The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-17 00:00:00

• wind to be bold mid built upon. The defendant' said,
Set when they enteriel into the contract+ they were fre-
quently thews this map by Mr. Cole who wee l'etter's
agent for the ale of the estate, and diet they entered into
rot h contract. r dying on the assurance of Cole ilea the
Nebo& eel emeram the whole estate with buildings aecnid- '
Ina to the plan would be carried out. It wax aumitted
that little conothing bad bees done, and the defendants
thereto,* el:Peeled to perform the contracts. The question
• whether there hail been an enstagernent by the plain-
tiffs ou the kith of which the defendant% entered into the'
co ,
contracts, and whether the plaintiffs had failed to
de what they bad use to perform The defendants,
amongst other thing•. allsp 1 that the pleintiff melertook
to bond a church whirl. w eleline ate-. 1 in the plat:. and that
the erection of Ode therrn wa. likely to attract a neident
population to the .pit. From the re presientation. made, his
lerablip was of oi , i ~, nit that there wet no locative engage-
ment a. to the roo.toortion of the streets, lent it Vrai
nu-
f. reed as to the, church. Ile thought that there an. a die-
tiin,t rept, saatim by Cole that Potter would build the
Chen h fur the benefit of the purchase. of the land, as do-
minated on the plan. Ile croneidered. therefore, that the
deteediate had mule oat a ease, shoaing that teen court
ought not to deer..., a *math performance of the contracts.
e. Olt easT.—lS liniflT IS
ViolitallitlloNa l'an ~,,,
The Serlieitor-fieneral and Mr Ktnehaw moved in this
ems to elio.olve an ex parte injunction granted to entrain
the defendant, who we. the propeietor and publinber of
p Hoy weekly magasine called *. Tht, Roman Catholic
taurotion." front publeehing or selling N'.. 17 of such pen.-
dkal, containing an article entitled "1 he Ilierarchy,"
copied lima the JaDeary number of "The Dublin Be-
ys w," which was put!inhcd by the plaintiff.. By the bill it
was stated that the plaihtilla were the ode proprietor. and
puldediere of "The Dublin Iteiiew"--that all the unities
publi teed in such periodical had twee compowd for, and
for the use of, the plandiffs by penmen's employ el by them to
enmproe the same on the term. that the copyright and pro-
perty therein should he ticlutively to tin: plaintiff's, and
eleoild be peal for by them.
he defesalaut, by Kee answer, alleged that he believed
the. platistiffs were not the preprietut. el* " The Dublin
Be siva," hut that, in fact, Cardinal Wiseman
awl the superior. of !elaynouth College were the
Teal preprieton the Review that he had moon
to lechery the article entitled Hierarchy " was from
the pen of Dr. Wiseman, and that there w. no alkegatim
in the hill that froth at:id, hail actually le en paid fer by
pleintiff. ; that utehr eurh cWeerastamie the copy-
right in the article Mill nmaineil in Dr. Whitman. the
author thereof, and the plaintiffs had no right to clone to
the court to ree.train the publiration of that stin•k in the
periodical called the " Raman (*atholit Question." It wan
tosetended no behalf of the defendant that as there win no
all, gatien of the mewl basing lain paid for the article the
teem. of the Copyliget Act. re Vic., e. 15, had not been
rompleed with, emu the iejtenctimi eonrequently ought to lie
de...dyed.
Mr.rd.
J. Parker and Mr. Bagehawe, for the plaintiff., con-
tended that their title to the article in question era. eutfi
rioraly prove,' ; th..t it we. Um-materiel wh, flier the money
had le en paid to the author of the article or not, but that
as tie Intl allege el that the terms of the Copyright Art
had teen complied with, that &allegation neeerearily Included
the tact that the price. of the article hail Nan actuaily paid.
Lord tranworth neat lei. °pluton a. that the plaintiffe'
title wee .ufficiently ,stabli.lsed. It woo clear that the de-
fendant wan a wrung deer, hot that fact he should pit out
of nieht and determine the question a. it the conduct of the
defendant woe animp, arhulette regarebel what he had
mei donne the argument, lr felt that he, nava cry " pea-
-lau 14., be now thought that actual papa, ut fur an
article was a necessary c Sahel to Ming the cos within
the Copyright Art. 11,- romeilercel that to Is the, true eme
etruetien, of the act, and he thought it prohalite that it we
oho the !intention of the leginleturr. Ihe gaieties them
wan whether the payntent we. eufficiently alleged. It was
stated by the affidavit in .upport et the bill that all the
article. had boo el toe am: fur the nor of
the iitaintar by penonn employed by them to com-
p.. the name, on the term. that the estpyright
and prop rty timai en Omelet belong ezelueively to the plaiu-
tine, and nhould he paid lii by thou : and it was further
stated that the plaeutiffs were uuw entitled to the, eel,. and
• eiro-ive liberty of praiting, puldinliiiitt. :soil e. thug the
particular arterle in qui *Mon by virtue of the C'opy'right
Art. 'I hr. rtatement conniiilereil a eutticient all. gation
that the term. of the copyright Art hail Men complied
with. and that the ttttt hal lean paid. Ile there:-
lure reties the motion to illeaolve the injunction.
Areal. IS.
VAVGIJAV V. or A M.AItItIVD WOMAN
Ti. A SHAKY OF I.IIOVVIITV AN A,.AtNST THE A.O.I.6SILLS
HAVILAVVTIA DV MEV lIICSISAND.
Lord Cranworth delivered judgment in thi. cane, which
was argued ;none time ago. Ili, lvf.l,llill mid th. question
Cline before him upsoi toe petition. -ime prieented by the
n-iiigneen of Mr. Itoek, and the otle.r liy Mrs. Buck, hin
oile. It eppearial that a former liweband of Mr.. tick
(Mr. Vaughan) hail left by will the elevidenel. of a sum Of
settle amounting to 274. per memento hie retire for life, and
then fur the children of the marriage. Mr. Vaughan died
ii, Pete, and his wile betaine hi.. eacentria, and in Pcee
slit- ninerllll her prewill bedpan& A suit was inntitutiel to
adminieter the estate of Mr. Vemelian, and by an order
made by ti,. Vice-Clianettler of England upon the petite 111 l
ut Mr. Buck, it wite &reeled that the gIiNVIVInI% upon the
sleek ebould be paid to Mr. Buck, until the further order
of the court. Mr. Huck eel. queasily leaame a hank- ,
rupt, and hie aseignees now u.ke el that roach dividend.
might ba• paid to them. On the other band, the. wife of
Air. Back asked by leer petition that ehe might he allowed
to native the dividend+ her her lite tor her spina. us.
Now it was dear that the court would not ele.si With a fund
to which the WIG. was aloolutely entitled u oath--
mrit was mole, but this wits ditferent in a C.ltl• Witrn• the
ill• wee only entitledl for lite. If the ail,• was entitled for
Ith. the dividend. were usually paid to the husband, 0111 the
pentriple that the hunband and wile lived together, and the
husband "lAA Wound to maintain hi, wile. In thin cane the
quvntioll ‘V.V, altered by the heehawd becoming a bankrupt,
Mad .1 was stated that the wile was 1111111 her
li...band wan unable to nt. l i ttt ain her. Coder thew virtue,.
atancee. thendOce, his in • • was that the wife was enti-
tleel to a poem" of the, dividend.; and. US the husband had
nei nod Y,INNII. of the r.spital, he ditedel diner two-third.
to ie paid to the wife, and the other third to the a..igetees
of the husband.

Barons T. r-CliAnclit.uni Tvanitn.
IN TINT. MAT ri:11 I.l' 14t,Ty oF TIIE WILL OT
WILLIAM pri-CAntLi; AND IN lIIE MATTEIt
41P. Tna THUNI•EIt Aer (1/4411).
Mr. r. Phillips Inured, under the 39th section of the
act, that the Mutt-r•a rertilie.ste applosing of trustees to
b. appointcal in lieu of sui existing trustee of o trust fund,
in which the applicants were beneficially lid...rests-11, and
for a vesting order iii the terms met forth in the certificate.
It apps Mk"' that the Mutter, in inalsiort his 4.i-rid-iv:LW, bad
proce.ll4l on an aliiilasit >toting to. rely that the existing
trustee was unwilling to a•t in the trusts.
Ilis Honour mid that unless the existing trustee con-
sentt•d t. the order asked, some evidence should be adduced
as to the eircurnsunces under whirls the trustee was unwil-
ling to art. It might he that he had merely refused to do
an art nut warriuded by the terms of the trust The sta..
into was undoubtedly a beneficial ionei toil it. applying it a
tortain ILitr.n of caution wail a•ee>sary'.
Mr. blew,-, for the trustee sought to he removed, con-
sented to the order asked.
ohs Ileuour t►en made the

QUEENS BIFINCII.—Yesi RITA,.
IMniim. 111 Sam. boom' Lear eurmaa, Ma. Unita Pat-
Ma. items Wmairmas. •00 Ma. JLetins bus.
nu MEM fp Tun tat i'lliatOAL.
- • •• •

Sir IFTtlirritk ThrtittOr moved for a writ of prohibition
to the mayor and aldermen of London, prohibiting them
from pnn.•ading further in this action, or In an att:eh-
m•nt mimed therein. '(he ease was very nanilar to the
Mr in which the court granted a yak on the pre-
vious day. It appeared that the plaintiff, Maurice de
illative, had contrormed an action in July Lint sytainnt the
Queen of Portugal, claiming certain money which he
alleged to have been due to him from Don Miguel, and to
have been in the hands of Francisco etc Pereira, a banker,
at the time of Don Slit/m.l's 'tight from the kingdom of
Portugal, and to bare been then paid over to the govern-
ment of Portugal. As soon as this action was commenced
a writ of foreign attachment was issued against certain
money. in the hands of the agent for the payment in
this country of the interest upon the l'i.irtugueve debt.
'Chia attainment was tried, and the gerninliec had averdict.
The piausuil then commenced another action upon another
affidavit adding some further fart• ; and by that affidavit
it appeared that the action was brought against the Queen
of Portugal as reigning novereign and .upn me head of the
rOtilinlarrk wawa. The CAW WY therefore Ammer, than
the ear seminal. the Queen of Spain, fur not only did it
appear to be against a aovereimi prince as such but also that
the cause of action arose entirely out of this country.
pilule granted.
ELAN r. LONDON AND Soave-Wirriter %%away