The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-02 00:00:00

THE „EXPRESS, TUEgVlV:ifikNrlsttlXii.24...l34B.....,....

Hamilton ; certificate, Terry.—IMIMMI (Ben.) : Tour*, Paternos-
ter. Jun.: Brno. medal, Wood. UMfitaa.—Medical Jurirprti.
dente : the Governor's Sliver Medal for the oisicat Prise,
Silver medal. The Governor's General Proficiency Pies moo Kaanal.
nation : Silver medal, Totios.—Ceneral Proficiency Gold medal,
Yount.—LW and good conduct : honorary tostbuonlal, Hog-

SPORTING.
CELESTES RACES.
CIIWITIR, MONDAY APTSRNOON, FIVII O'CLOCK.
Artivals : Pantos*, Ruth% Routh, Hornpipe, Ilallinalad, Mackie,
The Tartar, JeM. 1M Witt, Pantomime, Sylvan, Ihe Prowler,
Oameater, Athetatane. Blackball, Ntoretator, WWI of my Soul, l'rrhue
tits nest, then Satinet, War Eagle, Abigail Ally, of hicenstone,
Patriot, Conyngham, North Mu, Tote Tough, PLuenteber, Titbit,
WhinstOne, Was Orhell, Peep o' Day Roy, Vice tnneul, Conneught
Ranger, Wanota, Romance, Gunpowdrr,lim Hobble, Shylork, Oscar,
1/ecelv. r, George l'hessaide, Under Greco, Lady Mar,
Collingwood, Activity, The Spaniatd, Vale Royal, Enchantrow,
Italvthorpe, Egrette, lMy of the Lune, Matinw, Rouliettla, Cocker-
mouth, Inheritress, tlodfrey, Inglewood, 11,e WItiOW, Intrepid, Mont.
prosier, Nu Lio, Sir Peter Laurie, Mulls, Sally Magna, Infrisge, lord;
Vlore, Pillage, Enchanter, Tuscan, Mrs. Taft, (tool Noy, hunnymde,
Envehaties, anti Ferrybill. &Ws and two or three other iota are
espeeted to.morrow.
About 40 likely to start for the Cup. The course novcr
was in such order as It is at present.
TAT [En:ALI:IL —MoveAr.
No betting, the majority of the subserioers having left for
Chester.

tab) fatellistuct.
EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
FRAZIER V. JONES ANC OTHEIVI.•—MORTOAGOR AND
MORTUAOSIL—FitAtIIiULENTRZCITALOW a PillUltell•ltUlS.
—Palonertea.—The Lord Chancellor pre judgment in this
case .which was an appeal from a decree of Vice-Chmeellor
W egret's. The i ray er of the bill w as, that the mortgage granted
to the plaintiffs should have priority over an equitable mort-
gage to the defendant, John Junes, for 200 f. The question
was, whether, without respect to the dates of these mort-
gages the plaintiffs were entitled to priority or not. Of
course the plaintiffs would have priority for their mortgage
if the question was to be decided according to the actual
dates, or if fraud could be traced to John Jones, for the
mortgage to plaintiffs was dated Sept. 8, 1812,andthe charge
for 'AWL granted to J. Jones was dated the 20th of
September, the same year. But then Jones claimed a
priority in respect of a deposit with him of a prior charge,
dated in 1841, to secure a debt due prior to the mortgage to
the plaintifia, and his title would be good if there was not
&fraud in the creation of that charge. That there wu •
fraud by some of the defendants, as by David Jones, and
John Powell, there was no doubt, but the question was whe-
ther John Jones, the other defendant and sole appellant!
was a party to the fraud or cognisant of it at the time he
took the, mortgage in respect of which hr claimed priority.
His lordship referred to passages in the bill and answers to
several letters which pained between the defendants, and to
conversations between them or their 'gems on one side, and
the agents of the plaintiffs on the other, and from a minute
investigation of these Aid of the depositions of some of the
witnesses in the cense, his lordship concluded that John
Jones was cognisant of, if not a party to. the freud, whether
f,r his own benefit or to ecrornmodate 14,41 Jones and
Powell did not make any difference in the view of the court.
Under these circumstances he must hold the plaintiffs to be
entitled to the mortgaged premises, eubjict to a first charge,
which was not in dispute, to Mr. Perry. After him the ,
plaintiffs were the first encumbrancer., ar.d entitled to the
mortgage-money or to foreclosure, John Jones to be
in the situation of a subsequent incumbrancer for
2001. and entitled to redeem the prior incumbratices. His
lordship suggested one cr two alterations in the decree of
the Vice-Chancellor, and in all other reel. cis affirmed it,
and dismissed the appeal with costs. With respect to
D. Jones and Powell, although they did not complain of the
decree, yet, as they were the authors of the fraud in the first
instance, his lordship was of opinion that they should pay
their own coats on toe appeal.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Itorieo.
Lewis v. HANcE.—PIitriLLUE or ATToUNETS.—Lord
Denman gave judgment in this case. It was an action on it
bill of exchange, the plaintiff being an attorney. The ver-
dict ',used for the amount claimed, which was under 201. A
rule was subsequently obtained to deprive the plaintiff of his
costs, under the icction of the County Courts Act, on
the ground that he ought not to have sum d the defendAut in
a superior court, the amount being within the jut isilictioct of
the county court. The question was, whether an attorney
plaintiff was within the provisions of the act, or entitled, by
virtue of his privilege as an attorney, to sue in one of the
superior courts. Atter el:furring to this 67th and 129th
sections of the set in question (9 & 10 Vic., cap. 4,5), to the
Middlesex County Courts Act, and to the 39 Or 40 Geo. 111.,
cap. 101, his lordship said that un unprivileged plaintiff
would, by the County Courts Act, immediately be subject to
the forfeiture of hit coats if he sued in a superior court fur a
debt under 201.; but neither the 67th ur 129th sections, p• r
se, affected the privWge of an att,rney plaintiff to sue in a
superior court. It could not be said, taking the two !sections
together, teat the legislature clearly intended to take awry
such privilege, and subject en attorney to costs for bringing
his action in a superior court; and however desirous the
court might be that attorneys should he subject, like other
persons, to the provisions of the act io question, it was clear
the legLalatere had not said they should be •n.l the plaintiff
was, therefore, entitled to his costa.

BAIL COURT.
!tilde'• ill Banco —lleforr Alr. Juotire
•

THE QUINN O. JOHN ANO ll ENay Bitoona.—Aersactv.
—ln this Cu. Mr. Phillemore had obtained a rule nisi to
quash a writ of error which the defendants bad obtained,
and also to escheat their recognisance,. The defendants are
well known in the pugilistic world. The present proceed-
ings arose out of an indictment which was preferred against
them by a party, whose name did not transpire, for an
assault, upon which they were sentenced each to three
weeks' imprisonment.—Mr. Butt, on behalf of the
defendant .1. Broome, now showed cause against the rule,
and contended that it did not appear in the affidavit who
the prosecutor actually was, nor who was setting the court
in motion; it also did not appear out of what court the
writ of error had issued or to whom it was directed.—Mr.
Phillimore, in support of the rule, e'ihmitted that, according
to the terms of the Nth and Uth Viet., cap. tint, sec. 5, ►e
was eolith,' to have the rule made absolute. That statute
provided that whero a party sued out • writ of error, in
which he did not proceed within a reasonable time, judg.
mint m'ght be enforced against him. lie hid tho atlidavit
of one Henry John Beeves, clerk to the prosecutors' attor-
neys, waich stated that several applications had been made
j to them to know whether they intended to proceed upon the
writ of error, and on all occasions evasive linemen had been
given. Under these circumstances ho milted that the
writ of error ought to be quashed, the defendants recngni-
sauces forfeited, and the sentence upon them carried into
effec,..—Mr. Justice Coleridge said he would read the atlida-
s its put in by Mr. Phillimore 'Jaime he decided.
Nut yaws.

BINGHAM a. WALIE/A-19 • lIESBAND MAHER FOR
THII EXPENSES OF ILIA WIER'S FENSRAL, WIIEGE "IME
LATTER HAS A SEPARATE MAINTZHANCS ,—Mr. Lush ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Ilayward,Q.C.,with whom
was Mr. Cressy, for the defendant. This was an action
brought by the plaiutiff, who is an undertaker residing in
Ryder-street, Leicester-square, to recover from the defend-
ant, who is a dissenting minister of a chapel in the neigh-
bourhood of Bristol, the suns of 231. 14s. From the state-
ment of the learnt d connsel it appeared that 191. of the
above-mentioned sum was ter the funeral expenses of the de
fendant's wife, who had been buried by tha plaintiff, and 4/.
fer money lent to the defendant's wife. The defendant had
Iren separated from his wife ever since the year 1828, and at
the time of her death she was residing at Greenwich with a
Miss Hannay, a daughter of the late Mrs. Walker by a for-
mer hushand. Her means of subsistence was an allowance
of 321. per annum which her hu-band made her. Mr. Lush in
his opening address also said that this would be more a ques-
tion for his lordship than for the jury, because it might
be dou'ited whether a husband was liable for his wife's ex-
pense' where she had a separate maintenance. Ho con-
tended that the husband was liable where the expense was
necessary. In support of this view of the case the learned
counsel quoted a case from Blackstone, where a husband had
lieeu held liable for a debt incurred by the wife, although
there was a separation and a distinct allowance; and abo the
case of " Chappell a. Cooper" (3 Meeson and Welaby),
wherein a wife being at the time of her husband's death a
minor had been obliged to pay for his funeral. To prove
the plaintiff's case the first witness called was Miss llard-
ley, who stated that she lived with her mother, Mrs.
Walker, two years before her death. She died on the Ist
of March, 1847, at Greenwich, and was buried by,
the plaintiff at Highgate Cemetery, by her especial
desire, as she wished to be laid near her son, who
was interred there. This witness also proved that
91. per quarter was paid regularly to her mother
by the defendant, and sbe received tho March quarter her-
self.—Mr. Tangent, an undertnker, who was present at the
late Mrs. Walker's funeral, state I that the dhow s '1 the
1.1 Jintilts bill w ere fair and reasini..b:e; bet had tile la, val
taken place at Greenwich it would have been about Cl. er
71.—Mr. Hayward submitted that the plaintiff ought to be
nonsuitel, as the defendant was not habit; and even if he
,:as ho had paid enough to cover the expenses of a decent
funeral, according to the circumstances in life of the
defendant, fur he was a poor dissenting minister, whose
whole income was 701. a year, COl. being his stipend, and 51.
a year he received from two societies for tho assistance of
poor dissenting ministers. Ho should be able to show that
the sum of 81. proved to have been received by Miss Hardlay,
was pent by for his
wifo's
Creasy

in
&leo were two letters from the plaintiff to the defendant,
one of which he offered to get all Mrs. Walker's debts ar
ranged if the defendant would pay his hill, and that of the
doetnr.—Mr. Lush replica, contending that his client was
entitled to recover 191. (tho 41. for money lent being aban•
Boned as not recoverable.) The entails' :was reasosaide,
and had 'seen properly incurred.—Mr. lustiest Coleridge, is
summing up, said that for meant purposes it must be taken
that the defend.int was liable, and if be (the learned judge)
was wrong the defendant could appeal to the court shove.'
But then came the second question, which was whetter the
charges of the plaintiff were such as, considering the posi-
tion of the defendant, ought to have been incurred. He
was of opinion th t the desire of the deceased to be buried et
Highgate was, under the circumstances of the case, when
the defendant had only 701 a year, unreasonable. A decent
funeral at Ureenwich would have been cheaper and more
consistent. The jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff for St,
leave being era reed to the defendant to enter a Rimini: on
the point of law.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Setting. In Renew
PUILLIPA O. Till IS ARCIIANT AND TX•DERS' SHIP,
LOAN, AND INSURANCE COMPANY.—LIAIIILITY OP SHARE•
intense:l IN A JOISTRTOCK COMPANY AFTER JUDOMENT
OBTAINS!) AGAINST TIIR COMPANY.—Mr. Kennedy moved
for a rule to show cause why execution should riot iglus
against a shareholder in tke above company. An action had
been brought against the company on a policy of insurance,
and a judgment recovered. A writ of ti. fa. had issued, awl
the sheriff had returned that he had levied part of the exe-
cution en the goods of the company, and that 'here was no
more, and that great part of the judgment remained unsatis-
fied. The prevent motion wax founded on the 60th and 45.4 th
sections of the 7th & fith Viet., c. 110, the Joint-Stnek Coln-
:lmes Act, which allows companies completely registered to
sue and be am 11. The fiG•h section provides " That in every
judgment, decree or order obtained against a company com-
pletely registered, except companies inc .rperated by act of
parliament or charter, rem'. ion coy Im isaa. nut only against
the property and rIT, e!s if the company, but if due diligence
has been used in MIA of the failure of such goods to satisfy the
levy, then it may issue against the prop rty or person of any
forma or present shareholdt r." The 68th section directs
that suck execution may issue by leave of the court, either
on a rule to show cause or • summons without any sugges-
tion or scire feciae.—The Lord Chief Justice : You ALuuld
show what is the contract. There may be, es there often is,
a stipulation in the policy that insurers must look only to
the fends.—Mr. Kennedy: Teem is a htipul ition that no
shareholder should be debts beynnd the amount of hie
shares. But this refers only to an original proceeding
against a shareholder ; no one could bring an action against
him, but an action having been brought against the com-
pany, and a judgment obtained, then the plaintiff is entitled
to take steps under the act of parli intent —The Court inti-
mated a wish to see the di elev..' ion Imlore they considered
the granting of the rule; and it not hemg in court, directed
that the application should be renewed.
CANOE • O. UNIVPRAAL OA. LIMIT COMPANY.—Mr.
Phipeon made an apAication similar to the above for a rule
to stow cause why cx. cution should not issue aping Domi-
nic Caussee a shareholder in the shove company, under the
provisions of the act ',hove cited. The action was for work
and labour, an engineer of the company, and a judgment
recovered. The company wan completely sequestered, and
Caussie was a director, held Wires, and had executed the
deed of settlemeet—ltule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittinu in gum
TM! QUEEN v. nENTKAX.—WRIT OP EXTENT. —The de-
fendant in this cane wu ceenvicted by the commissioners of
r seise in penalties amounting to 1,04i91., for breaches of the
excise laws. On the 29th of January last a writ of extent
was issued against him, tested ale of t'.ut day, and returnable
upon the 12th of February. The defendant was taken into
custody upon it on the 7llst of January, and lodged in Hose.
monger-'ane prison. Ile w.O taken subsequently, without a
habeas curpun, from the prison to the Sessions Haute of
Newington, to give evidence in a ease pending there, and
was thence taken back tot rtion.—Mr. Lu,h moved yester-
day for a rule to show cause aby the writ of extent should
not be set aside and the defendant discharged, on the ground
that it was made returnable out of term, and was theref re
void; secendly, upon the gr..und that the sheriff having
taken the defendant irtee out of gaol, could not again take
' him into custody. The C. urt observed that some
doubt tainted with regard to writs eef that sort in which the
crown was directly concerned. However, it might be de-
sirable to have the matter diseuised.—A rule nisi was
granted.
Itititanna v. Lout) SUFFIELD —AN ATTOKNET's BILL.
—This win an anti m by sn att racy fur work and labour.
—The defendant pleaded that the work was done by the
plaintiff as an attorney, and t .at at the time it was done he
had not a ccrtitiatte. To that plea there wu a special de-
murrer, and the questions stiliatantially raised were, whether
the plea should nut have stated that the work done was in a
c..urtsither of law or of e quity, and whether under the late
act regulating the proles-ion of uttorney• and solicitors, ao
attorney could recover fur any work dent uy him in that ca-
pacity, at a time when he had not taken out his certificate.
—The court took tints to consider.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS.
Tuts QuitEN v. tiruar.l.—On Saturday last a point re.
...sea tor the cousideration of the its judges by Ate
Baron Rolfe at the last Yorkshire assizes, was argued
by Mr. beastly, the prisoner's counsel. The indictment
alleged that the prisoner, Michael Stokes, " shot,
discharged, and sent forth" a ccrtsin musket; and then
went on to &lege that, with the ball so shot, discharged
and sent forth, the prisoner caused the death. It WAS
contended that these allegation, were bad for uncer-
tainty and repugnancy, for that, though the words "to
shoot and diacharge" a musket would mean to fire
off a musket, the words, "shoot, discharge, and send
forth" a musket must mean that the musket itself was sent
forth as a missile, the lairds " shoot " and " dischsrge" being
controlled by the words " send forth " It was laid down in
" liswkin'a Pleas of the Crown." (Ii:, Appeal, page 20)
that an argumentative certainty was not suffie'ent in an in-
dictment, and that a precise certainty was always reqoired
in (aroma vita*. Mr. Dearsly (aril other authuritins, c in-
tending that the words " sent forth " could not be reject( d
as surplusage. The judges took time to cen.ider, and yes-
terday (Monday) intimated to the prisoner's couniel that,
in their opinion, the conviction was good, and the rause ot
death stated with sufficient certainty, the words" send forth"
being rejected as surplusage.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commiasio,rr Pane.
M. J eLLI SINN BANK urrinr. This was the day ap- ,
pointed for the first meeting, for the proof of debts and ,
choice of assignee', in the case of Louis George Jullien, who
was described es "masse-seller. of Regent-siren." There ,
was a large attendance of creditor.; and several solicitor, ,
were present, representing differ( nt interests. The solicitor
under the flat was Mr. Chapple, of ashlen-square. Bo fore
any proofs of debts were tendered, Mr. Cole, fur a creditor,
suggested that the cho co of "magnets should be postponed,
there being a protahility that the fiat would he superseded
by a compoeitien being agteed to. The oankrupt had come
to the court on his own le tition, having chosen hi.. own
time, after a roomier of mretiags of creditors, and atter all
the proceedings had been swept away.—The Commission r
(lid not see that the choice of asrienees wield prevent any ar-
rangement bru.g core to.—Mr. Benham mid that all the
large erelitors hut one had cemented to sign the deed of
compeeition.—Mr. Chapple, solicitor tweet' the fiat, said the
bankrupt had been driven into the court, after repeated at-
tempts to make an arranttement with his creditors; and he
certainly should art advise him to consent to any further
delay.—Mr. Dale, who appeared for Mr. Bi lefield, expressed
his belief that a bill of sale had been Liven to Mr. Levi,
brother of the bankruet's solicitor, fir the furniture in liar•
ley street, which was to he sold next day. LAM year, M.
Jullien's business ar music-seller had been dispoyd of to
Messrs. Chappell and Co., the celebrated publishers, for about
10,0001. lie wished these tram-actions to be strictly in-
quired into; and, on that ground, willed the choice to be
adjourned in order that proper parties might be selected.
—The Commissioner: 'Why cannot you select them
now I—Mr. Cbapple said that 4,0001. of the purchase
money of the business had been paid down by
Messrs. Chappell, and the remaining payments were
annuities, centingett on certain services to be per-
formed by M. Jollier. But this business had belonged to
Messrs. Jullien and Barry, who hal made an assignment on
the Lth of February last, under which assignees had been
apeointc el, and were acting fur the benefit of creditors. Mr.
Chaytor, paper merchant, of Cornhill, and Mr. Amnharitt,
of Harley-street, were trustees under this assignment, whice
operated on certain book debts. The et etli tore of the jo;nt firm
were mot to a greater amount than 3,0001.—Mr. Benham said
it was part of the arrangement of the Otis February that
Messrs. Chappell eh mid pay M. Jullien 7001. a year for ax
years. lie shoute assign tills to his cr. ditors, and also a
further sum of 801''. a year out of his future professional
earnings.—Mr. Cole oomph end of the furniture in Harley-
street having been taken ender Mr. Levi's execution. It
was part of the err ,ngeuent ui•tt the cret:itr rs that :his fur-
niture sheula Ire given up ; but this had not been done;
it was to be sold the next day. After some further discus-
sion, the Commissioner said ho saw no advantage in further
delay; the delay already interposed had given opportunity
for the grasping execution of Mr. Levi.—Mr. Chapple sold
he had recommeeded M. Jullien to sign a declaration of
ins tivency, and thereby upset the execution the moment It
was put in force. Several other gentlemen expressed a wish
that the choice sb .uld be adjourned, at least for a weele,—
The Commissioner asked if aoy one wished the choiec to be
- telly proceeded with ? No one streswe:ea but Mr.