The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-12 00:00:00

RAW Intelligence.

EQUITY

1414,11 TIM MA•11.1: 01,711 t X 11.144.
NSWILT, W.1141:1:NI,INT •ND ROSIREVOIt RAILWAY

C./MVANY V. Moss.
The bill in this caw was filed against the partners in
the firm of Mo.. and Co., hankers, at Liverpool, to make
them liable us cestui que trusts, (Or calls on MO shares in
the abuse companv which it was alleged were transferred
ado, and registered the mune of Thomas M. Sadism., a
sdirk of the buskers, as a trustee for them. It appeared
from the answer of the defendant., that in 1846 and 1847
they advanced money:on railway shares to one Mr. Camersot
s..a.corosser at laserpoos, who deposited railway shares
with them as a security, and that the shares in question
were part of such shares, and were transferred into, and
ses.sistesvil in Susllow's name, on the nssmination of the de-
fendants, as trustees for Cameron, subject to the deremhote
eerily Merton for flair edvanees, and that the transfer
certificates were deposited with the defendants. It appeared
that a lars.:e nonuser of the shares originally transferred
into Sodlow's name were sold by them by the direction of the
defendants, and that the proceeds were applied towards
' paying the debt slue to them from Cameron. And since
sadism's death Cameron had also sold some of the shares
by the direction of the &feminist., who advanced the money
then due fur calls on the shares, to enable the sale to be
effected. The defendants contended that Cameron was the
real owner of the shares, and that they were not liable thr
calls.

Mr. Roupell and Mr. Anderson appeared fur the plain-
tilt., Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Eddis fur the defendants.
The Master of the Wills was of opinion that the regis-
tered metier of the shares was under the clauses in the (unt-
imely's act alone liable for calls, and that the equitable
owners of the shares were not liable to the company. Tho
court took cognisance of trusts as between the eestui que trust
and trustee, but not at the instance of parties who were
steuugera to the trust. Stullow might have called on the
bankers to indemnify him agiinst the calls, and the bankers
might have called upon Sudlow to account to them in re-
'pert of the shares. .t new relation might have arisen in
an express contract between the railway company and the
beneficial owuers, under which the latter might have been
liable fur the calls ; but, in the aliwnee of any such con-
tract, the company could only resort for payment 111 4,1:1•1
to the party who was the registered holder of the char..,
nd as in this case the relation of cestui nue trust and trustee
did not exist between t a plaintiffs and the detenilams
.11111 there was no special contract to alter the laws existing
between the company and the individual shareholders, he
was of opinion that the bill could not be sustained, and ho
dismissed it with costs.

BIII4IIM Vter-CH.WCFLUIII /LOOM' 131111 TV.
ATT. OILNEY -6 EN ERA L Ir. LORD CA 1/NElNi:rt./N.-Iift:MISER,

8 f(eNE SCHOOL.

An order of reference was made to the Muster for the
appointment of sixteen new trustees of Ilumberstune
School, Lineoltediire, in consequence of the resignation of
the trustees, against whom an adverse decision, with costs,
had been made in this court some time since, the trustees
having ineffectually endeavoured to re e the school-
master. Full power was given to the new trustees when
appointed to transact the business, which, but for the resig-
iiition of the trustees, would have been disposed of uu the
Ist of May.
Mr. Cotton appeared in support of the present petition;
Mr. Russell and Mr. Faber, were fur the relators.

m.lllll Lone (71 C(11V011rIll, V)ellf .1 OIL
CARTWRIGHT C. DRIDORWOOD. INJUNCTION TO
a stanroutack WITIt A WATER-Cut-RAE Rarest:D,
Ills Lordship delivered judgment in this case, which was
reported in the Erpress all the 28th ult. lle said it
motion was made to restrain the defendant front prose sl-
ing to build a culvert and mill under these eir-
cumstances. The plaintiff was the owner of a mill
called Lane-end 111.11, which was built on a pieta,
of ground called the "Anchor-ground," through which ran
a rivulet. The whole of the property, in the year 1818,
belonged to Sir John Ileatheotc, who conveyed the lower
part of it to tae pplaintiff, told covenanted with the plaintiff
not to obatrUrt the passage of the Water through the upper
part of the Anchor-ground, by making pool', chins, or
weirs; and the conveyance contained a clause giving the
plaintiff leave at all tones to cleanse the brook, the object
of the plaintiff being to havethe useof the water for his mill.
The defendant had lately purchased front persons claiming
under Sir John Ileathcote the upper part of the Anchor-
ground and had commenced building a culvert and stn am
mill; so that lie would require to use the water for then,ill.
This the plaintiff contended was a violation of the
covenant contained in the conveyance to him, lout the oh-
ject of the present motion was to restrain the
erection of the :culvert and the mill, en the
ground that the quantity of water would be diminished,
and the plaintiff would he prevented from cleansing the
stream. The first question was whether the making of this
culvert would be a violation of the terms of the
covenant. His lordship hail come to the conclusion upon
the evidence before the court, that there was nothing in-
tended to be erected by the defendant which could be con-
sidered an obstruction to the rivulet. The culvert would
slightly narrow the stream, but it would not lessen the
water, or prevent the plaintiff from cleansing the brook.
That portion of the motion must, therefore, he refused.
Then the next question was, whether the defendant rould
be re:strained from using the water for the purposes of his
mill. Ile hail thrown out a suggestion when the ease was
argued, that a restraint upon using water was void, u. bei ug
contrary to public policy, and he considered now that it was
a proper subject for the decisi ~,, of a court of law. Ile
should, therefor', direct a ease to be tried at law, and the
defendant must undertake, in the meantime, not to use the
water for his mill.

BEMAN V. BEFFORD.-MOTION TOLL AN INJUNCTION
TO RESTRAIN THE EXXIXTION ole AN AGUEEMENT lilt-
TWEEN TWO hAILWAYE. _

The bill in this ease hits been filed by certain shareholders
in the Oxford, Woretster, and Wolv,rhampton Railway
Company, on behalf of themselves and all the other share-
holden in the company, against the directors at the com-
pany, and against the London and North Western Com-
pany, the Midland Railway Company, the Oxford, Wore,-
ter, and Wolverhampton Railway Company, and the
Great Western Company, for the purpose of re,,training
the drfendant% from entering into a certain agreement
which the plaintiffs contend is in violation of the act, of
parliament, under %hid' the Oxford, Worcester, and Wol-
verhampton Railway Company was formed, and in direct
opoo,ition to the intervoa of the company.
The Opetlin:r of the plaintiffs' ease was not concluded at
the rising of the court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-SATURDAY.
Sint>,‘A txliAN?o.—fitzows, bollb CAMIIIVIA., Mi. Jusnrx PtltE.

110 M. Ma. Jrxnca WIWITMAN. AND Ma. Sumas, Ears.
Lord Campbell said hu had lawn informed by the Master
that there were a considerable nuntlicr of motions which
would have to be enlarged, unless brought on for argument
at once. Ile wished it to be understood that there was
ample time to dispose of them, and that they ought not to
be enlarged, unless absolutely necessary. Ile hoped, there-
fore, that gentlemen would be prepared to bring them on
during the remaining days of the term ; and they were
nut ready it might be the duty of the court to make moue
general order that these rules should not be enlarged with-
out the special leave of the court.
WADSWORTH V. TILE QUEEN or SrAIN.—THE Qt irEsr r.

Loki) MAYult AND ALDEIMEN LONLouN

Mr. Gurney, Q.C., said he meruly appeared in this cast)
on behalf of the Lord Mayor, in obsdienee to the rule
which had been served upon him, fur the purpose, if neces-
sary, of defending the customs of the City of London.
Lord Campbell said the court wuuldpay all proper respect
to those customs.

Mr. noggins, Q.C., said he appeared for Mr. Wadsworth,
to show Cause against the rule which had been united
for, to prohibit the Lord Mayor's Court front proceeding
further in the action of " Wadsworth v. the Queen of Slain,'•
or with two writs of foreign attachment which had been
issued in that action, one against M. Scheldnagel, the agent
of the Spanish government in this country, and the other
against Messrs. Stone and Martin, his bankers. Thu action
was brought against the Queen of Spain by Mr. Wads-
worth, as the holder of certain bonds made by her or un her
behalf, and which he had purchased in 1144, and the inte-
rest upon which had for a year ur two been paid ; but an
arrear, now amounting to 10,0001., had accumulated, and
he now sought to enforce payment of that aunt by the pre-
sent proceedings ; but before proceeding further with the
argument he wished to know on behalf uf whom the present
application was made.
Mr. Chambers, Q.C., said he appeared fur the garnishee.
Ile had instructions to appear for the Queen of Spain, if
necessary ; hut at present he only appeared for the gar-
nishee.

Mr. Huggins said he should argue that the garnishee was
not in a position to apply to this court, out, if he were,
that prohibition would not lie. The course of proceeilion in
the Lord Mayor's Court is that waits are columow.ed by
plaint, the defendant is then culled and does not Kppear,
and the plaintiff then suggests that there is money belong-
ing to the defendant in the hands of u third person, and
asks that that money may be attached. The court then re-
quires an affidavit to autisfy itsCUMMICIICU that there is a b.n.l
tide debt owing, and the writ of attachment is then issued;
by that the garnishee is warned, and may appear and
plead. In this case he did appear, and pleaded that he had
nu money of defendant's in his hands. The
appeared, and therefore had no locus stanch m this court.
The garnishee had pleaded that hf• had no money ut the
defendant's, and if that was so, hr. had no interest in the
matter, and could not come here.
Lord Campbell—The garnishee must have an interest in
the mutter, 'cause if them is nu jurisdiction, but lie is
compelled to pay over the money, it might be nu discharge
when called upon by the. party for whom lie held the money
to pay it over to him.
Mr. Noggins—Then ho should have
pleaded
juris-
diction, instead of van ch he had elected to plead the specific
fact—that he had go money.
Upon thispleato itshsucewits
joined and the oawk would have come on fur trial, but fur
this application.
Lord CamPbeil—l believe it is admitted that the Lord
Mayor's Court has no jurisdiction, except when the cause of
action has a•Asen within the City.
Mr. HO'zigins—lie that as it may, in this case the cause of
action did arise within the city, for the bonds are made
payable in Madrid, Paris, or London, at the option of the
holder. This appeared by the affidavits, which were, how-
ever, no pert of the prucectiingi before the Lord Mayor's
Court. The plaint suggested that the cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction.