The Express.
London, England, 1849-05-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.-BATURDAL
Biome rine MAIM or nu Bourn.

Hors V. Hoi.—Tus Jrwau OP THS LATH MR. H.

Pinar HOPE.

- --- -
Mr. Henry Philip Hope, by his will dated in February,
1839, made his three nephews, Adrian, Henry, and Alex-
ander Hops, his residuary legatees. There were three snits
in this cue, one being instituted by Adrian Hope for the
general administration of the testator's estate ; another by
Alexander, claiming under a deed of gift from the teeteilm,
dated the 9th of April, 1838, a very valuable collection of
diamonds and gems contained in a cabinet in the posseuion
of the testator as his death ; and the third suit was instituted
by Henry Hope, claiming the same collection under a deed of
ester the testator, dated the 19th May, 1821. Adrian
that the collection of jewels in question formed part
of the testator's residuary estate. There had been a good
deal of litigation in equity and at law respecting the lights of
the respective claimants to the jewels. And on the cause
now coming on to be heard on the equity reserved and a pe-
tition, it was stated by the counsel appearing for the parties
that the three brothers had come to an arrangement for •
division of the jewels amongst them, and an order was asked
for in conformity with such arrangement, which, with the
consent of all parties, the court accordingly made.

Baas VicaZzastaitoa Lnowr Ban.
RI WARWICK AND WORCIWIII RAILWAY COXTANT.
—WINDING-VP ACT.
This was the petition of a " ermtributory " to the above
railway company for the usual vrindinrup order.
Mr. !Limns and Mr. Roxburgh, for the petition, said that
it apparsd from the evidence that the company had been
&salved, and had ceased to carry on business, and that their
liabilities amounted to 10,0001. and upwards.
Mr. Metcalfe, Mr. thaw, and Mr.

Southgate, appeared
for several dirOetaris to oppoie the petition.
ow was only within the up Twltiantended
that a railway m act
of 1848, by viro of the reference therein, to the 7 8 Vie.,
• 111 ; and that the latter act only extended to companies
unable to meet their pecuniary engagements. The present
railway company was not in that condition, and therefore
did not fall within the some of either of the ma It was
Wee that the Winding up Act of 1848 extended ate to all
aa which would lime been within the provide= of
the act, if they had not been &salved or eland
OD Nude at the tame of the pinging of the *ma
O. Bat this company had not been dionAved
er mead to trade at the time of the paring of
the 7 & 8 Vie. c. 111, and therefore it was net, even
under this clause, brought within the Winding-up
Act of 1848. Zan if it were within the scope of the set,
the est did net entitle a party to obtain the order, Was
Ihe elemmamme of thew required it : and is the pie-
sea ems seek en aim would be mat inoonvenisat, and
INIUII bead to a great waste of the funds of the Company,
he don was a pima( snit in Chancery, 4. Goodin
De /save r,•' under which a reference lied been directed
to the Motor to take an account of the dile eid liabilities
ligheasamay, and if the court now direolollhunder do ad,
a lei Milsines for the gams object, it wadi My so mu.
tag but a seeing waste of money.—The Vlowahmemila
the the Company win not exempted tram the eyesallen
tithe Mt of 1848 by reucu of its dbeolution having mounni
beton the time of the peeling of the two aft dynamo'.
Ner did his Honour disk it to aim
as a foe
aet, undation for the ezerche
of of
under
theme
an insuieleasy ands
of the essodation to not its
moments. How the lase Ws= have de= Ihrillitempany
were not &solved, or then wise eiti=ms dram of its
continuing, continuing, was quite a dam= The OF -
catty appeared to arise frees OM lean lime In Ihe Daoak
and thathed ledhis howner to maider whether bead of
makieg theembr =ea, it might not have been moo to
anal a torreh7 the am, as to the aessmity
or of up the esayesp. Bat his amour
had ease le ihe lint It was net asegwary to bur-
den the mien Oh the 'spew of mak at isintry, and
that he aught to make the order oramilwasing whet had
his Isola the wit, with whit of antes his &oar could
net inted
nellauleilmeeme, if be bed Meld& (oda ke bid nog to fa so.
If y i thedd hem the two
inan the OS and under arise
the Ohm =sallwro
felt that inesegamimee might take mama may night
be advised to Ober theineelas fro h. The would
doyen to eamider wafts, it wend net be to stop
one of the two posesediogi ; but aU his beams add do
woad be to mho the ONSWeI•
the
Ohl he emedered
the sieti_tioners =dadander the and to dived Me vend
reams, to ester boo wan the =Or hie
whim the yeassoliap in the soh WOK reared.

RE LONDON AID Brumelux Ittmatow flauntrav a stied: We- milker of Mr. Bennett had mum-
Cowrairr.—Wrinsuro-vs A. aleatod with the eanakeieser, to request him to
ilds was • thaw radio, supported and messed by the keep the whole a secret "mil the afildevib wore returned, so
Mr estowel; and the laud= you 11 Wag- ins diskiid that Mi. Fro would aot have know* algthing of it uatil

'"Er. Bennett had obtained probate and had taken pow scion
of the property. The Court said it must express its disap
proud of the conduct of Mr. Bennett's solicitor inthis case,
who appeared ignorant of the situation in which the com-
missioner of the court stood, and who could never be made a
party to secrecy to enable Mr. Bennett to tak' possessi,n of
the deceased's property and tura Miss Free into the street.
It is not the duty of • commissioner of this court to give any
undue advantage to clients. The manner in which the whole
of these transactions have been conducted excites strong rea-
sons for suspicion, and if it had not been for the friends of
Miss Free it is next to impossible she could have escaped
from the machinations of Mr. Bennett, but through their
activity they have kept her in possession of the property of
the deceased, and prevented Mr. Bennett, by his Boll-
citor, taking an undue advantage. The way in which
this business had been conducted was not that which
the court could approve of. The duty of the commissioner
is, not to take aide with either oce or the other party, but to
swear the executor to take probate. It felt that Mr. Simons
had been misled on this occasion by Mr. Bennett's solicitor.
The plans appeared to have been secretly laid from the first
concocting of the will, until it was brought before this court,
unknown to Miss Free. The paper C wee an important
paper, for by that all the property given to Miss Free was to
have been given to Mrs. Ostler, her cousin, provided she
married Mr. Edward Ostler during her uncle's life time:
but that which gave Mr. Bennett the bulk of the property,
not only excluded Miss Free from the benefit of the former
will if she married Mr. Edward Ostler, but also excluded
Mrs. Ostler who was residing in Canada, and who in no way
offended the deceased. The whole conduct of the proce-
ings gives it a most inauspicious appearance. The watchful
attendance of Miss Free over her uncle, whose health
had been declining, affected her own, and she
came to London for a change of air, when the
deceased repeatedly expressed his anxiety for her return,
and when she did return he received her with the greatest
favour and affection. There was no doubt but the deceased
laboured under great delusion', which increased with his
infirmities, though they might not have amounted to in-
sanity, as it was proved he called persons into his room, and
directed them to drive cats, dogs, goats, pigs, reptiles, die.
out of his sitting-room when nothing was to be seen there.
He was said to have suffered from a congestion of the brain,
which brought on a partial state of imbecility, if not in-
sanity, and therefore it was alleged that he was incapable
of doing a rational act on thew occasions—looking at all the
circumstances of the proceedings it excited in the court
strong feelings of suspicion. It did not appear that the ser-
vices said to have been rendered to the deceased by Mr.
Bennett could have exceeded those of Miss Free, that she
should have forfeited her uncle's affection. The jealousy of
the court was as strong as were its suspicions, and it had
given to the case all the attention to which it was
entitled. Mr. Bennett went to the funeral, but
did net return to the house to hear the will
read over, stating as an excuse that he bad been sud-
denly taken ill and had gone home, smiths next day he sent
for his doctor, who attended him for four days. The reason,
no doubt, was, he did not wish to heat the will read which
gave the property to Mies Free and appointed her executsix,
he being in the possession of one which placed him in her
situation. It was this which gave him a pain in his head. If
ever a story was told, it was in this instance in full petits:
tion, for the day after the funeral he went with his solicitor
to take possession of the house occupied by Miss Free, and
which he claimed under this very will, by which he was
named executor. It was well that he did not retain pee-
ned= of the house, for he had not the will.
It was in London, nor had he the probate, since
for the reasons before stated, his solicitor had not
been able to obtain it, so that, had he taken possession,
he would have subjected himself to an action. It had been
alleged by Mr. Bennett's counsel that all the evidence in
favour of Miss Free were her own friends; and it was credit-
able to those friends that they had on this occasion not de-
serted her, but respected the will of him with whom they
bad associated in his lifetime. Their conduct stood in better
light than that of the opposite side; the conduct of Miss
Free's friends was most metitorions. Here the learned
iudee went through the names of several individuals who,
he said, should have acted differently, who took an interest
as legatees under the will held by Mr. Bennett, and who
now gave evidence against the original will; contending that
the deceased was of sound mind and not subject to any dela-
gone. There were three servants, a Dr. Broom, Captain
Griffith, John Payne, a barber, &0., and in conclusion, the
learned judge said, "This is a case in which the court cannot
pronounce for the validity of the will, or admit that any in-
structions were given to prepare it—there was no proof to
cities, the court of the fact. The question of costs was a
periwig one. In cases of ' devises probatio' the court was in
the habit of giving costs, but in a case like this, where the
evidence is to such an extent and the property so small, and
taking all the suspicious circumstances into consideration, it
must condemn the party in cuts."

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION-HOUSE.

WHOLESALE ROBBERY BY A CLERE.—J. T. Hamilton,
'bust 18 years of age, was charged with having committed a
series of robberies. The prisoner had been revived as a
clerk into the warehouse of White and Co., of Cheapside,
Blanchester warehor•emen, about sis months ago, in conse-
quence of an introduction of the highest respectability, and
he absconded about a fortnight ago, after having not only
robbed his employers, but defrauded a number of trades-
people, to whom he represented himself as the eoa of a
nobleman and heir to wealth and distinction.

.
Mrs. Fsirbridge, the wife of the warehouseman of White
rad Co. stated that on the 7th of May the prisoner came to
her at her own door, and asked her to oblige him with 41.
or 51. till he should return from Watling•strcet, at dinner
time, as he wished to pay a small account of 41. odd, in the
counting-house below. lie then put a piece of paper in her
hand, purporting to be an order signed by him on Messrs.
Tilleard, and said that, as they were not bankers, Mr. James
Clarke, the cashier in the counting-house, could not pay the
cheque away with the other cuh. He was, therefore, anxious
to pay in the money at once, and requested the loan of
the avount of the witness. To that request she acceded by
handing him over 41. in sovereigns and haltsovereigns, the
property of her husband. Upon leaving the house he said
he would return at 2 o'clock, and he accordingly came back
and said that be was going to a party that evening, but he
called in order to pay her. lie then asked her if she had
change for a 101. note, and be held a pocketbook in his hand
at the same time. She could not accommodate him, but told
him that next day would do fur the payment of the money.
S'nce that time she had not seea bins until he was appre-
hended. . .

Mr. White, the principal in thh house of White and Co.,
of Chespaide and Watling-street, said—" The prisantr was
my clerk, and had been with me since last October. About
a month ago a robbery took place in the counting-house in
Watling-street, one of the desks having been broken open
and plundered of 51. The prisoner was by no means sus- i
petted, but upon being taken into custody he confessed that
be had broken open the desk and stolen the money, and he
also admitted that he had supplied himself with cash by the
most discreditable means."

The prisoner, who held down hie head during the exami-
nation, was then remanded. It was stated that the prisoner
bad ordered a carriage to be made for him, and had acted,
ever sines his connexion with Mr. White's house, with the
most remarkable duplicity.