The Express.
London, England, 1851-01-29 00:00:00

lab) Otte!Newt.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAT.
Doom raz Lou Cuticulae.
BAINIIIOOI o. BADDSLSY.
The arguments in this motion to cieeherge an oreer of Vt.
Mester of the Rolls for the appoiatmeat of a receiver were
proceeded with, and at the tieing of the coast the farther
hearing was adjourned.

BUM, TIM Mama or rrn /Wu"
RE NORTEERN_ COAL MINING COMPANY ER PARTE

B•OO L.-CONTRIBUTORY,

This was applicaticn on behalf of the offltial manager of
the above company, appointed under the Winding up Arts,
that the Master might be directed to amend the list of con-
tributories by inserting the Slide of Mr. Baum, M.P. for
Norfolk. It appeared that Mr. Biggs was the owner of 260
scrip shares in the company, and that in 1840 he sold than
to the directors at the market pries of the day. By the deed
of settlement of the company it was provided that any pro-
prietor of shams who should be deei,ous of selling them
should give notice of his intention to the secretary, informing
him of the name and place of residence of the proposed pur-
chaser ; and power wu given to the directors either
to accept such purchaser or to buy up the shares
for the company. Mr. Barge did not go through
the form of naming a purchaser to the dirictors,
and no person was registered as the transferee of the shares
from Mr. Beggs. It was contended for the official manager
that as the forms prescribed by the deed of settlement bad
not been complied with, Mr. Bagge continued to be liable
for the debts of the company as between the cvartnere.
On the other hand, it was contended for Mr. Bagge the the
forms of transfer prescribed by the deed related only to
registered shares, and not to scrip, end that at the time er
the male there were no registereo shareholders; and, there-
fore, the requisitions of the deed as to the forms prescribed
for the transfer of shares could not be complied with.
was also alleged that the shareholders had eotioe of the sale
of the shares and were precluded be acouieseecce nom
taking advantige of an Informality. The Master took this
view of the ease, and struck Mr. Bagge's name from the list
of contributories.

Mr. Turner and Mr. Daniel were for the official manager,
and Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Reunion for Mr. B.gue.
The Master of the Rolls reserved his judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YEBTERDAY.
Surma ni HARM— Boom LORD CANPRIELL, ML Arnica Parrasom,
Ma. JlllllOl COLIIIIOOI, AND MR. Juane' Wisariaax.
_ _

Till QUERN O. Tae °Yin BIBS or 11ANCHISTR8.—Tia
ROYAL MANCHISTIR INSTITUTION.-JODOMINT.

Lord Campbell now delivered judgment in this case, and
said that the court thought that it was • ease which did not
essentially differ from the Birmingham case in the 10th
Queen's Bench Reports, the authority of which had not been
disputed on the part of the responden's. The Rvyal Man-
chester Institution was founded entirely for the cultivation
of edema, literature, and the fine arts, and was supported
wholly er partially by yearly voluntary contributions, and
by its laws it could not whilst it existed divide any bonus of
money, gift, or dividend amongst the members. The object
of the members of the institution seemed to be that which
they professed, and their principal object was not recreation
and amusement. The building was erected from funds sub-
scribed by the shareholders, and the funds were placid in
the hands of trustees to be spent for the purposes of science,
literature, and the fine arts. Lectures were occasionally
delivered on literary and scientific matters, to which officers
In the army, literary and scientific persons, and other people,
were admitted free of expense on application to the secre
tary. The lectures, which were paid for, were at the
expense of the institution. At the converusiones papers were
read on scientific subjects, and the party who read them bad
the privilege of inviting 20 friends. Some rooms in the
institution were used for the purpose of 'Whiting peintings,
and artists were assisted in *Alin,/ their pictures, wiihout
any profit being obtained by the institution. There were
also museums of natural history. The expenses of She
institution were chiefly defrayed by the subscriptions
of the members. This being • society prima facie within
the serve of the act, the court had to examine
the objections made against the exemption claimed. The
first objeciou war founded on a power vested in the trustees
Ito let off any part of the building not wanted for the purposes
of the institution, but for the part so let off no exemption
was claimed. The Greenwich cue would not apply, for
there the premises were let off at a profit ; but in the pre-
sent case the funds were applied to the general purposes of
the society. Another objection was made on the fact that
when paintings coming from a distance were sold at the
exhibitions, the society deducted 5 per cent. on the proceed.,'
which woe represented u a commission, and as evidence of
carrying on a trade for profit. It appeared, however, that
the society paid the expense of the carriage of the picture',
which exceeded the amount deducted for commission.
The next objection was from an expression to the
rules of the society—" That the building was to be
used for the exhibition of paintings, and otherwise
for the purposes of education and knowledge." It
was cootendea that this expression would authoriie the
teaming on of secular education, which could not be brought
within the 6th at d 7th Vitt., cap. 36; but, to remove all
doubt upon the matter, the words were added, consistent
with the porpoise et the insti,ution. The court cid think
that establishing • school would be consistent with those
purposes. It was further said that this was • society for
profit, because strangers were admitted to the exhibition of
paintings on the payment of a smell sum for admission
but that was applied to the purposes of the society, aud
might be taken as a voluntary contribution. The last
objection was that on the dissolution of the society the
property was to be sold, and the proceeds divided amongst
the members. There was no prohibition in the act of
parliament against so doing. It was said that the
members might accumulate capital amongst themselves;
but there was no reason to think that there was
any profit to be divided amongst the members of
the institution, and therefore that war no answer
to the claim of exemption, while the institution fairly
carried out the objects for which it was founded. Tokiag
the whole of the circumstances of the case into consideration,
the court thought that the learned Recorder bad correctly
decided in amending the me, by striking out the assessment
made in respect of this institution, and that the rule for
quashing the order of sessions ought to be discharged.
_ Rule discharged.

THE QUEEN IP. BRENDT.-THE MANCHESTER CONCERT

HALL.— J troOtig;;:

Lord Campbell, in delivering judgment in this cue, said
that the court thought that the Manchester Concert-halt was
liable to pay poor rates. It could not be said lista the
society who occupied it had founded it entirely for the pur-
,
of science, literature, and the fine arts. Music no
grut was one of the fine arts; but it seemed the principal
! object that the members of this society had in view was their
own recreation and amusement. What was the object of
the institution? The building was built, ate cost of 11,0001.,
by the Manchester Concert Society, the money being
borrowed for that purpose, and vested in trustees to secure
the repayment of the money, with interest. The
society had 600 members, amongst whom were mem-
bers of parliament, baronets, barristers, and all the
richest inhabitants of Manchester. The members wire
admitted by ballot, and paid a yearly subscription of 51. 6s.
and there wire others called quasi members, also elected by
ballot, end paying an annual subscription of 21. lbs. 6d. The
subscriptions, after paying the current expenses of the
institutioo, went to pay off the interest of the debt, end
likewise the principal, which was now only 6,0001. Amongst
the payments made thtre was NU. for an organ, and other
articles were bought of a most luxurious kind. There were
several concerts given, some of which were drew concerts,
and others were undress. The court had to decide whether
this society came within the scope of the act ; but although
the object of the society was very laudable and right, being
to encourage the practice of the art of music, vet the court
could only look upon the society as a club of 600 gentlemen
associated together for their own amusement, and, there-
fore, net entitled to the exemption given by the act. Seth a
society wee not intended to raise a virtual rate upon the
inhabitants of the place where the building was situated.
It appeared that in consequence of this society being
established, a professor of music had come from London
and settled in Manchester, who would not stay there if the
society were dissolved. The court hoped that the socie:y
might long flourish, paying its poor rates. The court
could not distinguish this from any similar institution be
came it was established by subscriptions. The court,
taking the whole circumstances of the case into their
cousidera.lon, should confirm the decision of the Recorder,
although they differed from hie ratio decidendi, and the
rule for quashing the order of sessions must be discharged.:
Rule discharged.
THE QVlllf V. BLLCIATOSE.—CRIMINAL IN7ORMATION

FOR ♦ LIBLL.

The Solicitor-Gauen' said he had to apply on behalf of
three gentlemen named John Annan Hedges, John Kirby
Reign, sad Charles Kirby Hedges, • fattier and his two
sou, for • rile callingjon William Seymour Blackstone,
Esq., M.P. for the town of Wallingford, in Berks. to show
cases why a criminal information should not be filed against
him for libel. Mr. Hedges and his eons were solicitors,
cerrymg on business in Wallingford. It appeared that in
1845 Mr. Blackstone was possessed of some property in the
county of Berke, which he sold to his cousin, • Mr. Harry
Lee. Messrs. Hedges acted as the solicitors for Mr. Lee, and
Mr. Blackstone bad his own solicitor. After the property
wee sold Mr. Blackstone, being a relation of Mr. tee's,
interfered in the management of the property, and, as
Meters. Hedges thought, in • manner sot advantageous to
Mr. Lee. Bk. Blackstone appeared to have entertained a
determined purpose to get rid of Meagre. Hedges as the soli.
citors of Mr. Lee, and commenced a correspondence with
that gentlemen upon the subject. The correspondence
ran to the extent of 70 letters, sad in whisk (all of
the letters being unknown to Mesas. Hedges) he
endeavoured to destroy the coati lanes that Mr. Lee reposed
in Mesas. Hedges, which ended in Mr. Lee transferring
his banns' to other solicitors. About the period of the
completion of the object that Mr. Blackstone had in view,
he, in the month of hallo 1049, wrote the letter which was
thi 'abject_ gutter of the libel sow complained of. There
were the aMdavita of Mr. Leo, stating that he bad received
all these communications from Mr. Meantime, and farther
set Aral that he had discovered, since the business was
taken from Messrs. Hedges, that his isoafidenos had been
abased by Mr. Blackatose, and that he felt it due to these
gentlemen to show them the letter emplaned of, which
contained grave charges mama gent/eines who for many
yeses had been solieritan in the town of Wallingford, and one
of whom, the father, was at the present time town dark. Part
of the letter in question related to private business, but
Mr. Lee bad communicated all of it which related to
Messes. Hedges. The learned Solicitor. Chaera here pro-
ceeded to read that put of the letter which coateised the
alleged libel, which charged Messrs. Hedges with bag privy
to a forgery, which it was said a tradesman of Wallsagford
mama Owen had committed. The letter aka alleged that
Meson. Hedges had eadeavoind to stifle the inquiry when
it took pleas before the Mayor of Walliagtorda sad had

wished to make the amount of bail which Owen had to Lind
tuse thenr
lw)i d
woof lid
nowce c
zcop named
ibe: i
t:Cox.otehuha:t
dillmbe,..(7:ihort
he
so low that ►e might run away. The letter also alleged that
It
Mr. Hedges, senior, had made himself and Owen ext caters
wweitrhe on to make 8 °o. ni
Hedges, lin
t et
e:t
re
for a long series of yews. The will was made in the usual
way, and it was by the with of Cox biinsell that Mr.
Hedges and Owen were appointed executors and trustees to
the will. Often had previously had pecuniary transactions
with Cox, and Mr. Hedges after he wariappointed a trustee
of the will came to lock into the accounts, and he found that
Owen admitted that he owed the estate 1001. Mr. Hodges
thought this sum was not correct, and ae therefore put him-
self in communication with the solicitors of the parties
interested WWII( COI'S will in order that the matter might
be inquired into. The matter was referred to arbitration.
Mr. Blackstone was the arbitrator on the part of the parties
interested under Ccxs will, and some one else acted for
Owen. Upon the inquiry taking piece, Owen asserted
that the original debt was 4521. 10s., that ►e had
paid 3321 10.., thus reducing the amount to 100/., and
he brought forward a book purporting to be 'Matti
"S. Cur The bo .kcontained•two entries, one kr 2001.,
and the ,other for 100 i., and also one of 624 10.. ;
before the words " S. Cot" the word " settled" was wri.tc..
Mr. Blackstone though. that this was a lorgery, end ae-
coroiogly came to the town eltrk, Mr. Hedges, see., and
.cared the "di c4very." Owen being a respectable trades-
man, and being also the political opponent of Mr. Black-
stone, Mr. Hedges suggested that it had better be pro-
ceeded with on the following Monday, it then being a
Saturday afternoon. Mr. Blackstone than said that he
would return to Wallingford on Tuesday, when Owen
could be arrested. This was agreed to, but on the sp-
' p dowel day Mr. Blackstone did not ewer, and shortly
afterwards Mr. gyre, a solicitor, call. d on Mr. Fledges, and
it was arming. el that the matter should stand user until
Tuesday, the 11th of May, when it was proposed that Mr.
Blackstone should investigate the case at toe George Inn.
Ins case was, however, heard before the mayor and the
b.•rough justices, Mr. Blackstone, as county magistrate,
being present. The major thought that Owen could not
be committed, but after some discussion the advice of Mr
Hedges was !allowed, and he was committed to mkt his
trial fur a inisdenamaciar. He was tried at the ensuing
assizes at Abingdon, and be proving that he paid the
3.311. 10s. into the binds of Mr Coes bankers he was
erquitted. Under the circumstances he (.ho Solicitor-
General) submitted that these gentlemen had been lib.iled
by the imputation of having connived at a forgery and en-
deavoured to stifle inquiry.
Lord Campbell asked when the Messrs. Hedges had become
acquainted with the letter.
Toe lolicitor•Oeueral replied that they had not been in-
formed of It until last month. The letter had been written
for the purpose of ousting those,gentlanten from the arrange-
ment tea the affairs of Mr. Lee.

Lord Csospbell—Y.Ju moitake a rule to show Now
Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.—YEsTERDAY.
IN BE °WIN WILLI.I3I,—MitiCODIDUCIr OP •
MACiIbTIL•III.

Mr. Watson, Q C., mused tor a criminal information
against Caen Williams, lice of the justices of the peace for
the county of Anglesta. The application wAs made at the
instance of Lloyd, the high bailiff of the County Court,
upon facts which, if substantiated, amounted to a gross
attempt to use his authority as magistrate to pervert the
course of justice. It appeared that uue Hugh Thomas had
filed a petition is toe county court for protection, which had
been discniss.d ; and in July judgment was signed against
him for 161., upon which a writ of fie. fa. was issued and
directed to Lloyd, and he went with it to Chomes'is house.
He there found that certain things, and among
them a horse and cart sad • cuw' had been
removed to William's house. The bailAf thereupon
tot:owed the property, but was told by Wi.iiams that the
articles belonged to him. The bailiff doubted the fact,
but did not meths them. The execution was then withdrawn,
but another writ was issued in September, and name into the
high bailiff 'a ban fa,who wont to Thomas's home and levied.
It was then anticipated that there would be a riot, and the
bailiff Relocated the attendance of the constables. Upon thin
Wi.l.anis interfered, and said that the bailiff had no right to
the a,sittance of the constables, and it ended in their not
ettetidiog. There was an &result and a resent, and upon
this the high bailiff applied to Sir Richard Balloter
fur a summons against Thomas and his wife, which
waa greeted, and was to be heard at the Penton
Arm,s Angles/a, on the 18th of November. On that
day Williams arrived there a few minutes before the high
bailiff and his party, and upon their coming in produced an
information filled up in his own handeritir g, purporting to
be at the balance ot Thomas, and charging the high bailiff
with an assault upon him. Williams and flit R Bulk,ley
were the only justices present, and Williams then insisted
upon having the information egainst the high bailiff disposed
ot first ; bet it being °butted that there was no monthlong
or warrant in that case, Waliams said, " l'ooh, pooh," and
went out of the room, and returned shortly after, and
the high bailiff was immediately served with a war.
rant, and Williams then intisted upon his right as senior
magistrate to have his case called on filet, but upon some
further informalities being adverted to,Sir R. kluikeley refused
to hear the case, upon which Williams said he would hear
it himself. But upon being told that there must be two
justices, he said he would have nothing to do with either.
Sir It. Bolkeley then heard the other summons alone, under
a pr...vision in the County Court Act that one justice may
hear and adjuoicate upon the complaints of (Aiken of the
court, and convicted the putiet. Up,n this Williams said
that, after hearing the opinion ot Sir R. Bulkeley, he
would not proceed wilt the other case, and accordingly he
put the warrant into his pocket, and walled away. It was
submitted that theme feet., if uocuntradicted, were ample
ground for a criminal information.
Rule vented.

PISTRE (SIICLITRIZ.) tl. DUNCOIIIII.-SIGHT OP SURETY
TO CHARON HIS PRINCIPAL WITH INTER'S? UPON IN•
STALNINTS OF AN ANNCITT PAID ET 11111.

In this cue, the facts and arguments upon which were
fully reported in the Empress of the 23,1 of January,
judgment was now given by Mr. Justice Erie, who said
that the question was, w►at ought to be the measure of
daniaps for breach of a c.venant, whereby the defendant
tied covenanted to indemnify the plaintiff's testator against
the consequences of his being surety to en annuity deed.
lie thought that such damages ought to be a full indemnity,
and u the surety has lost the interest upon the sums which
he has been obliged to pay, that interest ought to be inclultd
it. the demur's; u.is view was in secordance with the uses and
particularly with that of "the Executors of Fergus v.
Shore (reported in Scholes and Lifters), the cases upon
direct contracts which omit any statement relating to iut( rest
being clearly distinguiehable. Then if interest is to bc al-
lowed, he could see no objection to the direction which the
under-sheriff had given to the jury, as to the rate of interest,
conaiderica, as he did, that the account which bad been put
in evidence, and which showed an allowance by the defen-
dant of 51. per cent., was equally adoiinible whether that
interest was to come out of the pr0...-eid. of the este**. or was
to be a personal charge seems% the defendant. The rule
would, therefore, be discharged.