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

MYLOR C. TAYLOR.-Ex I'ARTETAYLOR.

Thir, the hod petition on the list, asked for payment of
moo in lunacy out of • fund in court to the credit of thu
. . . .

The arguments were not concluded at the rising of tho
court, at three ✓el ,ck.
These court,., at their rising to-day (Thursday), adjourn
over the holidays, to Tuesday next.

UM/ VICIXUANCLI.LOS Kfl:WiT BRUCE.
WALTER T. KELFF.-1 NJI:NCTION.

The Vice-Chuniadlor gave judgment in this case. Whetslt
was argued before the vacation by Mr. Holt and Mr. NV.
Collins for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Matins and Mr. E. O.
White mid Mr. tilieblseare for tit...kleilaut. It was a .00-
nun for an injunction to restrain the defendant from burn-
ing hoicks on his own land, near Surbiton, and adjoining a
house and garden of which one of the Mr. Waiter,
WAS the owner, and the other, Mr. l'ressly, the lessee.
His Honour said, it was admitted that the house of the
plaintiff hail been built previously to 1t329, and that upon
the defendant's land adj ..... ing that of the plaintiff the de-
fendant in 18:..0 begun to manufacture bricks, by means not
of a kiln but by " as it was termed; that herons
WA no such manufacture was carried on. The omit-
nary course, and that which his Honour woukl
have pursued, would have been to direct a ease
for the opinion of a court of common law, or
to direct an action or an issue to be tried to the
Legal question. But both parties had cullol upou his
Honour nut to take this course, and requested lion to ac-
cede the question at once without assistance upon the mo-
tion for an injunction. Ile had cunsentiat to do so, std
having had an opportunity of viewing the plats., now pro-
cceiled to give his judgment. The burning of the bricks
took place at a distance a only forty-eight yards from tho
plaintiff's house. The first question was whether under
such vire ttttt stances the occupier of that house was or was
nut entitled to the enjoyment of an untainted and unpol-
luted stream of air for the nse of himself and his funnhy.
that was to say, was he entitled to the use of an unpullute.l
and untainted atmosphere for the ordinary purposes of life.
His honour thought that he was nut meaning thereby an
absolutely pure :dm:There but one nut to an important
degree less compatible soul, comfort awl the habits of
English people than it hail tutu moire the commencement
of the act complained of. It was not necessary in ord.. r to con-
stitute a ground for this interference of the court that the acts
consplaincd of should lie actually 1101a0Us to human health., or
to animator vegetable health, fur the charge was of a privy to
and not of a public nuisance. The questiun was whether
the inconvenience was not more than fanciful, was nut more
than an offence to delicacy or fastidiutemeon stud was tiOt
au interference with the plain simple comfOrt of ordinary
English lite. this honour thought that it was. As far 4.4
the mere human frame was rOliturill4l insalubrity might bu
out of the case. but the same might he said of numerous
callings which were Kati Sweet that, useful. It Was, how-
ever, said that all the defendant's acts were done upon his
own land, and Unease was compared to a man working his
own wine ; but that argument would prove too much. .t
111,40114/41S, in many eases, restrained Irma building upon his
own laud when: the rights of a oeighbout 'Auld I.c af-
' felled. In the same way a mum could nut he allowed to
justify the smelting of ore by alleging that his opera-
tions were all carried on escaisively upon his own premises.
In the case of " this Dukeollindtun v. Ililliard,"which was
' raerred to in " Attorvey-general v. Cleaver," and on which
' reliance had been placed, Lord lliuslw icke pruceeded upon tho
special circumstances of the case. Upon the whole his
honour thought the plaintiff' entitled to an injunction re-
o straining the defendant from burning or causing to be
burned any bricks so as to occasion any damage or annoy-
' once to the plaintiff's, or the owners or occupiers of the houses
upon the plaiutiffs' land.
RE ROYAL RANK OF AV,TRALIA.--MIWX'S EXECUTuRI.

CASE.—WINDING-1:1, At-rs.

Mr. Bacon and Mr. Busk moves! by way of appeal from
the decision of the Master, who had included the names of
the appellants in the list of contributories in respect of
FAO shares in the above company, as executin 4 et thu latu
Mr. Thomas Meux. Mr. Meux had been a director of tho
company and, as it was alleged, had given his promiloory
note in October MI fur 5,0001 for his proportion of coils
upon 500 shares. After Mr. Meux's death the executors
applied to the directors to know what were his liabilities
for shares. Thu directors informed the ex,cutoni that Mr.
Meux held 20 shares in the bank of all/. each, on which he had
paid 101. each. The executors subsequently sold these shares.
Die directors afterwants cancelled the 500 shares, but the
Master held that the cancelling was not justifiable, and that
to, the executura might have claimed the profits of the con-
cern had it been prosperous, they ought to he placed ou tho
list of contributories. It was now emit:tided that after tho
representation made to the executors, they could not bo
called upon to contribute.
Mr. Matins and Mr. Daniel, fur the official manager, sup-
. . .

ported the Master's decision.
'the Vice-Chancellor said that it was unnetossary to
say how the ease would have stood if Mr. Meux had
coutiuued to live and had himself de' It and been dealt
with as his executors had dealt and had be.at dealt
with, his Honour's Opinion being that the exteutuni did not
iu every sense and tor every purpose stand in the wane po-
sition as Mr. Meux, the personal knowledge possessed by
whom they had nut. Again, it was unneeeeary to
say whether iu the dealings between the executors
and the directors, the latter exceeded the powers con-
fided to them by the company or shateladders at
large, because there were sonic (twice in which, although
an agent did exceed his authority, the principal was nee er-
theless bound. There were of course many eases in which
an agent exceeding his authority did nut bind his principal.
The present, however, was not, in his Honour's opinion,
one of thou: cases. His Honour thought that, if what the
director. did exceeded their authority, the company was
neveitheless bound. The facts were that the exceutinx of
Mr. Meux, without any personal knowledge of the nature
or extent M his connexion with this bank, applied to the
directors, or to the person who was conducting their
affairs, or repreweuting them, to know what was the
extent and what was the nature of that connexion,
and their answer in substance and effect, although nut is
terms, was that the extent of that connexion was that Mr.
Meux was the holder of 211 shares only. This took place
in 1842 ; the executors acted upon that information; they
sold the shares, and considered, us they had a right to con-
sider, their eennexion with the company as determined.
More than seven years passed away, during the whole of
which that mistake (if there was one), or misrepresentation
(if there nut ray) was nut corrected. Everything went os
on each side on the footing of the accuracy of the repre-
sentations made to the executors in 1812. In lfiio, more
than seven years afterwards, a petition was pre:witted fur
the purpose of winding up the affairs of the company, and
an order was made upon it. Then it was said, by the
official mamuzer, on behalf of the shareholders, that this
representation thus made by their agent was to go ter no-
thing, and that the executors were to stand exactly in the
same position as they would have stood it they had been
told the whole 520 shares had belonged to their ti stator.
His Honour thought that would be against equity, it' nut
against the law, and that the names of these executors
ought not to be upon the list of contributories.
The motion was granted ; costs out tithe estate.

Baron LORD Curwoare, ( VICE. Cu A Menial.)
MYEILA E. WAItiON.—CONTItAC'T AS TO "WILDING
LEASES.
Isis Lordship, in delivering judgment in this case, said
the bill was hied for the specific performance of two con-
tracts entered into by the defendants, for the purchase of
land at Birkenhead, from a person named Potter. The first
contract was dated the first of November, and the
second the first of Mar, 1644. In April, 1848, Putter be-
came a bankrupt, and the plaintiffs, as his assignees, filed
this bill. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' demand on
the following grounds :—The land formed part of an estate '
adjoining the town of Birkenhead, called the Ilaybury
estate, which WWI purchased by Potter on a building
speculation. Putter had caused a map or plan tb. •
be made of it, and had in such plan caused a miteber of streets to be marked out, dividing the whole
into lot' tar building, it being at that time • thought drat
the then coutemplattsl docks and other works at Birke*
head would make it a good speculation to cover the laud in
question with buildings. 1 his map or plan Indicated
several streets intended to be constructed, aniAgebitriv-, •-;
•
, .

"
st4aIV4IS