The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-03 00:00:00

gab) iintentgence.

EQUITY COURTIL—YEBTEBILIT.
Ewes vas Loio CILANCELLOI.
This being the first day °item, his lordship did not arrive
until half-put roe o'clock, when he cams into court, accom-
panied by the Master of the Roils, the Vioe-Cbsneellor of
England, Viee-Chancellor Wire= and two Masters in
Chancery, all of whom retired -immediately. His lordship
lotted as well sale did whoa be sat 'ast In wart.

ANDZIWILS V. WALTOX.
Mr. Wood, referring to this case, which has been often
brought before the court by the plaintiff—an attorney, in
person, always unssoceisfully—esid the plaintiff had now
availed hisaself of the assistance of respectable solicitors, who
had laid the pollees before him, audit was his opinion that
there was a point in the sage fit for the eonsideration of the
court. A notice of motion that had been given by the
plaintiff was informal, and he (Mr. Wood) asked that the
case might be all 'wed to keep its place in his lordship's
W per of motions, until a proper notice could be served.
His lordship granted the application.
UNDIEWOOD O. Jon.
Mr. Milt, with whom was Mr. Samuel Miller, moved to
discharge an order of the Vice Chancellor of England re-
fusing to stay proceedings in this suit until a decree should
be mama in another suit of " Smith v. i.e." This latter was&
suit instituted by • creditor of an intestate named Jai,
against his widow and administratzix for an account of the
intestate's estate. During the proce*dings the defendant
obtained leave of the court to carry on the badness of her
deceased husband (boot and shoe making). The sewed suit
was afterwards instituted by another creditor for an account
of the profits of the busier's so carried on by the administra-
Dix. The objet of the motion which was refused by the
Vice Chancellor of Eneland was to stay this snit until a de-
cree was obtained in the former, which decree might be made
to comprise the additions) purpose of the s.cond suit. The
case'ef "Dryden v.Foster"j(6 Buvan) was ci..ed and relied on.
Mr. J. Parker, with whom was Mr. Simone, for the
plaintiff in " 1144erwood v. Joe," opposed the motion. This
suit anbtand objects and brought cuarges against the &dial-
nistretriz beyond those contained in the suit of " Smith V.
Jae." If any suit was to be stayed it was the latter, but it
was possible that when the former was brought to a hearing
both suits might be consolidated under one decree. At pre-
sent, the two snits having different objects, could not be
consolidated; at all events, that having the larger scope
could not be stayed. They relied on a decao of his lord-
ship in the case of " Rigby v. Stnngways" (2 Phillips,
175 )
The Lord Chancellor, after station the difference between
the two suits, sued he thought the Vice Chanesilor'e order
was right, and he dismissed the motion with Goats.

WOOD. O. TN II NOZTII BTAPIOI
. . Cpururr,

RLU.WiT

Mr. Molise proceeded rritiaTaCiton to discharge as ardor
of Via. Chandelier Holght BROD, rostraheing the defesdante
from making • raised road throsgh Iii 114••• to Batton•
bride. la Macclesfield.
At four o'clock the further hearing waa adjourned to to-
ratoreasr Obis day), at liaosia's-hca Ball.

ow Ibilmass.
UMW s. IhnTiAiii lIIKT air Na Ex Dui

Bunsen to

ease, ow babel, of tie Ire • writ of no meat
dTar
edmit, bleb had bra her el greet W in September last,
ht be Methane& It was stated that the plaintil and
t ware amikitors, sad were he parts rsidp together
till the mouth of Kay In this year, when a dirshition was
agreed to, sad err taking tle amennM it was &revered
that the defendant had drawn a greeter share of the profits
than the plaintiff, to the extent of 1,1401. TM plaintiff died
bin bill is September, alleging a debt dee to his Goa the
defendant, and the writ of se =eat, with& was marked for
1,1401., was granted by the VienChaneellor, and the
defendant was arrested, and wu obliged to Snd
ball for doable the amonst of debt claimed. It

was now urged Cu behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff
wee not jarMW is alleging that any debt was due to him.
siaes tbL was a mere um of • partnership being diseelvid,
and one wiper having drawn mere than was due to him ; '
but it further appeared that the plaintiff, after the desola-
tion of the partnership, and before the filing of the bill, had
actually, himself, received the sem of 1,4141. from a client of
the Arm, for business done during the partnership ; come-
osently, the plaintiff had, in feet, drawn non than the de-
fendant, and this was not stated to the court when the ap-
plication for the ne emat was made. It wee else stated that
the allegation made by the plaiatiff, that the defendant was
about to quit the country, and that his furniture was packed
up for that purpose , was not true; for the mu furniture
which was so egged to have been pecked up was only re-
moved from Aylesbury to London and there mimicked.
Kr. Wilford appeared for the plaintiff, and urged that the
ease might be allowed to stand over, shoe his client had only
yesterday been able to obtain a copy of the answer, and had
not had time to prepare • brief.
The Viee•ChanceUer said, in a cue like this he could not
allow of my delay. The plaintif in applying for the writ
of ea emit, ought to have stated the whole facts which were
within his knowledge, instead of which he had concealed a
meet important feet, that of his having received the sum of
1,4001. einem the dissolution of the partnership. Under these
circumstances he should gut the application.