The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-01 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

Pitting, in Paco.--Itefore Mr. Judie Wittman.
Hort r. Cnow.—COUNTY CouHTo.—Mr. Dissent moved
for a writ of prohibition to be directed to F. K. Eagle, Esq ,
the judge of the Suffolk County Court, to prevent him from
affixing his warrant of possession in this our. This was an
action of ejectment, and upian the trial of the cause the
plaintiff, by his own showing, was put out of court, and a
nonsuit was entered, leave however being reserved to the
plaintiff to move to set aside that nonsuit. On the next
occasion upon which the court sat, after the matter had
been discussed, the judge decided tin it The nonsuit abauld he
set aside. The des ndsnt was not pr. -sent when that de-
cision was given, and it was upon that ground that the
learned counsel now moved that the Judge might be re-
straint d from affixing his warrant of pout...odor. The defend.
ant had been served with a notice that the plaintiff woald
apply to set aside the nonsuit, but he had not deemed the
notice ri pular. He was also aware, independently of the in•
formation afforded by the notice, of the courts the plaintiff
intended to punue.—Mr. Justice Wightinati *aid there ought
to be no rule in this cue. The defendant was awart of the
plaintiff's intended application to the judge, yet still he
allowed the nonsuit to be set aside, and then came to that
court for a writ of prohibition.
Ex PARTE THR CORPORATION OP GILLAT YARMOUTH.—
ELRCTIoN or AN A88616110R.-611. ittchbo% applied, on
behalf of the corporation of Great Yarmouth, for a manda-
mus to br directed to the aldermen and burgesses of the
North Ward, directing them to /feet an assessor for th
ward, in the place of Mr. Pratt, &ceased. Mr. Pratt was
appointed on the lst of March, 1847, and died on the 12th
01 May in the pri sent year. It was necessary, by the act of
parliament, that the office should be fill. d up within ten days
of its becoming vacant, but of this the aid rman of the ward
was not aware hence the present motion.—The court
granted the application.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings In Banco.
PLATE!. o. Bates.—JOUOMENT.—IstaULVENT Cover.
Ft met Oauek.—At the ',wag of the court yesterday, Mr
Baron Alderan delivered judgment in this case for the
defendant. The question was, whether the final order ob-
tained by the defendant under the operation of the 5 & 6
c. 116, and 7 & 8 Vic. c. 96, was a bar to an action on
a debt inserted in the insolvent's schedule. It had bren
decided us " Toomer v. Dingell" (4 I)ow. and L 182), that
such was not the effect of the final order, its operation being
expressly limited to the person of the de b.or. It app. and,
however, that the question was not seven d in that CJIC' the
result of which was mainly attributable to a dictum of Mr.
Justice Mauls. which could not be supported when closely
examined, and when • 1 the section.. of the two acts were
eitted. There would, therefore, be judgment fur the damn.
dant. _ . .

JACOUtI v. Rune.—ln this ease, which came before the
court on a rule for a new trial on the ground
of miedirection Involving the same point. The defendant had
pleaded that he had obtained a final order for protection and
for distribution under the Insolvent Act. At the trial before
Sir F. Pollock, the order, when put in by the defendant,
purported on the face of it to be for the protection of the
pereon only, and the learned judge wee of opinion that it did
not support the plea, relying mainly on the autliorit, of
" Toomer o. Gingell ;" a verdict accordingly passed for the
plaintiff, bat afterward. Mr. Hake moved fur a new tri I,
and herrit g Mr. Iletnkey and Mr. T. init*.e for the
phintitf, the court took time to con,ider its judginent.—Sir
F. Pollock now intimated that this cue would follow that in
which Mr. Baron Alderson had just deliverer' judgment, and
that consequt ntly the rule tur a new trial must be made ab-
soluto.—Judgment accordingly.