The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-24 00:00:00

MILITARY,

ROTAL ARTII LELA', WOOLWIrti, Nov. 2L—A few weeks 1411 CO a
court of inquiry, consisting of Brut.-Colonels Willem, Howland, and
Ilarrison, m.d Nlajor Cator, was uppoint“l to investigate certain dis-
crepancies in the charges made fur regimental necessaries is the earl-
one Imitations, airounting, in some CalteA, to as much as 33 per cent. Tho
result has been, that the court has doctored the present :barges to be
too high, and has recommended that the system at present pursued of
allowing non-commissioned officers to makecontracts be discontinued.
and that in future, contracts WWI be thrown open to the public In
gem ral. It deserves to be mentioned, that a system has. fur a lung
time prevuiled, highly injurious to the men, by which some of the
subordinates have been in the habit of receiving a heavy per eentaac
from the tradesmen for goods supplied to the corps, which has led to
additional impositions; so that knapsacks have been offered at 10s. ads
(spud in every respect to those Dow supplied at 13s. CA

SPORTING.
T.VPTEltriALLS—Monate.
There was a very fair attensbusee yesterday afternnen, and several
ham+ were in slem.uul for the Derby. The three leading favourites,
however, were not of the number, and we may pt., at once to the
eietew to Cobweb colt, Allertornan, Glenna, Lunedule and Old Port,
who were in good favour with several pui tics—Cilentift and Lunedale
at 3u to 1 and 1000 to 30, and the Mhos at the odds quoted; the
outlay on the Hiner to Cobweb colt must have exceeded Goof., a Lint
KIM to invest nt this period, and, we may add, a large PM to invest
withtur making any impression on the market, for the layers were
numerous, nod, exit appeared to us, not quite exhausted. I,oot/ to 22
each were lain three or four tints emit Tantivy, the 51arpesin en
and Conyngham; 1,000 to 20 each agst Red hart, Projectile,
Christopher ; and a fov other bets of small amounts at the prices re-
turned. Oue very literal bet was Lid ngst West India Plantsr, but
the market laying price may be fairly taken at 1,000 to 15. The
Military steeple Chase, to come off at Leamington, was not men-
tensed in the room ; but we were informed that 8 to 1 was taken
oorNasirke‘r.
Cllllag'abboPtinutthe onthclngitimatc events.:
tP.iee,:ii.rite,,tchBlltcnran.,(le,„..2m.o to 1 about the Red Lancer, and 2 to I

cii:srEß

50 to lon the Field ----11007..)to15 eget Romunee (t.)
2000 to Mart Crim.Con. (t.)

THE DERRY.

40 to 1 agst Coo:pipit= (lam]
afterwards alf.)
40 1 Jy. Armstrong (do.)
50 1 Liberator
50 1 Cowack (t.)
1000 —2o Projectile ft.)
1000 —TO Will-e'the-Wispft>
1000 15 Went India Plantar
1000 —lO War Eagle (%)
1000 10 Will Boy /..)
2500 —5O Red Flirt (t.)
, WOO —GO Christopher (t..)
1000 to 15 each, in one bet, agst Projectile and Commit (t.l
500 even on the Field agst the following twelve : Van Tromp,
Epirote, Planet, Glentilt, Old Port, Wolof.; Red Hart, Lunedale,
Johnny Armstrong, Sister to Cobweb colt, Allertcmlan, and tbe
Liberator.

6 Do 1 apt John Dorm
IS 2 Can Tramp (1. 131801.
14 1
18 1 Planet

_ Rig. WCobwth Bolt (t.)
30 —1 Glentilt (t.)
30 —1 Lunco4l4 (L)
33 —1 Old vort (t.)
311 —1 Allcrtonian(t.)
40 1 Marperea colt (t.)
40 1 Tunticy (t.)

OAKS.
10 to 1 Sgst Mr. Mootyn's Slander.

lab) Ent,Warw.

LAW NOTICES.—Tgre DAT.
'be Lord Mamelloe will not attend court today.
•cr-Cesuver.m.oas' Corals, Westminster, at 10.—Before Sir L.
aid well. Causes, &c.—Terry T. Wacker, part heart; Parker v.
,„ 2) ; Johnson v. Forrester; Simpson v. Holt ; Garrott v. Moor;
5'.7.11 v. Bickford (2) ; Peacock v. Kermit. Before Sir J. Knight
Bruce._ -Maclean r. Gibbs, petition by order; Matlock v. Sharp, do.
eau.", %c.—Wroagbton v. Colouhoon, part heard; Parker e. Mor-
rell. rem v. Beach ; llantan7 v. Want; v. Giles; Pearce
v. p'esme (2); Fuller N. Wwslc; Eddington v. Sherd; Follett r.
Ta)lor r. Sampsrm ; Bishop v. Coppelbi. Before Sir J.
Con v. Barnard, by order. °MCA, etc.—Porter v. Porter,
part heard; Maxwell v. Kibblewhite (2); Ogle V. Hansard Scott v.
Bcaby • Knit dit r. Knight (2); Lewis v. Thomas; Bell v. Alexander;
Bun r. ard ; Dobson v. Land (2.)
Row; co,„ 0, Westminster, at 10.—For judgment. —Fordyce T.
Br3dgrc; Can acute v. Fowls. After which petitions, the unop-
posed trot.
The Corers or Qt-erek BECCH, COMMON Pism, and Excazarna
will sit In BMW

EQL 'ITT CO URTS.—YESTEADAY.
Before the Lord Chancellor. _
-

Ex „RTE KosisoN A.ND A-NOTHER.—IN ILE TROCT-
is ICA'S ESTATIL—.PETITION OP RIGHT.—The application
fot • a commission in this petition was renewed to-day, by
app ointment, by Mr: M. D. 11111 and Mr. Anstey. The
Attorney-General, r. Tams, Mr. Wray, and Mr. Wad.
diagt, In, appearing on behalf of the Crown, under whose
control in the Exchequer ther. is now a sum exceeding
150,000 Z., the accumulal'ions of the residuary estate of Samuel
Troutbu tle, who died in Madras, in 1788. The petitioners
claim tot e his heirs-at-law and nest of kin. They set forth
their claim in 1823, in a suit of Monckton v. the Attorney-
General, which had been instituted for the administration of
Troutback's estate. After szweral proceedings in the Court
of Chancery, .and an issue at law, the claimants failed to
establish their relation to the deceased; and the Rouse
of Lords, in 1842, held that an order of the Court of
Chavcery, refusing a new trial of the issue, was right.
The object of the }resent petition is to have the former pro-
ceedings reviewed, so as to get, for the petitioners, another
opportunity of substantiating their claim.
The Crown Counsel to-day did not object to the issuing of
the commission, but they reserved to themselves • right to
take such objection to the proceedings hereafter as they should
find proper—Die petitioners' counsel then applied for an
order to deliver td the petitioners the original documents,
affidavits, dca, they had produced in the former cause.
The counsel for the crown objected.
The Lord Chancellor said he did not see clearly at present
whether he was acting ministerially (the petition being re-
ferred to him by the crown) or judicially. The notice of the
application was headed merely " in the matter of the petition
of right," and not " in the cause of Monckton v. The Attorney
General." Kr. Anstey then asked that the communes be

4

not made to recite the petition at length but to refer to it,
and then to add the petition in the form of a schedule to the
commission, and he cited for precedent the case of Robert
de Clifton, in the time of Edward 11. The counsel for the
crown would not consent or object, and the Lord Chancellor
said he would consider the matter, and also the delivery out
of the documents in the original cause.
All the appeals that were down for hearing having been
disposed of at twelve u'clock, and it appearing
hearin of the
that there was
no business for to-morrow (this day) bat the g
reply in the appeal of " Coors v. Lomas," his lordship
audit would not be worth his while to come down to hear
that, as he could hear it on Wednesday after the motions.

Before the Muter of the Ras.
Raisers v. TAY LOR.— INJUNCTION. MORI. Bethell,
Heathfield, and Webster were heard for the defendants in
this case, which was a motion to restrain them from erecting
their qas-works at Kensal-groen, near the locality which the
plaintiff had chosen for the erection of a costly mansion.
Mr. Kinds nley will reply on Wednesday.
Before Vier-Chancellor Wigram.
TAPP ERELL O. TAYLOR.—SPECIFIC FIRFORILANCE.—
The arguments were concluded in this case, which was con-
ducted by Mr. Kenyon Parker and Mr. Montague for the
WI• aand by Mr. Romilly enforcer IVillcock for the
t. The bill was Sled to the specific perfor-
ations of an agreement by the defendant to procure a build-
/Bs lease to be granted to the plaintiff. By the terms of the
contract the plaintiff was to erect upon the premises in-
tended
to be demised a house, the materials, fastenings, and
fixtures of which were to be equal in quality to those of the
neighbouring houses, and of a kind to satisfy the defendant.
The house was to be built and covered in by Michaelmas,
1844, at any time after which the lease was to be
granted. A house had been accordingly built and
covered in within the time specified ; but the
defendant being dims to with the building which had
been erected, had refused to perform his pxrt of the contract.
The esidenee as to the quality of the building which had
been erected being conflicting,
His Honour directed two issues to be taken to the Court
of Queen's Bench ; one, to try whether, at the time the bill
was filed, the plaintiff had built and covered in the house in
question in the manner provided by the agreement ; and the
other, to try the question whether before or at the time of
filing
gran ill the plaintiff bad become entitled to have a
lean ed according to the intent and meaning of the
_ _

agreennent.
CARL/6LS v. ELLIOTT.— INJUNCTION.—In this suit,
which was instituted by the Commissioners for Charities at
Bristol, an injunction till the hearing had been obtained, re-
straining the defendant from getting stone from a part of
the charity property cai7ed the Jews' Churchyard. Mr.
Romilly, 011 behalf of the plaintiffs, now asked for a decree,
making the injunction pernousai. The application was
made with the consent of the ddisitlanT, upon the terms that
each party should pay his own casts, And that the plaintiffs
should accept the sum of 401., which the defendant had
already paid to them, in full discharge of .41 demands against
him.—llls Honour made the decree; the .lalement ,of
the
bill beiug, to save expense, entered as nissions by
the
defendant.

Before Vice Chancellor Knight Brace.
KERSHAW V. CLEGO.—LtEN or SoLicnortge —The bill
was tiled by legatees for the administration of the estate of
Edward Clegg, deceased. The defendant, Mrs. Cleclft, was
the testator's widow, and the surviving executrix' and
trustee under his will. An application was now Cu"'
that Mrs. Clegg might be ordered to produce and deliver uP
the deeds relating to the testator's estate, in which
widow took an interest. It was stated that Mrs. Clegg hart
left them in the hands of her solicitor, but she nevertheless
claimed her costs as execatrix.
His Honour : As the deeds are in the bands of this lady's
solicitor, an order for her to deliver them up would is effect
be an order to her to pay her solicitor's bill of costs. Is it
necessary to do that at present ?—Mr. Bacon, for the plain-
tiffs: The solicitor can have no lien upon them beyond the
widow's interest. It was then stated that the widow being
very poor, had left the deeds with her. solicitor, as a security
for the costs of this suit.

His Honour: If that be so, I must inquire into the matter.
—Mr. Russell and Mr. Melina, for the defendant, then said
that it did not appear that the defendant had pledged the
deeds for the purpose of this suit. They admitted, however,
that it appeared from the proceedings that the defendant had
gone to Messrs. Elliot and Stott, who were in partnership at
Rochdale, and had advised with them as to this suit. I hat
the 60011 afterwards left with them the deeds in question, and
'that, afterwards Elliot, as her solicitor (Stott not being
a solicitor), acted for her in putting in her answer.
His Honour said, that, under these circumstances, he must
reserve the question whether, and upon whet terms, this lady
was to be allowed any costs.
GEARS V. NORTON.—Coors OP AN INJUNCTION SLIT.—
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Geary and Spitzer, are manufacturers at
Norwich, and proprietors of a shawl (which has been regis-
tered pursuant to an Act of Parliament of 5 and
called the Royal Mechlin shawl. These shawls the plaintiff
sold exclusively to Everington, Ellis and Co., and some
other tradesmen in Londou. The defindants, Norton and
Hisaneford, are mercers and dealers at Huddersfield. In
April, 1845, the defendant, Norton, celled on a person named
Scott, a manufacturer at Leicester, when Scott showed him a
woollen shawl, which he said one of his workmen had pur-
chased at Leicester. Norton admired the pattern, and asked
Scott whether he might take it away with him for a few
days which was consented to. Scott soon afterwards re-
ceived it back, with an order from Norton to make several
shawls of the same pattern. Norton, a few days afterwards,
called again himself, when he stated to Scott that he had
heard that it was a registered shawl, and made by some
house at Norwich. Scott replied that the information was
correct. Norton then said, that he did not care about the ,
shawl being registered. He had had an order for 100 shawLs,
and he would have them made. He then gave directions to
Scott to manufacture 100 shawls of the pattern, and make
them up in a parcel, invoiced to E., E. and Co., London.
This was accordingly done, and they were paid for
by Hanneford and Norton. It appeared that in
the interval between Norton's visit to Scott, Norte a
had gone to Everington's and had shown the pa...-
tern to liurrell, one of their men, when Burrell acquainU
him with the whole circumstances as to the plaintiff's owns r
ship of the shawl, and the registration. Upon Norton, ho w ,
ever, offering to manufacture the shawl at 2s. 3d. less ti• r ,n
the plaintiffs, Burrell, on behalf of Everington and ( a.,
gave him an order for one hundred. Under these are u m.
stances the plaintiffs' solicitors applied to Hanneford or . the
subject, when Hanneford (who appeared to have kJ own
nothing of what had taken place) agreed to pay all the costs
of preparing a bill and affidavits for an injunction, ar .ount,
jog to 201., and to sell no shawls manuf .ctered
like the plaintiffs'. He objected, however, •
the
being fixed with a penalty upon the sale of 61, ay Ruch
shawl. Further applications were then made to b when
his solicitor wrote that he would immediately su spend the
sale of any *awl of which he and Norton were
the owners
or holders, and which were or resembled the Re .
1 Notwithstanding, this letter the plaint- jilit'e'd.=
thaw •
bill, and obtained an injunction against H
Norton, and on this day brought their suit lutteneef°hedearianuad.
And the question was whether, after the lett.‘
neford's solicitor, the plaintiffs were justiby sent lithe
bill, so as to entitle them to the cos
f of the suit.—Mr.
Russell and Mr. Stevens ePPeared h plaintiffs.—Die.
Wlitram and Mr. Piggott for.thelardeonsofend tee.
is Honour : In this particular I am of opinion that
the plaintiffs were entitled to the pt.
tertian of the injunc-
tion. Therefore I think that when ne injunction had been
obtained, the course for the doefint.
,eats to take was to offer
time, submitting to the
to pay the costs of the suit to
injunction. As they have
re done so, and as lam of
opinion that the plaintiffs we entitled to the protection of
the in traction, I must (thsw .;Is not very willingly), give
them tne costs of the suit. •

COURT OF C
.UEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN e. HAltu'l•„ ON.—REFUSAL TO PRODUCE Ale
APPOINTMENT or Ovu, YEERS. —Mr. Godson, Q. C., and
Mr. Remelts), shoe ea t MOS against a rule nisi which bad
been obtained for e w .it of mandamus to the overseen of
Kirkby LonsdP..e,ln. -he county of Westmoreland, command-
ing them to • ~.,setnit/ .he prosecutor, a IN, householder in that
, ',a ,
spect ne order of magistrates under which they
Cralt;-- „ ovointed.. the rule had been ranted on affidavits
that- -t
• A.....aarl to sec the appointment. and a efu.
; and suggested that the applicant could not obtain a
grit of certiorari to remove the appointment into this court,
for the purpose of having it quashed for defects
less which the
prosecutor believed would be found apparent thereon, un
he set out the order of appointment in precise terms. The
learned counsel now contended, that the applicationof the was
vexatious and unprecedented ; and that the object
applicant might have been obtained by an appeal to the
sessions. Mr. Pashley was heard on the other side. The
court thought the application unreasonable and unsupported
by authority : that the applicant might have gone to the
sessions, where questions of form, as well as others, could be
entertained ; and that the rule ought to be discharged with
costs.
THE QUEEN V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERB.—FINE
FOR NOT BUILDING UP TO THE BOUNDARY LINE OP
PRIVATE ESTATE A SEWER THAT IS BROUGHT WITHIN
THIRTY FEET OP THAT LINE.—A rule nisi had been ob-
tained for a writ of certiorari to remove into this court for
the purpose of having it quashed, on inquisition and present-
ment of a sewers' jury, whereby a fine of 30001. was imposed
on gentleman named Jenkins, in the event ofhis neglecting,
within one month, to comply with an order of the Commis-
sioners of Sewers, made under a bye-law, which reqeet of
uired
that a private sewer constructed within thirty f
the boundary line of an estate be built up to that
line. The chief objections to the presentment were—
that it war founded on the bye-law, which was illegal, be-
cause unnecessary and not within the scope of the authority
of the commissioners, and that the fine was excessive. On
the other hand, the legality of the bye-law war supported,
and it was farther contended that the writ did not lie be-
cause the applicant had not availed himself of the proper
remedy, which wee a traverse of the inquisition in the court
of the Commissioner of Sewers ; and further, that the appli-
cant had bound himself to observe the bye-law when he ob-
tained permission to construct a private sewer opening into
that which is the property of the commissioners. The
Attorney-General and Mr. Bovill appeared for the commis-
sioners. Mr. Crowder, Mr. Barstow, and Mr. noggins,
supported the application. The court postponed the decision.
BAIL COURT.
Tan QUEEN V. COMMISSIONERS eon IMPROVING THE
CITY 07 WESTMINSTER.—MANDAMUS.—Mr. Wordsworth,
on the part of a Mr. Yates, moved for a rule to show cause
why a mandamus should not issue to the Commi..b.---

7u.

1,7201. was awarded to Yates. The commissioners were rye-
satisfied with this, did not act on it, and much delay having
taken place, the object of the motion was, that the sub-
mission might be made a rule of court under 6 & 8 Vic.,
c. 18. (the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act), which is in-
corporated ia the act for the improvements in Westminster,
and by which the appointment of arbitrator, as provided by
the clause, shall be deemed a eubmission. By subsequent
sections the submission may be made a rule of between the
application of either party. The correspondenc
thepatties having been read,
?Sr. Justice Erie said, supposing there was a subrniasion
without any cause being in court, and it is agreed that
it Would be made a rule of court, and one of the parties kept
it back, what authority 'would this court have over persons
not sultan ?—Mr. Wordsworth : It is given by the statute.
Mr. Justice Erie : Is there any case by which a private
individual kept back the submission, and the court exa."tinesl
its authority.—Mr. Wordsworth :In " Lush's Practice'
is laid down that if the original submission cannot be obtained
the court will allow a rule to be drawn up on a verified copy.
Mr. Justice Erle : Yes! that is the practice.
After some further discussion a rule was granted, calling
on the commissioner' to show cause why the appointment
should not be produced, so as to make the submission a rule
of court, and that all the documents might be stamped by
Mr. Yates and at his expense, or, in default, that the rule of
court should issue on a verified copy.
THE QUEEN e. CORPORATION 07 LONDON.--261ANDAmus.
--Colin OP are APPEAL.—Mr. Pashley moved for a rule to
show cause why a mandamus should not issue, calling on the
Lord Mayor and Corporation of the city of London to show
cense why the costs of a mandamus of Trinity Term should
not be paid by them to the overseers of the poor tithe periak
of Stockport. It appeared that an appeal had n entered
at the sessions for the city of London against the removal of
a pauper from St. Botolph's, Bishopsgatc, to Stockport. The
removal took place on 22nd December. and the appeal had
been entered for the January sessions, and was then respited
to the April sessions. The proceedings were quite regular,
but when it came on to be heard an objection was made that
it ought not to have been respited in January, as it was
ready to be heard; then, whereas the statute of 9th Oeo. I.
gave a clear power to respite. The objection, however, pre-
vailed, and a rule for a mandamus was moved for to compel
the justices to hear the appeal, which was made absolute in
Trinity Term. It was submitted that the present applicants
wee entitled to the costa of that mandamus.—Mr. Justice
Pattesonr (who bad now replaced Mr. Justice Erie) granted
a rule nisi.
Ex PASTE TEE BISHOP OP BEETER.—CERTIORARL—
LIBEL ON THE BISHOP.—Mr. Montague Smith applied, ou
the part of the Bishop of Exeter, for a certiorari to remove
into this court an indictment for libel against Thomas La-
timer, proprietor of the Western Times, which had been
found at the last assizes at Exeter. It was urged that the
libel was a very scandalous one against a dignitary of the
church, and that both with reference to the station in life of
the prosecutor, the circumstances of the libel, and the
attempts which had been made to prejudice the case in
Exeter, it was a fit case to be removed into this court, end to
be tried by a special jury. The libel arose out of a speech
made by Lord Seymour at Totness, in which the conduct of
the bishop, with regard to Mr. Short and the endowment
of a chapel by the Duke of Somerset, was canvassed. That
speech contained matters of great delicacy, and the alleged
Ebel alter uttering a string of abuse against the bishop in
general terms, went on to say "take the case of his reply to
the petition of Mr. Short, presented by Lord Brougham.
His lordship gave him plenty of time to make himself
acquainted with the contents of the petition, so that he
might fortify himself with a true answer to it, but the reply
was so opposite to the truth that ho stands branded as a con-
secrated perverter of facts and a scandal to the mitre,
which he receives about 2001. a week for wearing." The
motion was made on the affidavit of Mr. Kitson, the bishop's
a. *torney. It stated that a true bill for a libel had been found
sjf, unit Latimer, and that the facts relating to the petition of
Mr. Short, the:speech of Lord Seymour, and the transac-
tions between the bishop and the Duke of Somerset, would
be bro. '4M:in:question at the trial, and would involve einem-
, stances. 'elating to the license of the bishop to a chapel built by
the Duke of Somerset, and that, therefore, it wasa fit case for a
!row jut v ; that the newspaper in question bad an extensive
circulation in Exeter among the class of persons from whom
the petty j in'y was chosen, and that articles on the subject
had been ins e,'ted in it which were calculated to mislead
them and pro vent a satisfactory verdict, and that the articles
were such as S. ,e,,e likely to give an unfair impression of the
case to persons w ho were likely to serve on the petty jury :
as an instance, on e of the articles referred to the finding of
the grand jury, a. id stated what had occurred there.—Rule
graated
Ex . —CERTIORA/11.—INDECENT ASSAULT.
Mr. G. Hayes appl'ici for a certiorari to remove an indictment
from the borough sea: ions, at Northampton, to the assizes.
The defendant was a surgeon in that town against whom a
charge had hews mi tde for making an indecent assault on
one of the members of a club to which he was surgeon. The
grounds of the apin'ica tion were, that no counsel attended
tho borough session s, and that the persons composing the
petty ;wiry were of an is ferior class of shopkeepers, and that
from the prejudice ex, it rd against him he was not likely to
have a fair trial.—Writ slanted.

COUR:E. OF EXCHEQUER.
Sin nes in Banco.
WYID 0. HOPKINS.— -LIABILITY OF RAILWAY COM-
W3TIEEMEN .—The argut emits in this case, which was part
h and on Saturday, were resumed this morning. Mr. Mar-
tin and Mr. Willes were :heard at great length is support of
oe verdict obtained by the plaintiff; but the points urged
• rere merely a repetition .of those contended for in the newel
r ailway cases recently IN Iseult in this paper. The prin-
t dpal questions were, 'Whether provisional committeemen
i ncurred any liability at all,by simply permitting their name
nbe published as such ; and secondly, whether the liability
of the defendant in thee case had tiara established by the
(unauthorised personally by hint) given by Mr. Grid-
ley, solicitor to the comeany.
Mr. Baron Rolfe asked whether it was the solicitor's busi-
ness to order maps any more than to order the surveys to be
made, or receive the deposits;? His ditty clearly was to
advise his clients to have those things done, so that they
might comply with the standing orders of parliament, and if
be exceeded his duty bow could it. be said he was authorised
to pledge the defend=er credit ?
The Lord Chief heron.—l don't know whether it is usual
for solicitors to give such orders, but if this question hap-
pened to have been raised at the trial, I have no doubt there
were plenty of attorneys in court who eoald have given
satisfactory evidence as to what the prudes is.
Mr. Martin: This is one of the inconveniences of arguing
questions in banco which were not raised at nisi pries.
Mr. Baron Parke.—lt would be very essential to ascertain
whether it was the proper business of solicitor' to give such
orders as these; if so, no doubt it would increase the defen-
dant's liability, but im ordinary practice, although it was the
solicitor's duty te. conduct legal proceedings, they could not
pledge their di ents' credit for a variety el matters essenti
for
al
and indispenst.ble to the carrying on of the business
instance,they could not do so for the parchment or law sta-
tionery requisite, or for the fees paid to the corer of the
court.
Mr. Watson, in support of the rule, contended, that
this case was distinguishable from all the others. Here,
the defendant mere y assented to his name being placed
upon the provisional committee. No meeting had ever
taken plate. The order given by Mr. Gridley was under
the directions of the =nag. . committee, who were not ap-
pointed by the provisional ... y. It was absurd to say that
the mere consent to become a provisional committeeman,
without any other act done, was sufficient to authorise the
credit of the party to be pledged to any extent.
Mr. Baron Alderson.—We are really arguing the case
quite in the dark. There is no dictum or case defining the
liability of provisional committeemen, and therefore the real
inquiry must be, what has he done to render him liable ?
The mere act of holding himself out, or authorising hie
name to be held out, as a provisional committeeman, was
doing no more than announcing to the world that he was
one.—Mr. Watson contended that some direct authority
should be given before the order given by the solicitor, who
showed the plaintiff the prospectus with the defendant's
name in it, could be binding or render him liable.
I The Lord Chief Baron observed that Mr. (Indies, Vas WA
cross-examined as to his opinion—that he wet r:jtiorissassi
solicitor to order the maps to be .:jested by the plaintiff
The case of " W yld eneane was then called on, but the
rule nisi to enter ti verdict for the defendant was discharged
upon a technical informality. The several other cases, in
which the mane point was raised as in "Wyld r. Hopkins,"
are not to be weed, unless the court specially wish it. The
judgment willin all probability be pronounced this day, as
the point at issue is of general importance.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Shepherd.
IN HE THE LONDON AND IMMINGHAM EXTENSION TO
LEAMINGTON RAILWAY COMPANY.--ISIS. LAWDHICS, soli-
citor for Mr. Wilde, applied to the court to grant a day for
the purpose of issuing a fiat against the above company. It
involved a very important point, and therefore required
steady investigation. His Honour expressed a great difficulty
in acting in the matter, but ultimately appointed a day to
hear the case, expressing his intention of having the assis-
tance of one of his brother Commissioners.
Ix as T. E. C. Kocx.—This bankrupt applied for eer-
tfticate.—Mr. Lawrence said that the bankrupt, in order to
set himself right with the mercantile world, had desired
him to state that he (the bankrupt) was a member of a
mercantile house, and his partners, who were in Calcutta,
had drawn bills on him to the extent of 6,0001. and he was
induced to accept these on the understanding that silks were
to be sent in return. He afterwards found that a fraud bad
been practised on him, and became bankruptered, the. After
some
discussion, discussion, and no opposition having been off
Hate was granted.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.
Before Mr. COmMblidOrter Resets.
A MILITART TAILOR'S BILL.—C. F. Christie, • captain
in the Bombay European Light Infantry, was opposed for
Mr. Thompson, a tailor, and two other creditors. It ap-
peared that tke insolvent had obtained a:three years' sick
'furlough from his regiment in India, which had expired
since he bad been in prison. He was about proceeding to
join his regiment wisen he was arrested. The opposition
was confined to an inquiry as to property. The insolvent
was examined as to some plate in the possession of his
brother, MF. for Weymouth, which had been purchased
from the trustees of his father's will, and of which the in-
solvent was said to be entitled to a fourth share of the value.
The learned Commissioner said the assignee would make the
nesarinqui/t e
eediszonerning the insolvent's property, and
ordered his

or" vrrb,r