The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-20 00:00:00

ax rAILTII LINZ*.

Thi. ease has been twice Won the court, and shortly no-
ticed in the !lady News. The petitioner had bought two
BUM of stock in the fictitious name of Frederick William
Cannon, for the purpose, as he alleged, of concealing from
his wife his possession of the amount. The eatraordinary
character of the story made it difficult sad very expeasive
ter him to satisfy the Commissioners of the National Debt,
to wham amount the funds had been transferred, and the
mart, of the accuracy of his statement.
Mr. Oiffard appeared for the petitioner.
Mr. Wickets appeared for the Commissioners of the Na-
Metal Dont, and maid that after a very minute examination
of the cireumetasem they were eatistied of the correctness
et the petitioner% ermy.
TM Vies-01moneilsr thitimpan made the order directing
the trawler et the bed% the petitioner.

111114031 r. WZTRIMILL.
The aremaliali gra this case occupied the court the
pester poetise dense days. The following ism short out-
line of the ciremellemene as they appeared upon the plead
lags, the 'widows, and the statements of counsel. In the
year latJ a relative of one Morison nude his will, by
which be gave all his property, which amounted to nearly
40,0001, asnoopt various persons, but omitted to make say
provieion for his nearest relatives. Amongst theca was
this poor mu, Iliodeon, • poor farm labourer, who was
also the tevator's heir at law. He consulted • Mr.
Wetherill, • solicitor, practising in Yorkshire, who under-
took to support bib claim, and brought two actions in eject-'
sent far him, incurring very considerable ',penes at the
risk of losing the whole in the event of non success on be-
half of his poor client, after application hailsbeen ensue-'
usefully made by the poor man to his own relatives for
usietence. The action. cam* on to be tried at the York-
shire amazes before the Chief Baron Pollock. Under the,

eircunuunef s Hindu's arranged with his solicitor that if •
compromise meld be eonse to be should accept 3,0001. for
his claim, and at the trial • compromise was coma to by
which the plaintiff received 4,001 guineas with his coats, so
that he obtained more by 1,0001 than he was willing
to Oar. recessed. Hinds= from being • day
labourer was thus placed in comparative ails-
tam and he expreued on all occasions his sense
of deep obligation to Mr. Wetherill, to some persons
stating he should give him 1,00 W., and to others that he
should handsomely provide for him. Hindson lent the sum
of 1,0001. to • noblemen resident in the neighbourhood for
which he bad given his promissory note. In the year 1849,
Bischoff indorsed the promissory note to Wetherill, and
made hint a present of it subject only to this, that in case
he should want the interest at any time Mr. Wetherill
should pay it over to him. Riedel"' was taken ill in 1850,
tad his surgeon at his request called on Mr. Wetherill
and asked him to se* Hindsor. :son, on Wetherill cal-
ling on him, gave him instructions for • will, which he see
-
owed on the 16th of July, 18.30. By the will he gave to
Mr. Wetherill • small freehold property of the value of
4501, arid also the promissory note for 1,0001., which he
meatiesud is the will at the express request of Mr. Wethe-
rill. though be had previously given it to him, and he ap-
=rid Mr. Wetherill and a gentleman of the seighbour-
who was Mr. Wetherilre friend the eaecuton
of his will. Hindson died in Jan. 1851; the
ineentors attempted to prove the will, bat the
grant of probate was resisted, and at the %tr-
ansition of • lengthened hearing before the Pre-
rogative Court of the Archbishop of York, the sisonsel
for the present plaintiff admitted that he was satisfied that
the testator was fully cogaisant of the contents of the will,
upon which his coats were allowed and probate was granted
to Mr. Wetherill and his co-executor. This was • bill

filed by Mr. Thanes Robert Median, of Osford-street,
London, who was the heir-at-law and one of the persons
entitled to the residuary estate of the testator under his
will, seeking an account of the personal estate of the testa-
tor, and a declaration by the court that notwithstanding
the gift of the promissory note for 1,0001. to the defendant
Wetberill, the same formed a part of the testator's personal
estate ; the bill also sought a declaration setting aside the
devise of the land to Mr. Wetherill. The bill charged
fraud and undue iallaence, but the evidence did not bear
oat these charges ; en the contrary, as to the note some
witnesses proved that Rindson had said to them that he had
given the note toter. Wetherill,and amongst throe witnesses
venoms* penes. who would become entitled to a distri-
butive share of the amount, if the gift were set aside.
Amongst the witnesses was one of the attesting witnesses
to the will, to whom, when he was called in on that occa-
sion, the testator said he intended to leave a part of his
pmerty to Mr. Wetberill, and that the whole will was
rand in as audible voice to the testator.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Renshaw, for the plaintiff, after re-
kering to a groat number of authorities on the subject, sub-
mitted that the rule was, that a solicitor should nut receive
busty from his sliest, and that the oily esception arose
when the solicitor could show that the client had been
properly advised by some professional or competent parses
giving independent advice to the client, and that no oath
state of circumstances 'misting in this case, the court was
booed to accede to the plaintiff's prayer.
Mr. Moline and Mr. Fischer submitted that the gift of
the 1,0001 note pared either by the gift in the testator's
lifetime, or by his will, and that as to the devise it passed
by the will.
Mr. Kirkman appeared for the co-ezecuter.
The Ifice-Chaatellor. without calling for a reply, mid the
bill was filed by a person interested in the estate, to ism-
reach, not the probate, or the will which passed it, but the
property is certain portions of the estate which the defend-
ant, Wetberill, claimed, bat which the plaintiff insisted he
mould not retails, inasmuch as he acted as the professional
and minfidential adviser of the testate( in respect of the
deenimeat which created the gift. This eve therefore was
be. from the question which has been raised--whether,
when the probate has been litigated, the acme question es*
is dimmed in this court ? Ever sines the case of " Moe-
ilesquieu v. ilais.is," &indeed by Lord Mika, it has been
held to be a rule that so long as the relation of solicitor and
'bent *WM, the solicitor is incapable of receiving a gift
been his elicit, be the ground for such gift ever so right-
eous. Now, nothing bad been dime in this case to render
the rale inapplicable. True it was that use of the wit-
ammo depeed that whim the will was reed over to the
testator, and he wee asked whether it was what he la-
tended, the testator replied " Tee, and I would have
given him more if he would have let me;" bet this did not
take It out of the rule. After reeapitulstiag the hots at
Meath, his Heamir said that the 1,0001. and the landed
astata must he held by the defendant as a trustee :
with this dmiatutiem decree must be for the administration
of the estate. •

COUNT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—Yenuort.
mime 67 MN rune at Knwau.—Art WO CaUMW. 4/Id

of which a pools named Br.oks is the proprietor and
*river ; when. just as the " Atla. "was stilettos, after bay.
lug taken up • passenger, the " Welliston" drove up
sesig.t it. broke atf the stun on the front seat. and threw
the plaintiff into the road, when the fore wheel of tbs
" Atlas" passed over his Irit and considerably injured it.
The defence was that the Atlas was endeawuring to
eras the road in frost of the Wellington whelk the acci-
dent warred. .

A great number of witnesses were called upon either side,
being the persons riding in both of the omnibuses, and byr-
es:Aden who knot witnessed the occurrence, who gave very
contradict.ry evidence with regard to which of the driven
wss in fault.

Tne jury returnul a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages,
200 f.

Lord Campbell refused to certify fee e special jury. SI be
thought a common jury might have disposed of the case
very satistictorily.

WILLIAXS V.

ACCIDT.NT UN 'WARD A

011.AVUEND BOAT.
Mr. Seriesnt Wilkins, with Mr. Dawson, appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr. O'Malley, with Mr. Lush, represented
the attendant.

This wa• an action brought to recover damages for in-
juries sustained by the plaintiff's wile while she was a pas-
senger on board a Gravesend steam boat, in consequence,
as it was alleged, of the carelessuesa of the crew of that
boat.

It appeared that, on the evening of the Bth August last,
the plaintiff, whole a sweep, and his wife, who M a char-
women, were on board the Dryad, which started from
Gravesend at stoat half-past 5, and soon afterwaros stopped
at Itosberville to take in more passengers. The boat
being very much crowded, Mrs. Williams, who had a
child in her arms, bad sat down upon one of
the fenders, or dummies, which are used to pre-
vent the boat from striking against piers. When the order
had been given to more on from Rosherville, the noose
of the rope which attached the bust to the pier was not
immediately thrown off, and some rope which was lying
loose upon the deck got coiled round Mrs. Williams's foot,
and took it quite off just above the ankle. She was taken
on shore to a surgeon, and alerwards went to the hospital,
where she was obliged to have her leg amputated, and re-
mained for seven weeks. She had not since been able to do
any work, hat had to he carried up and down stairs. She
is only 2d years of age.
Mn. Williams, and some of the passengers by the Dryad,
were called, and proved the ab. ve facts.
The defence was, that Mrs. Williams alone was to blame
for the accident, and the captain and other persona on board
were called to sheet that the boat was not crowded on the
evening in question ; that when Mrs. Williams came on
board several scats were vacant; that after she had d
herself upon the fender, with one of her feet inside the coil
of rope, she had been told to remove by two boys and by
the stewardess, but had remained in the same place, and'
that the strain upon the rope, which was the immediate'
cause of the ace dent, was unavoidable, as there had not
been time to pay out the rope before the accident happened.
Mr. Serjesnt Wilkins having replied,
Lord Campbell summed up, telling the jury that they
were to say whether it had been made out to their satisfac-
tion that the misfortune was caused by the negligence of the
defendant's servants. If they found fur the plaintiff, they
must award • reasonable but substantial and ample amount
of damages.
The jary retired, and sitar an absence of half an hour,
returned and gave • verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
3401.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YasTraDAT.