The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-04 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 4, 1851

Lam Intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—EATURDAT.
Emma rue UMW CIIASCIIIJAft.
MA CKZN Z IE r. MACKENZIL.—APPOINTMENT OF A FUND
EY .t BANKRUPT TO HIS EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRA-
TORS ; TO WHOM IMES IT 00?
This was an appeal against an order of the late Vice
Chancellor of England. under these circumstances :—Rode-
rick Mackenzie, one of the defendants, on his marriage in
1809, settled policies of insurance (which he had effected on
his life to the amount of 5,000/. altogether) to the use of
the wife for her life and the issue of the marriage, with
power of appointment to himself. Ile has been twice bank-
rupt and once an insolvent, and assignees in the bank-
ruptcy and insolvency were duly appointed. lie
not ,being able to continue to pay the premiums
on the policies, his wife filed a bill to compel payment of
the premiums or disposal of the policies. A decree was
made directing the policies to be sold. They produced on
the sale a sum which was vested in consols in the Account-
ant-General's name to the credit of the cause, and now,
with the accumulations of interest, amounts to 2,4101.
The wife, who was sole plaintiff, died in 1847. The hus-
band has appointed the fund to his executors and adminis-
trators. The children, who are defendants in the cause,
presented a petition for payment of the fund among them,
which the N ice-Chancellor refused, and his Honour ordered
the fund to be retained in court, and the interest to be
vested, and to accumulate therewith, until the death of
Roderick Mackenzie. The assignees of the bankruptcy
opposed the petition in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and
now they and the assignees in the insolvency appealed against
the order.

Mr. Rolf, Mr. Follett, and Mr. Osborn were heard for
the appellants on Friday, contending that every interest
which the in•olsent and bankrupt had in the fund in court
was vested in them for the benefit of the creditors.
The Solicitor-general, for the children, and Mr. Ifislop
Clarke, for their father, were beard on Saturday in support
of the order. Although they thought the %lee-Chancellor
ought to have ordered the fund to be paid out as prayed by
the children's petition, still they would .up port the order
that was made us against the appellants, and because the
question which was raised as to the right to the fund could
not be well disposed of until atter the death of the appointer,
Mr. Mackenzie. They submitted that an appointment to
executors and administrators in the present state of the law
would carry the fund to the appointer's next of kin at his
death, and it sews not till after his death that his next of kin
could be ascertained.

Mr. J. Campbell appeared for a trustee merely to ask for
his costs.

Mr. Holt replied. Among the numerous cases cited in
the argunients were, " }Win r. Hills" (1 Mylne and Keen,
470); " Bulwer r. Jay" (3 rflylne and Keen, 197) ; " San-
dens r. Franks" (2 Maddock, 147) ; "Jenny r. Andrews"
(6 Maddock, 264) ; Meryon r. Collett (8 &min, 386) ;
and " Holloway r. Holloway" (4 Vesey, W.J).
Judgment was postponed.
llrrros; T. BRIGHT, AND BRIGHT T. lIDTTON.—APPEALS
IN IRE 110tSE OF LORDS ON THE WINDINO-CP ACTS.
Mr. Bethell (with whom was Mr. Roxburgh) applied to
the Lord Chancellor to arrange for the hearing of these ap-
pvis, which were lately lodged in the HOLM of Lords.
They arose on the Acts for Winding up Joint Stock Com-
lumics, and were of a very pressing nature. Ile had the
certificate of one of the Masters in Chancery that the ques-
tions in the cases related to the validity of calls on contri-
butories, and that great mischief might arise from the post-
! pinement of the decision of them, which would innumerous
,! other eases be precedents for the guidance of the Master.
1 Mr. C. I'. Cooper said he was retained in both cases in
the House of Lords, and that the importance of an early
hearing and decision of them could not he overstated. Both
of the eases were connected with Upfil's case decided in the
house last session (2 House of Lords cases), and with Thom-
son's case argued before the house in the present session.
She Lord Chancellor said he was very desirous to hear
the appeals, especially as they were wanted as precedents
for other cases before the Masters in Chancery. They were
however eases which he would not like to hear sitting alone,
and he did not see how he could get any law lord to sit with
him at present. He would speak to Lord Cranwortb about
them.

Mr. Bettiell —One of the appeals was against a decision
of Lord Cranworth. If his lordship (the Lord Chancellor)
could appoint any day before the end of the session he
would pledge himself that the arguments would not take
more than three hours.
the Lord Chancellor said he would consider the matter.

&roan rne Mans or TIIE BALL.

--- - -
WAY Y. VIE SIMMS/II:KY AND CIIEVTER RAILWAY
••

COMPAN Y.—MOTION TO 1,14M114 d.

__..........
This was a motion by the defendants, the Shrewsbury
and Chcnter ILkilway Company, to dismiss the bill for
ulna of prosecution.
. _

At the suggestion of the Master of the Rolls, the case
stood over, that the parties might have an opportunity of
agreeing that the answer of the &fondant who hod not
answered should be put in without oath or signature.

Bcroatc L cu CILANWORTTI (ViriXtcommu
MENLOVE 0. CARTER.—SHIPPINO TRANAACTIo

.
0? LEGAL PROCEE.DINGS.
Lord Cranworth delivered judgment in this case, the par-
ticulars of which were reported in the Expresa of July
U. The only question fur decision was as to the costs of
the proceedings. The bill was filed by the plaintiffs Men-
love and Co., who were merchants in America, against the
captain of a ship named the Charlotte, and against the
assignees of Messrs. Iligginson and Co. It appeared that
Messrs. Iligginson and Co., who were merchants at Liver-
pad and owners of the ship Charlotte, had sent her out to
America with a cargo of salt and coals, consigned to Messrs..
Mention and Co., who were to return a cargo of cotton
and plank. The cotton was shipped in America,
but the cargo of salt and coal not producing suffi-
cient money to pay fur the return cargo, bills were
drawn by Nlenlove and Co. upon Higginson and Co. to the
amount of 1,1711. These bills were sold to the bankers in
America, and endorsed over by them to bankers at Liver-
pool. Messrs. Iligginson and Co. became bankrupts before
the vessel arrived in England, and the Liverpool bankers
then applied to the captain of the vessel for delivery of the
cargo to them. The assignees of Messrs. Higginson dis-
puted the bankers' claim and filed this bill, and obtained un
injunction to restrain the captain from parting with the
cargo. The ship was then removed to the Albert docks at
Liverpool, where the trustees of the duels took upon them-
selves to remove the cargo into their warehouses. The
cotton afterwards diminished in value, and the plaintiffs
applied for a receiver and for sale of the goods. The goods
were sold and produced less than had been advanced by the
American house. The plaintiffs had also brought an action to
try the right to the cotton, and judgment was given in
their favour. The decree now asked was, that the money
arising from the sale might be handed over to the plaintiffs,
and that the assignees of Messrs. Iligginsun and Co.
might pay the costs of the suit as having been rendered ne-
cessury by their opposing the title of the plaintiffs. His
lordship, after going through the facts of the case, decided
that the plaintiffs having had a legal right on which they
might have brought an action of [rover, and having pre-
feted coming into equity as mortgagees to have their mort-
gages released, the costs mast follow the ordinary rule of
mortgagees' bills, and must be paid by the plaintiffs and
added to the securities. As to the costs of the captain of
the ship, they must be paid by the plaintiffs and added to
their own. As to the costs of the dock trustees, a ques-
tion was raised with respect to their conduct in re-
moving the goods from the skip; they contended they had a
right to do so under their act of parliament; the power given
to them by the act was only in case of an obstruction to the
public convenience. Now there was no proof that any ob-
struction bad been caused to tho public convenience ; he
should therefore give them no costs. As to the motion to
restrain a second action, the order must be made, and the
plaintiffs must pay the costs of that motion.

THE ATTOHNEY.GENEUAL T. THE.. SKINNERS' COM-
PAS V.—IN THE MATTER OF THE FHEE GRAMMAR SCHOOL
OF SIR ANDREW JUDD, IN THE TuNCIt OF ToNMAIDOE,
KENT ; AND IN THE NATTER. OF SILL SAMUEL RUMILLVA
Air.

The school was founded by Sir Andrew Judd, by letters
patent under the great seal, granted in the reign of Edward
V. 1., whereby Sir Andrew Judd during his lifetime, and
after his death the Skinners' Company were constituted
governors and trustees of the foundation ; and in them was
vested the power to appoint the masters of the school, and,
with the advice of the warden and fellows of All Souls'
School, Oxford, to make statutes and ordinances touching
the government and direction of such masters and the dis-
position of the revenues of the foundation. Certain statutes
of the school were accordingly made and published by Sir
Andrew Judd, by the third of which it was provided that
the head master should receive five pounds quarterly arid
the usher forty shillings quarterly for their wages,
to be delivered to them by the Skinners' Company,
or their deputy ; and that they should have their
dwelling rent free, and free of all charges for reparation.
In 1820 the information was filed, alleging that the
Skinners' Company had then become possessed of very con-
siderable estates belonging to the foundation of the school,
and praying for a scheme for the application of the rents
and profits arising from such estates. A decree for a scheme
for the management of the charity estates was accordingly
made in July, 1825, by the 21st article of which it was pro
vided that the house and buildings for the master of the
school should be made to accommodate, and should be
maintained in a state fit for the accommodation of, his
family and scholars, and that a suitable house and buildings
should be provided and maintained for the usher, his
family, and scholars. The 27th article provided that the
salary of 201., given to the master by Sir Andrew Judd,
should be increased to 500/. per annum, clear of all deduc-
tions, and that the salary given by Sir Andrew Judd to the
usher should be increased to the sum of 2001. per annum,
clear of all deductions. The petition stated that up to 1849
the rates, taxes, and assessments upon the houses occupied
by the master and usher, amounting to 701. and 401. re-
spectively, had been defrayed by the Skinner's Com-
pany out of the charity revenues; but that since
that time the company had declined paying them
without the sanction of the court, as they had
been advised that it was doubtful whether, in the absence
of an express provision to that effect in the scheme, they
could propery continue to defray them. The petition
trine tat. se declarationfree fromthat theany masterarge ianndresupeshetero7etarexeu,
rates, and assessment.
_

Mr. Bethell and Idr. Fowkes appeared in support of the
petition.
NIL Bates, for the relators, did not oppose the appli•
cation.

Mr. Kenyon, for the Skinners' Company and for All
College, said that the company were willing to
male the payments if authorised by a declaration of the
court. lie would submit, however, whether, MI the houses

had been enlarged and the rates consequently increased, in
order to enable the musters to accommodate a greater
number of boarders, the increased rate ought properly to be
borne by the charity.
The Vice-Chancellor said he was of opinion that the
Imeaning of the 21st and 27th articles of the scheme was,
that the salaries of the masters should he free of all deduc-
tions in respect of rates, lases, and assessments payable in
respect of their occupation of their houses; and, conse-
quently, that the arrears of such rates, and all future pay-
ments in respect thereof, should be paid by the Company of
Skinners.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT—SATURDAY.
Ix RE JAMES CHARLES JOHNS.—BICITING TRANSACTIONS.
This insolvent, whose ease was on till nearly 8 o'clock,
was opposed by Mr. Dowse, for Messrs. Nichols and Co.,
hosiers, and by Mr. Macrae' for Mr. Coates, a wine mer-
chant; Mr. Cooke and Mr. Sargood supported.
This insolvent, who hail betted and speculated on the
turf, made his fourth application to he discharged. He had
figured in the same character in 1838, 1811, and in 1847.
His debts now in the aggregate exceeded 6,0001. He had
won and lost considerable sums on horse racing. It ap-
peared that he had recently married the widow of General
Cleland, and her property was settled by a marriage settle-
ment. She owed some debts at the time of the marriage.
It was contended that the insolvent was not entitled to
be again discharged. A point was taken to the description
by Mr. ?decree, on the ground that no " business or em-
ployment" as set forth was not sufficient ; it offered no in-
formation to the public.
Mr. Commissioner Law held the objection to he valid,
and required a better description—of the insolvent as one
who speculated on horse racing. It was a case for a judg-
ment under the discretionary clause.
The ease was adjourned to the September sittings.
A CASE or StAsoro.

.......
A young man, named William Well., was opposed by
Mr. Cooke, on the part of Mr. Eisenberg, the surgeon
chiropodist. The ease was somewhat remarkable. The in-
' solvent was in the service of Mr. Eisenberg, as valet. Ile
was discharged, not being equal to the duty, and he imme-
diately by an attorney brought an action of slander against
his master and mistress for words spoken by the latter to
the effect that he was a thief and acquainted with the swell
mob. There was in the same service a young woman named
Mary Ann Miles, and they had agreed to he married. After
the insolvent had left he visited the house, and the young
woman soon afterwards left. She was the only witness on
the trial and the jury gave a verdict for the defendant. Mr.
Justice Cresswell said it was an impudent attempt to extort
money. The insolvent was now in prison for the costs
due to Mr. Eisenberg, which amounted to 41/. The yOUIIR
woman Mary Ann Miles was called by the insolvent in this
court as a witness. She said Mrs Eisenberg stated the
words mentioned, and she left her service iweause she
would not deny the words. The young woman stated that
Mr. Eisenberg had, after he knew she was to be married
to the insolvent, made a proposal that she should live with
him as his mistress, which proposal she rejected. A few
days ago she had written a notice to Mr. Eisenberg,
Raying that if the insolvent was not liberated the whole
truth would come out, and she meant what she had now
stated.

Mr. Cooke said an attempt had been made to extort
money.
Mr. Commissioner Law thought the insolvent had da-
maged his own character by going to an attorney. No
character had been asked for, and an action forthwith
brought. The master had been put to considerable ex-
pense, and it was not a case to pass over. The insolvent
was adjudged to an imprisonment of live mouths from the
Testing order, en the 20th June last.