The Express.
London, England, 1849-05-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.-YESTERDAY.
Heroes TER Mune or rite Roux _

SIM? V. HOLD•WA.T.--CONIMILI:CTION or • WILL.
. . • • - • _

This suit was instituted for the purpose of administering
the will and codicil of Mr. William Houghton, who died in
1846. The testator gave his residuary, real, and personal
estates to trustees upon trust, to invest a sufficient sum of
money to pay his widow 1001. &year, and as to the remain-
der of his real and personal estates, upon certain trusts for
the benefit of his nieces for life, and after their respective
deaths to their respective children. One questionwas,whether
the widow was entitled to a charge on the testator's real as
well as personal estate for the payment of her annuity ;
and this question the court decided in the widow's
favour. Another question was whether the nieces were
entitled to the rents of a particular farm called the Hoe for
their lives, or whether the surplus rents after paying certain
annuities were to be invested, and the income only of such
investments paid to the nieces.
His lordship on the peculiar words of the will and codicil
decided that the rents ought to be invested, and the income
of the investments paid to the nieces for their lives, and that
their children would be entitled to the capital.
Messrs. Turner, Walpole, Roupell, Hall, Elderton,
G. L. Russell, and Rogers appeared as counsel for the
different parties interested.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCIL-YEBTF.RDAY.
81711$011 DI BANCO.-1313011 LORD EINDAN, Ms. Jnmce PATTUON,
Mt JV,TICI ODUCILTDOE, AND Ms. Juan{ Eux.
XX PASTE SIIIIIIOX.-111ANDMIUS.

Mr. Whately applied for a rule teshow cause why a writ
of mandamus should not issue, directed to the corporation of
Lichfield, commanding them to execute a bond, for the pur-
pose of ensuring to Mr. Charles Simpson, the party on whose
behalf the learned counsel moved, an annuity of
501. 185. 2d. The application was made under the following
circumstances :—lt appeared that Mr. Simpson had formerly
held the office of teem-clerk to that borough, and that,
having been removed from it, he sought compensation from
the corporation, who awarded him an annuity of 301. Mr.
Simpson, not being satisfied with the amount given Mm as
compensation by the corporatioe, appealed, according to
the terms of the Municipal Corporation Act, to the
Lords of the Treasury. The result of this appeal was
that an order was made by Henry Rich, Esq , W. Gibson
Craig, Esq., and Richard Bellew, Esq., three of the Lords
of the Treasury By that order it was directed that an
annuity of 501. 18s. 2d. should be paid by the corpo-
ration of Lichfield to Mr. Simpson, and the order pro-
vided that the annuity was to be reckoned as commencing on
the 9th of September, 1835, the day on which the Municipal
Cerpontion Act passed. On the receipt of the order of the
ILords of the Treasury at Lichfield, a communication was made
by the corporation of that town to them, which resulted in
the order being returned to the Lords of the Treasury, who
altered the date from which the annuity was to begin Sem
the 9th of September, 1835, to the 20th of January, 1844,
that being the time when Mr. Simpson ceased te be the town
clerk of Lichfield. It was against this alteration, or second
order of the Lords of the Treasury, that the applicant now
appealed to this court, and sought to have a man-
damns to compel the corporation of Lichfield to
enter into a bond to secure to him the payment of
an annuity of 501. 18s. 2d. to be taken as commencing from
the 9th of September. 1835. The learned counsel contended
that the Lads of the Treasury having once made an order
in respect of Mr. Simpson's claim for compensation, it was
net competent for them to alter that order, by making a
macadam= differeetese, en far as regarded the time from which
the annuity was Seimatesee. The Lords of the Treasury
having owe nabs as weer upon the subject, were tuned
Ai* eld sada mike se further order rapectinit it. By
the llanielipal Ompsesdan Aet, it was provided thit annui-
ties le be granted is
psalm for the loss of aloes should am-
mime hem the time ef ctzetimeiest, and the Lords of the
were right in the directions of the act;
larrilliamred Wald!, they the power to make any
soma mist. It we laid down in "Comma' I e t Title
Arbitrament, 16 8., that an award made partially as one
day, and eimpleeed es another, was not good, beams it
ought to have bees is entire award, and the Urdu of the
Treasury having shin ea entire decision once upon the ales
of Mr. simperse mold sot alter that decision afterwards.
tinder thus eiremellessas, the learned eonnael submitted
that he wm entitled to a nu.
Lord Denmen—Ton maytake a role.
Itt as TEI Tann COMMUTAMON COXXISSIONS2B.—MAN-

Kr, Nsekty snored hieilieuse, to be abated
dual e
Tithe W ea Cameisiesess, &theft thm Is
whither a *au or a reeler Wes entitled to tithes et ter-
pipe, potatoes, sad agistreeet heire to the tom* et
dephars, hi the West Eiiieg et YWcabizo. The Meant
soused meted that slay* he thede lb
_spglieetiss le the
tons ell median:yin Meseta to the TIMM Omeselethes
bedCaellararetras jibs gssetioislPs =rot Ltd
be tree& was the ISM to their =skis their
own sward. By the • & ss. IV., osp. 71, ess. 45, it was
provided that if soy Mame' exist to hinder the sward
him made, theaminimeNheveldibetalablit,thidthe 6011

section, provided that when thate differences were removed
the sommindoners should proceed to make their award. In

support of the spoilt:alias:the learned counsel cited the oases
of Banbury e. Edwards," (3, Queen's Bench Reports, page
885), and " The Masten and Fellows of University College,
Orford, e. Garton," (llth Jurist, 907). The court granted a
rule nisi.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—TUTERDAY.
Burn= me BM%
BAILEY V. WILEINe.—CVerGy OP TEN STOCK EXCHANGE.
This was an action for money paid, tried at the Guildhall
sittings after Hilary Term of list year, before Chief lattice
Wilde, when a verdict was for the plaintiff for 401., leave
being reserved to the defendant tamers to enter a nonsuit It
appeared that the plaintiff, a London stock and share broker,
was commissioned by the defendant, a gentleman residing at
Swansea, to purchase for him 20 shares in the Vale of Neath
Railway, at 30s. discount. Accordingly, on the 30th of
March, 1847, plaintiff bought of Miss Bennett the num-
ber of shares desired, 21. being paid upon each share : the
prim, of the shares, at 30s. discount, together with Is. per
share brokerage, amounted to 111. At the time of the pur-
chase, there was a call of 21. due upon each share, making 401.
which sum wee paid up by Miss Bennett on March 31. The
actual transfer of the shares took place on the 6th of April.
By. the rake of the Stock Exchange, the vendor of shuts has
a right to pay calls in arrear, and torequire repayment of the
vendee's broker, upon pain of his expulsion from the Stook
Exchange in case of his making default. The plaintiff con-
sequently repaid to Miss Bennett a few days after the
transfer, the 401. paid by her, and which wu the
sum id question now sought to be recovered by him
against the defendant. A. rule having been obtained
to set aside the verdict and to enter a nonsuit, on the
ground that the defendant was not liable in as action
for money paid to his use under the above circumstances,
it was new contended by Mr. Berjeant Blies, and
Mr. Phinn, is showing cause against the rule,
that a person who employs a broker, authorises
him to set according to the rules of the Stock Exchange,
although himself not cognisant of them. Moreover, it was
urged, as by the 16th section of the Bth Vict , o. 16, it was
enacted that no shareholder shell be entitled to transfer any
share after a call has been made in respect thereof, until he
shall have paid sub call, Ito here it was necessary, in order
to give validity to the sale, that the 'call of 21. per share
should be paid. Therefore, by the combined effect of the
rules of the Stock Exchange and of the above enactment, the
401. paid by the plaintiff was, in point of law, paid to the
defendant's use, to recover which the present action was sus-
tainable.

Mr. Serjeant Channel, in support of the rule, coatended
that the authority of the broker ceased from the date of the
transfer, namely, on the 15th of April, and that the payment
made by him afterwards, being made when the agency had
terminated, could not affect the liability of defendant.
The Court, in giving judgment, said the case was free from
difficulty, and in their opinion the plaintiff was entitled to
recover, and to retain his verdict. The object of the buyer
was to obtain the shares with the deduction of the 30s. upon
the 21. paid. He must be taken to have contempla•ed
• i taxng the shares subject to the payment of such further
sums as were required to be paid in order to enable the
treader to be made. The call was paid in order to make
valid the transfer which was demanded by the defendant.
As to the nature of the authority to the broker, the de-
fendant must be understood to authorise him to perfect the
transaction so as to accomplish the object of the parties.
It was an authority to buy shares subject to one
limitation only, namely, that they should be bought at 305.,
discount. That had been done. Then a person who buys
shares on the Stock Exchange must be taken to know the
rules and regulations of the place. One of those rules was,
that calls must be paid up upon shares before a transfer of
them took place. The payment by the plaintiff was not,
therefore, voluntary, but one which he was forced to make
on bk hell of defendent under a sort of legal compulsion. In
the correspondence which ensued, and which threw some
light upon the nature of the authority given, the defendant
did not repudiate what had been done, but only complained
that it was irregular for the owner of shares to be obliged to
pay a call while they were still in the market. He objected
to the time, and not to the fact of payment. On these
grounds a good case for money paid was made out, and the
rule for a Renault could not prevail.
Bale discharged accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YEsTzaDAL
BEFOIIt Mo. CAMMISSIONEI SITINIZAD.
IN Ice li. A. WARWICK.

This bankrupt rrSacisTijibc4 as I:7iChsalerton, Cambridge,
printer, publisher, and newspaper proprietor, and this day
applied for his cent irate.
The balance sheet, commencing on the Ist of July, 1845,
show, a deficiency at that time of 1,4061. 24. Id. Debtor
to creditors, 1,7391. 16s. 4d.; ditto, holdings security,
1,0751. Os. 94.; editorial, &c., receipts, 7541. lls. lid.;
liabilities, 6,6621. 61. 44.; these liabilities were as part
proprietor with Mr. J. Cannon and Mr. Crowe, in the
Cambridge Advertiser. Creditor, good debts, 751. Bs.;
doubtful, 1841. 7s. 61; bad 1181.; property, 4811. 17s. lid.;
ditto in hands of creditors, 681. 131.64. ; losses, 2011.10 s.;
expenses, 2,1581. 61. 54.
The certificate was granted without opposition.

THE POLICE COUBTS.
GUILDHALL._

OBSTROCTION BY THB BISHOP OP BIETIR'S EFFIGY.—
A ropectably-dresaed individual,*r.amed Joseph Carter, was
charged with causing an obstruction on the foot-way in
Fleeastreet, by carrying an effigy of the Lord Bishop of
Exeter.
_ _ _

Front the statements of Sergeant Price and Thomas Qum,
terman, two city efficers, It appeared that about half-past 12
o'clock yesterday they met the prisoner with an effigy, large
as life, fixed to a pole about 8 feet high, and bearing in tns
front two wooden keys, on one of which was painted in large
characters the words, " Free Trade." There was a crowd of
about 50 perrons followingr, and the prisoner was therefore
regorged to go away out of the City. He refused, and was
taken into custody, when some letters were found on him of
chartist tendency.
Alderman Moon asked what the figure was intended to
represent?
One of the officers said it was evidently intended either for
the Bishop of Exeter or the Rev. Mr. Shore ; but the prisoner
would give no information on the subject.
Carter, in defence, said that he was a carpenter by trade,
but declined telling his motives for such conduct, or what
object he bad in view.
Alderman Moon said that he must be perfectly aware that
such a proceeding would create a crowd, and thereby render
the operations of Site's' more effective He must pay for
the offence, whether done out of a frolic or for a worse pur-
pose, and therefore he was fined 205., or 7 dais' imprison-
ment.
The fine was paid.