The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-12 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 12, 1851.

IA)) intelligent.

log the investment of the money, and that the dividends
might be paid to the schoolmaster and his successors.
Mr. Wright, in support of the pctitiim, stated that it had
been the practice of the late Vice• Chancellor of England
and Vice•Chatcellor Knight Bruce to maks orders in this
form for the purueee of saving expense.
Lord Cranworth said the money ought to be laid out in
I land under the trust decd, and all he could do was to make
an interim order for invegment, and for payment of the
dividends to the present master.
WELLESLEY O. MORN/RoTON.—WARDEN OF ERE FOREST

HOUSE OF LORDS—Yesraw.ty.
runsir: Tag LOW CDUICOLLOR, 4,rD BILOWILII3I. AND OMR
?SW ; AND MAO ISSIIIDAL DV TIM C.ll/011 lODESE.
THE BAKON Dl BODE P. TES GUEEN.--CONTISCRTIONS
OP TEI PROPERTY OP BRITIVII SUBJECTS HT TEI
FRANCE GOVERNMENT IN 1792.--INDEUNITIf FUNDE.--
CLAIR TO COMTTNEATION.

The facts alibis ease, which has been brought before the
house by writ of error on a judgment of the Court of Ex-
chequer Chamber, affirming a judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench, were fully stated in the report in the
Aspress yesterday, together with the points of the
argument and the substance of the question put by the
Lord Vitincellor to the learned judges.
The Lord Chief Baron now delivered the opinion of him-
self and tie other judges, who had heard the case argued, in
answer to the question put to them. The question put by
their lordships fur the opinion of the judges was this:—
" An individual claims compensation under the treaties
mentioned in the statute 39th George 111., e. 31, or under
one of those treaties and under the said statute, or under
the statute, has he any, and what remedy to recover such
compensation, other than by an application to the com-
missioners appointed and acting under the said
statute andby appeal from their decision to the Privy
Council ?" Ile had to state the unanimous opinion of the
judges, that upon the construction of the statute
59 George iii., c. 31, the funds supplied by the French
government under the treaties and conventions mentioned
in the statute, were received to be applied according to the
directions of the statute ; and that the plaintiff therefore
had no right of claim, except under the provisions of the
statute. !'hero was not therefore any ground for the claim
upon the petition of right, in opposition to or independent
of the statute, which contained directions applicable to the
whole of the funds. It was urged, in the argument for the
plaintiff, that the commissioners under the statute had dis-
posed of so much only of the funds, as sufficed to answer
the chains of such British subjects as had their names
I registered before the passing of use statute, but that they
gave no decision on the claims of those whose
names were admitted in the register, after the passing
of the statute. it was also argued that though the
Baron de Buile's claim was not duly registered before the
passing of the act, all the facts stated in his petition o: right
in support of his claim were found on the inquisition and
thereby established ; and iu that case it was contended that
as there was a surplus of tie indemnity fund remaining
in the hands of the otficas of the crown, the sovereign was
liable. That would be: a question entitled to great consi-
deration if the statute had not been passed ; but upon the
construction put by the judges on the statute, that question
dad not arise. It was consequently the unanimous opinion
of the judges that this claim was not sustained, and that
claimant had no remedy, for lie mast mike out his
claim according to the directions of the statute.,
and he has not done so. The judges did
not consider it necessary to give their reasons at
length fur their opinion, inasmuch as they concurred in
the reasons given by the judges in the Court of Exchequer
Chamber fur thudgment given there, and which was set
out in the printed CiI,US on the table of the house.

---
OP HAINAULT.
Three petitions were presented by different parties in-
terested in this suit for liberty to negotiate with the Cam-
nti of Woods and Forests fur the sale or cum-
, mutation of the office of Warden of the Forest
of Ilainault and Epping, which belonged to Lord
Mornington. It appeared that a bill was shout to be
past for the purpose of ilisafforesting the forest, under which
it was provided that compensation should be given to Lord
Mornington for his office. A question would be raised
whether that being an hereditament, had or had
not been included in • trust deed executed by Lord
Mornington fur the benefit of his creditors. The rt ceis2r
under the deed contended th tt the emoluments of that
office had passed by it for the benefit of the creditors, and
applied for leave to negotiate with the commissioners as to
the amount to be paid.
Lord Cranworth mule an order according to the prayer
of the petition presented by the receiver without prejudice
to the right of Lord Nlorningtou to contend that the office
had not been included in the creditors deed.
MINLOVE V. CASTER.—SitteetNO TRINSACTION9.—
LIEN troN MEItCHANDISE.

____ _..... .................e...
This bill was tiled by Menlove end Co., who were mer-
chants in America, against the captain of a ship named tho
Charlotte, and against the assignees of Messrs. Higgins=
and Co., under these circumstances. It appeared that the
Messrs. Higgins= and Co., who were merchants at Liver-
pool, and owners of the ship Charlotte, had sent her out
to America with a cargo of salt and coals, consigned
to the Meson. Mentors and Co. of Charleston, who
were to return a cargo of cotton. The cotton was shipped
in America, but the cargo of salt and coal not producing
sufficient money to pay for the cotton, bills were drawn by
Menlove and Co., upon Higgins= and Co., to the amount
of 1,1771. When the good„ were put on board, the defen-
dant Carter, who was the captain of the ship, signed a
bill of lading in the following terms. " Shipped in
good order and condition, by Menlove and Co., 1263
bales of cotton, 74,811 fact of plank to be delivered in like
good condition unto order or to our assigns, the
said shipment to pay nothing for freight, it being owner 'e !
property to order of Mcnlove and Comaauy." The ship
sailed from Charleston on the 12th of Oitober, 1817. The
bills of exchange were sold by Menlore and Company to
the bankers at Charleston, and were endorsed to their
Liverpool house ; one of them was accepted by Iligginson
and Cumpany before the arrival of the ship at Liverpool,
and they then became Innkrurits. The whole of the bills
of exchange and the bills of lading were received by the
Liverpool bank, but the American firm of Meant: and
Company remained liable for them to the Charleston bank.
The fiat in bankruptcy was issued against Iliggin.ou and
Company on the 13th of November, 11117, and the ship
arrived in England on the 26th of the same month. The
bank of Liverpool being thus the holders of the bills of
lading, applied to the defendant Carter for delivery of the
cargo. The assignees of Iligginson and Company, however,
disputed the title, and Carter therefore declined to deliver
the goods. This bill was then tiled for MI injunction to re-
strain the captain from parting with the cargo to
any one but the plaintiffs. The injunction was
~,ranted by the late Vice-Chancellor of England, on the
Dth of November, 1847. The ship was then removed into
thq Albert Docks at Liverpool. In December, 1817, Hig-
gins= and Co. discharged Carter from the command of the
ship, which was then left under the control of the owners
of the dock, who took upon themselves to remove the cargo
front the ship, and store it in one of their warehouses, and
declined to allow the plaintiffs' to have possession of it. The
cotton afterwards diminished greatly in value, and the
plaintiffs applied for a receiver and for sale of the goods.
1. he goods were sold under an order of the court, and pro-
duced less than had been advanced by the American house.
The injunction which had been granted by the Vice•Cham-
cellor of England was appealed trout to Lord Cottenham,
J who confirmed the decision, and gave leave to try the legal
question at law, whether the plaintiffs had a lien or not
upon the cotton. An action was accordingly brought b
the aesignecs of Iligginson and Company against the Dock
Company, and it cone on by bill of exceptions before the
Exchequer Chamber. Judgment was delivered on the
20th of May, 1851, in favour of the plaintiffs in
equity. The cause now came on for hearing, and the
decree asked was to have tho money arising front the sale
and which had been paid into court, handed over to the
l use of the plaintiff., and that the assignees of Iligginson
i and Company should,pay the costs of the suit us having
been rendered necessary by their opposing the title of the
i plaintiffs. A petition ter payment of freight to the assig-
ness and a motion to restrain an action at law came on to-
gether with the cause.
.. .. .. -.— .. . .... .. . ..

Thu Lor:1 Chancellor, addressing tho house, said their
lordships heard the opinion just detivered on behalf of the
learned judges. It appeared to hint to be a clear and con-
clusive opinion on this case, and he entirely concurred
in it.

His Lordship moved, in the usual form, the affirmance of
the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Climnba, and it
was athruied accordingly.
J udguient fur the detendaut in error.
SI:AUDINU T. LOILANT.-VALIDITY OF A RATE.

This wa, a writ of error on ajuiigiuentoftheCoitrt of
Exchequer Chamber. The case was partly argued last
Monday in the presence of the learned judges in the com-
mon law courts, by Mr. l'eaeock at.d Mr. Denman, for the
plaintiff in error, and by Mr. l'reuiergast and Mr. Need-
ham (with whom was Mr. Bagley) fur the defendant in
error. The facts of the case were stated in the report in
this journal on Tuesday.
Mr. Needham was now further heard, and Mr. Peacock
replied.
the Lord Chancellor, at the conclusion of the argument,
put these questions for the opinion of the judges, which
were to this effect. First, if authority be given by an act
of parliament to the majority of a parish vestry, there being
more than vestrymen present, to make a rate, would a rate
so made be unobjectionable, it the seven persons were ves-
trymen de facto and not de jure ? Secondly, authority
acts given by act of parliament to a vestry to make a rate
fur relief of the poor, notice of the meeting to be held for
the purpose was to be given on the preceding Sunday ; and
by the same act it is enacted that notice should be given to
each vestryman. At a vestry held ou the 12th of August it
was resolved that a rate should be made but as all the
forutsof the rate could not be then completed, adjournments
were made to several subsequent days the last of '
them being the 14th of September, when the rate I
was completed. There was a notice of the purpose of the
meeting ou the 12th of August, but the notice of the
meeting fur the 11th of September contained no mention of
the purpose being to make a poor rate. Suppose the rate
eu made to be otherwise valid, was it invalid by reason of
the notice nut stating the purpose for which the sneering I
was coiled i Thirdly : In au action ot repleviu an attorney
alleged that a poor rate was made antr the passing of a
certain act of parliament, and before the seizure of the
plaintiff's goods fur non-paymeut of a rate, and while his
goods were liable to be rated; would that allegation be
sustained by proof of the facts as stated in this easel Ills
lordship, hating read the material facts, said lie consi-
dered that the three questions ho had now put embraced
all the material points in the ease.
The learned judges, having received a copy of the ques-
tions, retired to consider their answers.

Mr. Bethell, Mr. Follett, and Mr. Cowling appeared for
the plaintas. Mr. bolt, Mr. Cairns, and Mr. Crompton
for the assignees. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Moor,: for the Hoek
Company, and Mr. bacon and Mr. Kinglake for the captain
of the ship.
Lord Cranw•orth reserved his judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-TESTERDAY.
%MAW AT 111,1 Plum" Ar Gt. ILLUALI, LAW CASWISULL

AM, • CODIUN Jcay.
WEST AND ANUTHEIL C. ELMOILE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as the
holders of a bill of exchange for 67 .)1 , dated 'lad of August,
18-11, drawn by the defendant upon, and accepted by
Thomas and llostvek Whinney, payable 31) months after
date.

juddes returned alter some time, and on their
behalf

The Lord Chief Baron read their opinion to this effect :
In answer to the first question proposed to them, he had to
report their unanimous opinion in the affirmative. They
thought that the vestrymen de facto were as competent to
join in making a rate as the vestrymen dejure. In answer
to the second question, they were of opinion that the rate
was not renderd invalid by the reason of the alleged det'e'ct
iu the notice of, the adjourned meeting. It was sufficient
to give notice on the church door of the purpose for
which the first meeting was to be held, and they
(the judges) thought that the notice so given extended to
all the adjourned meetings, such adjourned meetings being
held fur the purpose of completing the unfinished business
of the first meeting, and being in continuation of that
meeting. It was stated in their lordships' question that
the substance of the allegation was that the rate was made
after the passing of a certain act of parliament, by virtue
of which the taking of the goods was justified, and certain
facts were stated in support of that allegation. The judges
were of opinion that the facts stated in the question sup-
ported the allegations.
The Lord Chancellor said that nothing could be more
distinct than the opinion just delivered, and in that opinion
he entirely concurred. All the objections taken by the !
plaintiff in error wore in the nature of technical objec-
tions, and it was satisfactory to know that if the rate had
been impeachable on the merits, the party might, by appeal,
have had that question raised, and might have so obtained re-
dress.
But that fact ought not to prevent any one from taking
other proceedings to impeach the rate. The judges were
unanimously of opinion that the adjournments were but
coutinuatious of the first meeting, and that the effect of the
notice given previous to the first meeting was well continued
to the subsequent meetings. This objection was more of
substance than either of the others. Thu opinion of the
judges as to the vestrymen de facto and de jure was most
important when it was considered that there were many
persons charged with responsible duties whose title to exe-
cute them could not be clearly ascertained at the time ;
and when it was remembered that great inconveni-
ences would often arise if the validity of these acts
depended ou the validity of their election. The enunciation
of the principle of the learned judges, that the acts per-
formed might be valid notwithstanding the invalidity of the
election of the parties who performed them, as might be
afterwards discovered, was of the greatest importance, and
in the correctness of that opinion he begged to declare his
concurrence.
Lord Brougham also expressed his concurrence generally
in the opinions delivered by the judges.
The judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber was
then athrmed.
Judgment for the defendant in error.

Seejeant Shee and Mr. Horne fur the plaintiffs ;
Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Prentice for the defendants.
I The presentment, clishutiour, and notice of dishonour, of
the bill having been proved by the plaintiffs,
Mr. O'Malley address. d the jury for the defendant, and
I said there was a great number of pleas upau the record, on
I some or other of which he should contend he was entitled
I to judgment. The fact that this bill was due in Feb., 1811, and
no action commenced upon it till just in sufficient time to
avoid the statute of limitations, although the defendant was
a perfectly solvent man, won in itself calculated to raise
suspicion. The facts of the case were as follow: 1.7 p to August,
1841, the brother of the present defendant, Mr. U. Elmore,
carried on his well known business as a livery-stable.
keeper in Piccadilly ; in that year he died, and the present
defendant, as his representative, disposed of the business
and premises to Messrs. Thomas and Bostock Whinney,
for the sum of 5,3171., which was to be paid as follows:
1,0001. in cash, and the residue by eight bills of
exchange, for various sums, all doted the 2nd of
August, 1841, and payable at different intervals.
The present bill was the sixth of the aeries.
The seventh was for 1751., payable three years after date,
and the last for 1,01411., payable four years after date. To
secure the payment of these bills a warrant of attorney was
given, and judgment entered up for 10,000!. The estate
of the late Mr. Elmore being indebted to the present
plaintiffs, Messrs. Green and West, four of the eight
bills, including the one now sued on, were indorsed over to
the plaintiffs. The last two, namely, that for 5751., and
that for 1,0801., remained in the hands of the defendant.
The bill for 575/. was not paid at maturity by the acceptor.
In August, 1814, the bill for 6751. became due, and was not
paid, and Mr. Elm. re had also a hook debt of 0251.
against the Whinneys, who were obliged to give
up business, and make over their property. Mr. Green
took a considerable part in tho endeavour to settle their
affairs, and in order to do so it became necessary to make an
arrangement with the defendant. He refused to come in
under the deed which was proposed for the benefit of credi-
tors so far as his judgment debt seas concerned, but agreed
if that was settled to do so for his book debt ; accordingly
Green agreed to buy the judgment debt for ten shillings in
the pound on behalf of the body of creditors, and a deed of
assignment was drawn up dated Bth August, 1844, try
which, after reciting the facts, Elmore assigned the two
bills of exchange, the debt, warrant of attorney, and judg-
ment, to Green for the sum of 827/. 10s. At the time this
was Bono not a word was said by Green holding Elmore
liable to pay the previous bill for dill. And if at that time
Green was looking to Elmore to pay this bill, the whole
arrangement was a fraud. In January, 1846, this arrange-
ment having been carried out, a deed of assign-
ment was executed by, the Whinneys of all their
joint property for the benefit of creditors, of which
deed Green was a trustee, and it was arranged that
he should repay himself all moneys expended by him
in payment to Elmore before any general division took
place. In January, 1846, it became necessary to sell a part
of the leasehold property assigned to the trustees, and a
person who proposed to purchase basing searched and
found the judgment for 10,000/. against the Whiuneya, ap-
plied to have satisfaction entered up ; and accordingly
Green. as the assignee of the debt, gave to Elmore a memo-
randum in the following terms:
" Mr. John Elmore,-1 hereby oonsent to and authorise
you to enter up satisfaction on the judgment recovered by
you against T::omas Whinney and Bostock Whinney on or
about the Bth August, 1812, and by indenture of the 13th
August, 1841, assigned by you to me for securing two sums
of 6751. cunt 1,080... therein particularly mentioned, being
the balance then remaining unpaid of the sums for securing
which the said judgment was originally given ; and which
two sums have since been paid or otherwise satisfied.—
(Signed) HENRY GREEN."
lie contended that the plaintiff, after signing this docu-
ment, was estopped from saying that the bill was not paid.
The rule of law was clear that if a person by his words or
conduct wilfully caused another to believe the existence of
a certain state of things, and induced him to act on that
belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former
was concluded from averring against the latter a different
state of things as existing at the same time. tinter this
rule of law he should contend that independently of the
consent to enter satisfaction the defendant was entitled to
judgment itn the plea of payment. But at all events he
must be so entitled by that consent. Another ground of
defence was that facts had occurred by which he should
contend that the jury would be justified in inferring that
the plaintiff' had agreed to grant the acceptor time whereby
the drawer would be released. The plaintiff bad entered
into an arrangement with Bostock WMnney, by which the
latter agreed to pay this bill out of his separate estate in
case it was not paid out of the joint estate. He could give
no positive proof that, in cousideration of his so doing,
Green did grant time ; but he should put in the letters that
had passed, and leave the jury to draw their owncouclusion.
The various documents avian/nod in the learned coun-
ters address were then pat ia.

LINDVAY V. Dl.Tzzu AND M. WILLIAMS V. ADAMS.-
A.81.11-110DIED PAUPLMA '11111101:i EMPLOYNIENL-CLAIX
TOALLIEP ON POOll RATIA.

These cases upon appealsagainst interlocutors of the
Court of Session were partly argued on the Ist of this
month, and the nature of them was then stated in our re-
port.
Mr. lames Anderson (who appeared in the costume of a
Queen's counsel, having been so lately appointed), said he
was with Mr. &then for the respondent (inspector of the
poor) in one of the cases. Mr. Bethel! had nut finished his
argument; he was sent for, and would be soon present.
Mr. Anderson being then required to go on, proceeded to
support the interlocutors. ile was snipped at half-past
three, and the farther hearing was sdjourued to Monday.

IN Coultirrn; run Pate:mu:Ls.
The Earl of Dui/raven's claim to vote at the election fur re-
presentative peers for Ireland was before the committee on the
20th of Lest month, but as there was not sufficient rea.on
given for non-production of the patent creating the peerage,
the committee refused to admit tLc entry on the journals
of the house, to show the limitations of their dignity.
The patent was now produced by the claimant's agent,
who read the limitations therefrom, and the claim was
declared to be made out.

The Lai of Bantry 'a claim to vote for the representative
peers fur Ireland was neat brought on, and it appeared
trom the statements et the witnesses that his father, the
late earl, was married in 1799, and the claimant was born
in 18:.x). The late earl died in the present year.
Lord Bandon and Lord Listowel, speaking from their
places in the house, said they knew the present earl, who
was known as Viscount Berehaven during his father's life.
They always believed him to be the eldest son of the late
The claim was declared to be made out.

EQUITY COURTS.—YEsTERDAY.
VICI-CIAXCULOR CRAMS
Ex PARTE Itiertalioxxx.—FßEE GRARMAR SCHOOL.
INTE.4TRENT OF CHARITY PROPERTY.
in this case Es appeared that certain lands of the shovel
charity had been taken by the Lancashire and Yorkshire
Railway Company, and the purchase money, 4001. bad '1
peen pail petition wee Wel oweitlos4 way-