The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-14 00:00:00

BRAIN N. BRAIN,

This was an application for a special injunction to restrain
the defendant from conveying to Sir John Guest the whole,
Of at all events the moiety, of a grant of land made to him
mi a free miner of the Forest of Dean, on the ground that
there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant
that any grant obtained by either should be held for the
benefit of both.
Mr. Basalgette appeared for the plaintiff and stated that
there had n. t been time to send the bill to Somerset House
tv have it stamped with a single stamp of the amount re-
quired. and the clerk of records and writs objected to affs-
lag eight stamps to make up the same value, considering he
was not justified in so doing under the act sad the orders oil
court.
The Vice-Chancellor thought that inch stamps might be
allied and sent, the bill t s be stamped while the argument
proceeded ; sad ultimately granted the iajimsetio• se to
the moiety.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BMICH.—YerricaDAT.
Immo a* IlAsoo.—Does• Las GOMM. Ida. Jranua. Cots.
mos, Ms. Jtvore Wunmgue, ii•D Us. holm Column,.
WILIOI D. 10/111DOS.—P301911TION TO ?KS COUNTY

COURT AT Lrr gar ow..

Lord Campbell delivered judgment in this matter at the
Wing of the court this manilas. 'rho plaint was brought '
In the County Court, in respect of a contrast for the sale of
geartain shis'sl papers and her pslicyheau ridallir ; the
Ml= teiyivtered
he playerli. poet is
tprobi:ition was asked
Or Mi the ground that the subjeet manor in question was
Vil the jurisdiction of tne County Court. Their lord-
wen of opinion that the rule for a prohibition ought
In made absolute, with gum modification. A general
prellibition was sought to set ride all prweedings upon
fig plaint before the County Court. • Now, they wars es-
termiely relustaat to interfere with the jurisdiction of •
Osuaty Court, unless it clearly exceeded its limits ; but
whim that was the ease, it was their bounden duty to do so.
In this cam the contractors signed at Liverpool; but, inso-
much as the eargo might be delivered at say port in the
United Kingdom, and, in point of fact, was to be
delivered at Drogheda, the COMM of action as the plaint
was now trained might arise without the jurisdiction of the
Liverpool County Court. But the plaint might be so
amended that the cause of action would he brought within
the County Court's jurisdiction, and therefore this court
were of opinion that a general prohibition ought not to
issue. Subject, however, to these observations, the rule
snit be made absolute,

_Rule absolute accordiagly.
BISSZL 0, WILION.—FALIIII II

r.—Sstacs-

!HO Paisonzaik AT STAI

This was an action against Alderman Wilson to recover
damages for false imprisonment. The matter slow out of
• conviction astaiast the plaintiff under the Copyright and
Designs Act 6 & 6 Vie., rap. 100. Mr. Basel was impri-
soned, under • warrant of the defendant, for
not having personally attended • summons Pi-
sued against him, although at one of the hearings
to which the summons referred he was represented by his
attorney, and at another by hie attorney and by eonmel
also. The action was tried by Lord Campbell, at Guildhall,
and resulted in • verdict for the plaintif with damage',
1501. A rule nisi for a new trial had been obtained on the
Found that the warrant required the plaistilra attendance
in person, and therefore the Alderman was justified in the
course he had taken, which now came on for sroment.
Lord Campbell read his note of the proceedings at the
trial: His lordship then said that he would take this op-
portunity of repeating the observations he had made on
that occasion. He had then expressed his astonishment
and disapprobation at the manner in which the plaintiff
had been treated. He had been searched like • felon upon
his apprehension, • coulee, of the propriety of which, his
lordship still retained his former opinion,vix, that it was one
which no one had • right to pursue under the (treats-
stances. But he (Lord Campbell) also desired to remove a
misapprehension which existed upon the subject of his
remarks at the trial. It had been said that he
denied there was ever any right to search a per-
son taken into custody for felony. That was far from
being his opinion. In cases of felony, such a right (no
doubt existed, and might be most properly and usefully
exercised. His lordship had, however, understood from a
meet useful public officer, Sir It. Mayne—to whom the
country was highly indebted for the manner in which he
had on all occasions exercised his important duties—that an
idea had get abroad that to search • person taken into cus-
tody on the charge of the commumion of a felony was
illegal. Such a doetr:ne bad never been laid down by him,
nor did he believe it would ever be laid down from the
bench upon which he had the honour to sit. On the con-
trary, he had no hesitation in saying that it might often be
highly conducive to the ends of justice that a person should
be *earthed ; but he would again eay, that when • trades-
man of London was apprehended under a warrant from as
alderman, merely because he had not appeared when sum-
moned, to search his person in the manner in which the
plaintiff's had been searched was contrary to law. The
only pretence was that he might commit suicide or attack
the alderman—a most absurd supposition.
Mr. O'Malley (with whom was Mr.Lssh) said his lordship
3md very clearly distinguished between the cam where a pri-
mmer ought to be searched, and where not at the trial.
The learned mussel then addressed himself to the question
before the court, and contended that under the 11 & 12
Vint., e. 43 and 44, the summons issued by the alderman
wee amply satisfied by the appearance of the attorney and
counsel. The ewes of King v. Simpson" (1 Strange 46),
'. the Qom. v. Hardwick" (2 Strange, 110), " the
Queen v. Tamers" (2 Lord Ham 1,284), were cited in
Report.
Mr. H. Hill and Mr. Willem contended that the alder-
maa was protected (min this action under the act 11 & 12
Viet e 44.

The sours took time to e'rluridef•
PaaCTICI or THS C01:11?...-COONTY COURT APPIIALS.
Lord Campbell gave notice that, wilder the new Moo.
appeals front County Courts o.vold new be beard to fell
court in terns, and 'mold be est eirrwa to the special Part*
alms with the special eases sod I:4lBl4rms- I be PIM
books must he delivered to the Joy= to the 1481 e lama"
or la other teen in the special paper.
BAIL COURT.—YrATERDAY.
Potar or PRACTICIL
Mr. mune. Brie said the judges had made a rulir
sppli-
sable b easeutioas after rerdist in tens. Coder this tole
woad= was to lieu within fourteen days efts: verdict.
Mae woad be the general ride subject to eaireptions In sere
of special eiresmetaates, emit co the dekodeat asking

away with ►is goods. The rale would take effect from the
pretest day.
---

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Yurzachty.
4m.mis me Baum—Baron Clomp Jcs.les Jam*. M J,
MAUL; MIL JERKS CIIIISWILLL. AID MIL 'MM.. WILLIAMS.
HAWKINS V. JUNINTUNIII (CLEILL).—RISUILDING A

Pkatsll CHURCH.
The defendant in this case, the Be,. J. Johnstone, was
In the year 1843 rector of the perish of Bsoghurat, in
Hampshire, and at that time the palish church was in a
very dilapidated state, and it was thought desirable to
rebuild it. Several meetings of landowners sad others
were held, anti ultimately it was arranged that
8001. should be obtained from the Commissioners for
Building Churches, and that by subscriptions, de., the
amount should be increased to 2,0001. The building was
completed in the autumn of 1847, end the builder's, charge
amounted, including extras, to 1,9301. Of this sum the de-
feodant paid 1,7181.. and the balance remained unpaid.
When it was determined to rebuild the church the plaintiff
and Mr. Trencher were churchwardens of the parish, and
they, with the defendant, signed the builder's contract, and
guaranteed that he should be paid for the work. Mr.
Trencher died, and the builder sued the plaintiff and the
defendant for the balance due to him; end the plaintiff paid
him, for debt and oats, 3131. According to the plaintiff's
Nee the defendant, at the time the contract was signed, said
it wee ildy a matter of form, and agreed verbally to tali
el the aspeseibility upon himself. The plaintiff now 5'
Ph eased agreement, and sought to recover the
seUls d the money he had paid from the defendsr.t, who
denied his liability for the whole of it, but he paid t_is share,
1361. 16e., into court.
Mr. Whately, Q.C., and Mr. Tropp an' eared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Strieant Byles and Mr. Xingdon fur the
defendant. _ _ _ _

The great question in the cause, was whether the defen-
dant had agreed to indemnify the plaintiff; and witnesses
were called, who stated that the defendant said, the signing
of the contract was only a matter of form ; but they could
not charge their memories with anything like a distinct en-
gagement to indemnify.
Mr. Serjeant Bytes then submitted that there was no ease
to go to the jury ; that his client was asked to contribute
towards the sum paid by the plaintiff; the answer was, that
he had pain his half, and as to the indemnity that there
was nu proof at all of it.
His lordship, however, thought it best to leave the case to
the jury, who found, that there was no indemnity ; which
Baling amounted to a verdict for the defendant, although
in consequence of the form of pleadings, it was agreed that
the damages most be auessed at 1561. les.