The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-04 00:00:00

IMD Ententgena.

LAW NOTICES.—THIS DAY,
Court or CHANCERY, Wes:Winder, at 10.-:In re Fender, for
'udgment.—Appeals: Van&lent v. Blawro Lord v. Wightwiek
Vics-Cuaseru IT
nas' COV"/ Weitanr:SieT,'lt 10.—Beftire Sir L.
filiadwell—Elkin v. Grant, motion t,y make; Russell v. Nicholls,
petition be order. After which ao.jonnwal now petitions.—Before
Sir .1. Knight Bruce.—Bankrupt roetitiona (Court of Review) Ex torte
Hulbert in re Acraman ex Hodson in re Hodson; cx Smith in re
Allen; ex Fletcher in re Phillips; ex Parkes in re MiDouall; ex
Coleman in To Mal; ex Stephenson in re whltfleld; ex Law in re
'Law; cx Pollard in re Taylor; ex Moreton in re Brook; ex Vaughan
~,bansPnclington in re Bowles; ex Green in re Trine, Ike.,
Railway; ex Clay in re Bull ; ex Bromage in re Jones. Equity enters :
Whibiny v. Hebb, petition by order; Cooper v. Scott, demurrer;
Sowerby v. Pontop Railway Company (2).—Before Sir .1. Wigram.
Seeders v. Peter, for Julgment. Dawes, Ike.: Campbell v. Beichtnn
Railway Company, part heard: Anvers v. Leon, part hesrd ; Hunter
v. Maeldew (as to reties) ; Maslen v. Thorpe; Dunco:nbe v. Levy
Fraser v. Jones ; Leigh v. Earl Balm v Balmer; Hale C. Hamilton.
ROT.IS Corer, Chancery-lane, at 10.--Canies.—Angernud v. Parry,
pyaarrtt hard ; Hodgkin-son v. Cooper ; ilottatkinson v. Cooper. ditto;
L'hurchenon v. Capon, ditto; Horsley v. Martin; Browne •• 'lime ;
Barnes v. Mating.; Hargrave v. Hargrave; Bagshawe v. Parker;
dwartitt v. Bin ; Hamilton v. Sawler (2); Howard v. Howard (1).
COURT or Quarxim TIENcn, Waveminmer, at 10.—Sittinas in Banco.
BAIL Cover nrrra's Ilene*, Westminster, at U.—Middlesex
Common Juries.—Franklln v. Seaton; Hinges,* v. Kay; Hod v.
Jones; Payne T. Shenstone ; lifelike v. Fyven ; Scott v. Kent
COURT UR COMMON FIALA", Westminster, at 10.—Sittings in Banco.
COURT or ESCRT.4I:III. Westminster, at Vs.—Middlesex Common
Juries.—Braribeer v. lohnasm, part heard ; White v. Harding.
SLCONUARIRR. CovaT, BasitntUll-street, at 11.--Clear T. White.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
Before the Turd ManceDor.
IN r.E DITE Somnne.—lN LVNACT.—Mr. Rolt applied
for the postponement of the hearing of this matter. as Mr.
Bethel', who was counsel against him, was engaged in
another court.—The Lord Chancellor asked if the counsel
on both !ides could not come to some arrangement. They
all knew the state of facts, and the reports made by the
medical men who lately examined Mr. Sombre.—Mr. Roh
and other counsel engaged in the matter agreed to consider
his lordship's suggestion, and with that view the matter was
ordered to stand over for a week.
IN THE MATTER OP BUTTERTIELDP, BANKRUPTS.—
This was a special case by way of appeal from the chief
judge in the Court of Review, and the question arose on the
words of the will of a testator, who by his will directed that
his widow should have the interest of 6,000/., part of his
estate, for her life, and might employ the same in carrying
on the business (drapery business) in which he himself had
been engaged in his lifetime ; but in case of her marrying
agtin, the 6,000/. was to be taken out of the trade, and
ves.edln the public funds. He appointed his wife and son
executrix and executor. The widow took the son into
partnership, and they carried on the business in partnership
until they were made bankrupts. The 6,0001. was never
severed from the bulk of the testator's estate. The question
in.the case was, whether proof should be admitted of the
whole 6,0001., or of so much only as was deficient. The
matter was arzued by Mr. Swanston and Mr. Bacon on one
aide, and by Mr. J. Russell and Mr. Chandless on the other.
The Lord Chancellor said he would dispose of the matter in
the morning (this day.)

Before the Master of the Rens.
LORD HERTFORD V. LORD LOWTHER.—CONSTRECTION
or A WILL.—Mr. Turner, with whom was Mr. Tripp, pre-
sented a petition in this case on behalf of the Countess de
Zichy, the object of which was to obtain from the executors
of the late Marquis of Hertford a sum of money which the
Countess claimed under a codicil to the Marquis's will.
After a great deal of litigation respecting the Countess's
right under the will and codicils of the testator, a cons.
promise was come to, whereby it was agreed that the Coun-
tess should accept a sum of 91,5001. in full satisfaction of all
her claims. It appeared that by the codicil the Marquis
gave the contents of a certain box at Milan to the Countess,
and directed it to be delivered t, her unopened. Amongst
other papers the box contained a bond from a bank at Paris,
securing to the Marquis a life annuity. At his death there
were arrears of the annuity due, which the executors received.
The Countess now sought to get the money from the execu-
tors on the ground that she wes entitled to a beneficial
interest in it under the codicil, and that it was not intended
to be included in the compromise.—Mr. Rindersley and Mr.
Pichonsberg for the Marquis of Hertford, relied on the com-
promise, and contended that if it did not include the claim,
stall the codicil gave no beneficial interest in the arrears to the

Countess.
The waster of the Rolls took this view of the question, and
dismissed the petition with coats.

Beta= the Vies Chancellor of England.
STA,,orr O. DUNCUL—DISPUTE ar.srecristo THE EX-
cLogy gb BUCK 111011•11-1111111117, STRAND.—This bill
was origins:lv filed by live trustees, appointed under an
act passed in b.' 29th Geo. ILL" for enabling the proprietors
and inhabitants etYork-buildings, houses in Baakingbars-
street, to make a for rebuilding and repairing the ter-
race-walk and gardens au;oindnit the River Thames, ' against
the defendant, Mr. Duncan, an inhabitant of the
Tervace,to
restrain him from cutting dawn certain trees, and front in-
terfering in the management of the gardens. When the
case came on for hearing, the Vice-Chancellor thouvht that
the title of the plaintiffs as such trustees was not trunicingly
shown, and directed an issue to be tried at law. The issue
was tried, and a verdict obtained by the plaintiffs' finding
that the trustees were properly appointed. Mr. Walker,
Mr. Elmaley, and Mr. Ogle now moved for a new trial, on
the ground that the trustees ought to have proved at law that
the eriginal trustees under the Act of Parliament, by whom
they had been nominated, were themselves legally ap-
pointed trustees. Mr. Bethel and Mr. Schomherg appeared
for the plaintiffs. The argument. were not concluded at the
rising of the court.

Before Vice Chancellor hnight Bruce.
M'Te.ta C. RIDLEY.—PRIVATE TRADING BY MASTERS OF
SHIPS.—This was a motion to dissolve an injunction which
had been obtained bT the plaintiffs, to restrain the defendant
Ridley from proceeding to execution in an action which he
had brought, and in which he had obtained a verdict against
Thomas H. Collins, who was also a defendant in this suit.
T. H. Collins was the acceptor of a bill of exchange for 401.,
drawn by Capt. Follett, of the Mary Hounsell, and made
payable to Ridley. The plaintiffs alleged by their bill, and
supported their ;ffiegations by affidavits as to their belief on
the subject, that the 401. secured by the bill was money
properly due from Ridley to them as their agent. They
stated that they were proprietors of a vessel called the
St. George, and that they commissioned the defendant
Ridley, as master of the ship, to procure for them •
cargo of guano from the island of Ichaboe, near the Cape
of Good Hope. That the defendant Ridley sailed en
June, 1844, and was properly supplied by the plaintiffs
with stores, and with a stage for carrying the guano from
the shore to the ship; but that instead of applying this stage
entirely to the use of the plaintiffs, be let it to the masters
of other ships, and made a profit of it. They also charged
him val.. selling some of their stores and provisions, and
they alleged that the bill for 401. was taken by him from
Captain Follett, in consideration of the hire of the stage and
groriaions supplied. They therefore sought by their bill a
general account against him, and an injunction as
before stated; and in Trinity term last, just as the defendant
was going on a voyage to Leghorn, they obtained the injunc-
tion; the defendant, having then no time to meet the motion
with affidavits, except on collateral matters. Since that
time he had pat in hit answer, which was now read as as
affidavit, expressly denying that he had sold the stores of the
plaintiffs, and stating, wkh respect to the stage, that upon
arriving at the island he found that it was utterly
insufficien t for the purpose for which it was intended,
that he had, therefore, a new one made at his
owls expense, of much greater length. He admitted
he. had let the stage winch he had thus made to Cap-
tain Follett,. and was to have Vt. for it; that sum
forming part of die amount of the kill of exchange. He also
admitted that the remaining M. was for beer and brandy
supplied to Follett's men, but this, he alleged, was supplied
out of his own stock.

Air. Swanton and Mr. Bates, for the motion, contended
that there wasnot theslightest ground for maintaining tie
injunction. Tho plaicdffs had, in fain, a gratuitous mina-
tug° from the defendaat, for he made them a stage without
any expense. Mite the stores and goods said, it was clear
that a master of a ship who was net a general agent, but
employed for a specific purpose only, had a right to trade on
hie own account.

Mr. ltussell and Mr. Chanaese, for the plaintiffs, con-
tanded that there was not sulfinent evidonoe that the new
stage had been nude at the defendantis expense. He had
need 'One of the plaintiff's materials. They howeverdid net
deny that all the iron iielonging to the plaintiffs' stage had
been brought beak to Be,sgland.by the defendant.
His Honour If I employ my coachman to take my car-
riage and horse' three hundred miles,. and on the journey
arc of the horseadies, sad my coachmen buys another, and
at the end of the journey sells it, and makes a profit by it,
have I any elaimagaimt him? You need not answer that
question, Mr. Chandlate, unless you please.
Mr. Chandlers- declined answering the question.
His Honour„after. hearing Mr. Swanston in reply, ordered
that upon the defendant and his solicitor undertaking to
appear to any action which might be brought by the plain-
tit& against the defendant, and in which process might be
served on the solicitor within two months, the money in
court, consisting of the amount of the bill and costs of the
action shored be paid to the defendant or his solicitor ; the
defendant undertaking to abide by any order which might
eventually be made as to the money. And his Honour re-
served the rest of the motion until the hearing of the cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Shortly after the commencement of business, Sir Thomas
Wilde took the oaths as Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice
V.Williams as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas; Mr.
Justice Erie then took the oaths as a judge of this Court.
NEWTON V. BELCHER, --- V. PALMER, V. .
LIDDIARD.—ORDEN. TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ALL BUT
ONZ OP SEVERAL ACTIONS AGAINST CO-IHRECTORS OP A
RAILWAY.—Mr. Keane moved for a rule calling on the de-
fendants to show cause why an order of the Chief Baron for
staying proceedings in the last two actions until the first
should be tried, should not be amended, by making the stay
of proceedings so ordered conditional, on the defendants in
those two actions undertaking to be bound by the verdict in
the first. The actions were brought to recover a sum ex-
ceeding 4,0001., for advertisements that had been inserted in
several newspapers, about the Oxford and Salisbury Direct
Railway Company. And eke order had been made on a sug-
gestion that the cause of action was the same in each. He
contended that the o-rder was bad, without the condition
prayed for ; and that the affidavit on which ithad been made
was insufficient, be Mine it did not show why a plea in abate-
ment had not bee a pleaded, neither did it admit any con.
tract or promise. between the defendants and the plaintiff.—
The Courtvyr Anted the application.
Is RE /EDS AND HEMP.—ADMISRION TO BAIL ON A
CORONIP:11'8 INQUISITION.—Mr. Macauley moved for a CCP-
tiOTali to bring up the depositions ir. an inquisition taken
before the ceeroner of Warwickshire, in order that two per-
sons, on whose behalf he applied, and who had been corn-
, mitt.cd to Warwick gaol on a warrant of the coroner, in
Consequence of a finding of manslaughter against them,
might be admitted to bail. It appeared from the affidavits,
that the applicants were driving in the evening from
Southam to Banbury, and that while their horse was going
at the rate of seven miles an hour it shied, and they dis-
covered an upset gig, and near it the body of a man who
was quite dead, so that life must have been gone before they
came in contact with him. They also expressly denied that
they had occasioned the death of the deceased.—The Court
granted the application.
LAURIE AND OTHERS V. DIVIS.--BANKERS. ACTION ON
A CHEQUE RECEIVED FOR A RAILWAY COMPANY NOT
COMPLETELY REGISTERED.—Mr. Peacock moved fora rule
to show cause why the verdict in this case, which passed for
the plaintiffs at the last assizes for the county of Surrey,
should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the ground
of misdirection. The action had been brought on a
cheque paid into the Union Bank, of which the plain-
tiffs are directors, for shares in the Grand Trunk Rail-
way Company, according. to the directions which the
defendant had received in that behalf. The plaintiffs
gave a receipt, in which they acknowledged to have
received the money on behalf of the company, but no
evidence was offered to show that the cheque had been trans-
ferred to them or that they had paid money to the company
for it. Mr. Peacock now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had,
on the ground that no evidence had been given of any trans-
fer of the cheque from the Company to the bankers,whereby
the latter had acquired a right to sue for the amount in their
own names. He further submitted that any act done by
the company for Testing the cheque in the bankers was
illegal, because not one of the arts which the company is
authorised to de by the 7 and 8 Vict. c. 110. The Court,
however, refused the rule.