The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-14 00:00:00

SPORTING.

NEWPORT PAGNEL STEEPLE CHASE.
Aineep:snrxs for the Newport Pepsi Annual Steeple Chore 4weep.
(including :Its extra), mit 61bs; Saucepan, Ifs;
Salute, list Disensuit, I Ist 911 s Culver:hoepe, 114 GUS ;
Ilst 4lbs; Christop.Ser North, Ilst 4118; Peter Simple, Hat; Nimble
Hwy, list; Road, J let; FAerton, I Id; Ambassador, Het;
lOst ins; /mug, Filbs; Mameluke, 10:4 121 be ; Tramp,
10st 'Sibs; Quicksilver, 10st fibs; Grenade, lOst %be; St. S.ithin,
10st albs; Amami, 100 Ms; Sir William, 10:4; Little Tommy,
9st 1011*; Water-Illy Set IMba.
ASHDOWN PARK courcsm MEETING. —TaellanAT.
DIIUIT. --Sitcom) Ti. Wyandotte beat Lightning, Stockton beat
Baltimore.

Osits—Secoan Tian—White Rose beat Lowy Beak, Waterfall
beat Caprice.
Coe.—Fissr Tna.—Fancy beet Lamprey, Wittle beat Lothario,
Elegance bent Faked Lam, Will the Smuggler beat Brown Star.
Claris Peery Sraiea.—Mr. Lawrence's Emereost ran a bye; (Mr.
Bowles's Zariffa drawn • Mr. Goddard's Gladiator beat Mr. Gordon's
Cabrera. Sir H. Fleetwood's Flank beat Mr. King's Worthless Winks,
Sir H. Fleetwood's Flower of Orange beat Mr. W. Etwalr. Wit-
Cusmor ALL-sliao STALCA.—Mr. W. Etwall's We-wont-bes Feat
beat Mr. Goddard's Creeper, Mr. King's Wee l'et beat Sir H. Fleet-
wood's Foundling, Mr. Rake's Itescree beat Mr. Bowles's Btrwingion.
ANIDOWN Al.L.Aurit STAKE, Mr. I:Mr/WS EtorLiA i beat Mr.
Bowles's Beat-niedf-yencan ; Mr. Rake's ltrmana beat Mr. Gordon's
Cackfighter ; Mr. King's Winnibald the Wise beat Mr. Rake's liasper.
WAYLAND Poser STAINS. Mr. Goddard's Bracelet beat Mr.
Bowles's Itches; Mr. Etwall's Whiteface beat Mr. King's War-
minster._ _ _ _

SWAFFEJAM COURSING MEETlNG.—Tirtmeovr.
Ctr.-2nd Tim—Math= Smeetb.—Silesia beat Garlick; Bak-
aberah beat Mawworm.
_

--Flanitl:-godi7;a7LTrue Blue beat Steamer ; , Buonapart4 ran
• bye.
Omm.-2nd Tma—Amy beat Cobweb; Twilight ran a bye.
11•101011.00011 ALL-Aolb STAXM—Ist Tina —Canulla beat Tint-
deld ; Camilla beat Gertrude.
Warw.—Mr. Vythe's Firefly beatLord;Stradbroke's Mae.

other hand, take plaintiffs' claim was to Lc preferred the
defendant Julio Jones would be in no worse position
than any other equitable mortgagee, who, after
advancing his mousy, finds that his security is subject
t,,.„ a prior incumbrance. he question to be consi-
dered was what were the strict rights of the parties?
and in his opinion the plaintiff: were entitled to the priority
which they claimed. Supposing the defendant. John Jones,
to hart' had the security which the mortgagor said he had,
and the mortgagor by payment to have afterwards extin-
guished t.•e charge, unquestionably the extinguishment
would have enured to the benefit of the plaintiff'. So also
if it bed been avoided as being illegal, or by any act of the
mortgagor or 01" the plaintiffs. Both these propositims were
clear, the princit. 'c of the decisions being that the mortgago
as between the mo.-tgagor and the mortgagee, is a mortgage
of the entire interest of the mortgagor, saving any right of
prior incumbrancers. If in the present ease John Jones had
not intervened, the who:einterest of the mortgagor would have
been pledged by the mor.'gare of the Bth Sept., and ti .c mort-
gagor would, after executyut that mortgage, have had no in-
terest in the property in pet, city to that of the plaintiffs, o
which he could have transfers ed to John Junes. The priority
of the charges was to he determined by the dates of the ad
vances. That was in the plaintiffs' favour, and not less
strongly so because J. Jones had said that be had no notice
of the plaintiffs' security, for upon the supposition lie could
not by pos.ibilitv be misled by the form of the et entity. His
Honour then said, that as the issue as to the notice was im-
material, either upon the question of merits, or upon
that of the coats in the muse, lie could net
make Jones pay the costs which hod ls.en occa-
sioned thereby. Nor could he give the general co-fit of
the suit mer.ly because the second mortgage had been made
with notice of the first. The decree, therefore, would be,
that the plaintiff was entitled to the first charge upon the
mortgaged premises, and to add his cost to his debt. There
would be the usual decree for foreclosure.
BLAIR v. BROMLET.—MISADYROPRIATION BY SOLICI.
TORS OF A FI:ND REMITTED TO TRESS FOR INVEsI Si ENT.—
The plaintiffs in the cause were Messrs. W. T. Blair and T.
Blair, executors of Mr. Thomas Blair, decea.ed ; the de-
fendant was Mr. Joseph Warner Bromley, a soi:citor ; and
the object of the suit was to have it declared that the de-
f, talent was personally liable to make good a sum of
4.5i1J1., which it was alleged had been misappropriated by
him and William Bromley, his brother and late partner.—
Mr. Bethel', in opening the case for the plaintiffs, st.teil that
the sum iu question had been remitted by the plaintiffs to
the Bromleys, who were at the time acting as solicitors fur
the estate, and that the same had been received by them in
that capacity, for the purpose of being invested upon a par-
ticular mortgage that Vs-imam Bromley afterwards repre-
sented the mortgage to have been duly made, and continued
from year to year to pay interest upon such alleged mort-
gage to the parties entitled thereto under the will; until
upon the bankruptcy of the firm of the Brorrileys it came
out that uo such mortgage had ever existed, and that the
money, which had been abstracted from the bankers of tho
firm, was irrecoverably lost to the plaintiffs, unless it could
be recovered personally against the defendant. Hence the
present suit.

&tire Vim-Chancellor Knight Bruce.
LANGTON V. BRACKE.NBURI.—RIUII Us OF INFANT TE-
NANT ris TAIL—Mr. Greene staled that this was the peti-
tion of the plaintiff, who wag an infant tenant in tail of an
estate at Langton, in Lincolnshire, consisting of 1,360 acres
of land, rental 630/. per annum, asking far a ref ri nce to
the Master to inquire whether it Mould be beneficial to the
estate that a good road of sand and chalk should tine made
from the infant's residence to the village of Lanaton, at the
expense of the estate. The cost would be about 1001.—His
Honour said that he would mokc the order without a refer-
ence to the Master, upon having proper affidavits.
Ex PARE SAMSON.—II:(IIITS OF FItEEMEN OP BEE-
WICK.—COSTA OP ATTENDING TO OIITAIN CORUECTIONS
MADE IN ACTO OP I'AILLIAmENT,—Iii this cave the object
of the petition was to obtain taxation and payment of the
petitioner's costs, charges, and expenses of attending the
House of Commons, and procuring alterations to be made in
an act of parliament under these circumstances. Previuus
to toe passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, the ancient
freemen end widewa of freemen of the town of Berwick,
were entitl.d tome:sin rights, which they conceived to have
been invaded by the corporation of Berwick since the pawing
of that act. They accordingly filed a bill in the Court of
Ex•hequer against the corporation, fir an Augment of
their rights. That suit, however, was compromised, and it
was proposed by both parties that the compromise should
be settled and established by act of parliament,
and accordingly notice was given of the intention to apply
fur an art of parliament, and the bill on which the act was
to be founded w...s printed. Some of the clauses in this
bill being objected to by many of the freemen, they con-
vened a meeting, in March, 1813, for the purpose of taking
measures to oppose those clauses. At this meeting the pe-
titioner acted as chairman, and a committee was appointed
for carrying the object of the meeting into execution. After
considerab'e debate and uproar, the majority .d the meeting,
though not of the enninittee, voted that Samson should pro-
ceed to London and conduct the opposition to the
clauses in question. Ile was warned, however, by
some of the committee, that if he went ho must
do so at his own expense. lie proecedid to Lon•
don, and was in active attendance at the House of
Commons during the passing of the bill, and had many in-
terviews with Mr. Hodgson, M.P. for Berwick, on the sub-
ject. It was admitted, however, that he did not address the
committee of the House of Commons. He was not a &elici-
tor, but an accountant. lie succeeded in carrying some of
the proposed alterations, and the bill ultimately pass,tl under
the title of 6 and 7 Vic., c. 23. By one of the sections of the
act prosislon is ins le for the costs (as between solicitor and
client), of the parties to the exchequer suit, up to the period
of the corporation putting in their answer, " and all costs,
charges, and expanses attending the arrangement for
determining the said suit, and settling the said
dismees and differences, and of soliciting, applying
for, obtaining and passing the said act end incident
thereto." By an order nude the 13th of January last,
on the petition of the plaintiffs in the Exchequer suit, the
costs of the parties to the suit were ordered to be taxed (the
order following the exact words of the Act of Parliament),
mid to he paid not of a certain fund in court, arising
from moneys pria'uced by the sale of some lands of
the corporation to • railway company. Under this
order the petition. r, Samson, had applied to the Taxing
Master for the taxation end payment of the costs,
charges, and espouses incident to his journey to and
from London, and his attendance and labour at the
House of Commons. The Taxing Master, however, was of
opinion that, upon the true construction of the act of parlia-
ment, he was sot entitled to any such taxation or payment.
—Mr. Taylor appeared in support of the petition, and con-
tended that the petitioner was fairly entitled to his costs.
The circumstance that he was not a solicitor was immaterial.
His Honour: I see he is described as an accountant. Can
any one inform me what an accountant is?—Mr. Craig, for
the corporation, resisted the application, observing that the
Petitioner had been duly warned that he could not be paid
his expenses.
His Honour: I wish I could assist you, Mr. Taylor, hut
I am sorry to say that I am unable to prop' uace this to be a
cam within the language of the act of parliament. Petition
dismissed without costs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Nana,.)
OMEROD AND OTHERS T. CHADWICK AND ANOTHER.—
FORM lII' A WARRANT OF DISTRESS BY JUSTICES OF THE
Fe.stn.—This was an a tion of trespass, brought against two
justices of the peace, who had signed a numler of warrants
to distrain the goods of the plaintiffs, for the pureave of en-
forcing the payment of poor rates in the township of Tod-
rnorden, in Lancashiie. At the trial, which took place before
Mr. Justice Coleridge at the assizes of Liverp-iol, various ob-
jections were taken to the validity of the warrants. However,
the result was, that a verdict passed for the plaintiff% for 811.,
subject to a motion to enter it for the defendants. The main
questions were, whether the noticesof the ran shad been duly
published, and whether the warrants were good in them-
selves? It appeared that Todmorden was a township, sup-
porting its poor jointly with the township of Wslsden, where
there bad been an Lee -nt church, which, about 12 years ago,
was partly abandoned for a new one, and which, since the
erection and consecration of the new one had only been used
for the holding of vestry meetings and for the pi iformance of
occasional cli rival duties—such as burials and christenings—
as the old church was more convenient to the clergyman
—the new one being a little farther from his residence. It
appeared that by the Hth of Oco. 11., notices of such rates
were required to be published " urin divine service " upon
the parish churches, but by a red statute statute (passed during
the present reign), the publication of notices for such pur-
poses was directed to lie " at or near the doors of all the
churches and chapels " in each district ; thereby substitut-
ing this mode of publication for the pasting " during divine
service." The notices of the rates in question were not
posted at all at the old church, and only on one—the princi-
pal—of the doors of the new one. Under these cir-
cumstances a rule nisi was obtained to enter a
verdict for the defendants.—Mr. Baines, Q.C., and Mr.
Hall were now heard at considerable length in showing
cause against it. They contended that the act required
notices to be posted at all the outer doors of all the churches
in the township, and that therefore the old church was in-
cluded, because although divine service might not have been
performed there on Sundays, yet it was the church upon
which the notices should have been posted. The object
manifestly being, to prevent secret or clandestine acts at
vestry meetings; with respect to the warrant, it was con-
tended it Was bad, as it stated that the rate was "duly
proved "to have been refused, whereas it should ve
stated that it was " proved on oath." A further objection
was urged that the warrant recited the rate as payable on
the 2.5 th of November, there being no such rate then made.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Addison, in support of the rule, con-
tended that it was sufficient to give notice upon the churches
which, de facto, were the churches for the celebration of
divine service, and as to the warrant, it was sufficient, inas-
much as a justice was not compelled to 'tatr that he had
taken evidence upon oath, but it should be presumed that he
had performed his duties properly, and that he had taken
the evidence in the usual course.—l he Court, in the course
of the argument, intimated that the only question with
reference to which they had any doubt was, as to the necessity
of stating that thc, evidence taken before the justice was
" upon oath ; " however, they wished to take time to consi-
der as to the case generally.
_ _

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings in Banco.
BARRY AND ANOTHER v. NESHANI AND ANOTHER.—LIA-
BILITY OP COPARTNERS IN TILE PROPRIETORSHIP OF A
whether, a SpeCiell CILSO SUbMitted tO their
lordships to decide upon the;facts, the de •
fendants, Nesbam and Lowthian, w • berelolartly,inte-
rested in the profits of a newspapia • o ;. NAseerae,lsnd
Tyne Advertiser. ---..., • r, - -
uenas•ef nseney
It appeared that the plaintina . . .
from tho defendants for stamp , ,•' lottich l/sisy
plied to the paper in question ; a.t , esskfeaulant,l.4antm,
resisted the claim, oil the grow:000w was 04-0 torift•
> .- .--
1".... ,
- •