform his alleged promise, and there being no
appeal from the decision of the court, it was acquiesced in by
Mrs. Gregory. The case was argued at very considerable
length beMeolis. Walpole and Daniel for the claimant, and
Mews. 'Turner, Kindersley, Hodgson, Spence, and other
counsel, for the other parties interested.
The Master of the Rolls, in giving judgmeat, went
through the facts of the case at great length. Be commented
on the conduct of the parties in procuring the marriage
against the consent of the testator, and on certain acts of
Mrs. Gregory, such as her assuming after the marriage a
different name from that of her husband, which argued
improper concealment on her part. He could not infer,to
from the change of mind which she was alleged
.t
have shown in her mode of defence to ,
after March, 1816, that any such fraudulent agreassa was