The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-09 00:00:00

prornee.
Master of '

THE EXPRFSS, TUTSDIY EVENING, MAY 9. 1848.

....---...---..••-'-----
Arena la waren el Wr Jetta Presidi elarrominoWala ore Iwo I ,
taw
neark4=l* Ms SPWFWiIe a
tliglAar Mow ' i
and Nil as Ste heti.
mantas at soh. the 110101 rik.asiligt dun Oils Ye 111 tea to ,
nealdthe, viol; akar •OF er WO ittweedalbr
rorageweit.V. ten& vile& et Ilarratatr ittedieSsr:
Bay, their Mare wegrew downlding el edam WIWI dr
they way &ea oast bees SieGtraradrad stag thellagierni, or
the @waste id the linietWe 11.1 0100111147. The gm
bowl thew vends kr =IIN 11,• 41!"../.1,01.1._ taglii=4:f Oa
Mode 10100011011 NAN WM IBM entree .• lOW omPrdlealw.
The Wed saki at Wades the alio soll WM IV sem et bet to
olosalatatitireaghare. and erwriag W the min Ilea. Owe lean
eloped I add Or one dratere le the we et stem Mai" is
eidati the amtridnillyolll. It 111=Wi. dories pod advant-
age& Wiliklbara levorato. awl a werninitWa .10.0, at
WA area tire the dkneere Woad INIt Me the am dourlo
, a own 5k........ki be gaibed hy at itheta.
Bow. al die grew.
Trilled. ot.v., ti la the Wolk and wtil be reedy ft wa In • few
daya.-tawa, et.
bat Iwo Wald late the lawn WIN adjoining
the raw
-WWart ; her eid weber haw he Whoa GM. and the en.
Omistaken hen the Ilydenhow. whoa dig worst war Wien up at
ere being rewired. mad will le Iliad ia Oa Jame -D...n,
ar.v.. nearly ready Oa revise is the deer Maw i sie was tried
down the river • kw days deer. and her Wet le reeartd to be
nearly eight bouts au hour. -Myrtle, M., is fitting In isa bamo roe
a steam gun vere•l: she will mount two gum, of very bean calibre.
ADU MALT Y , MAY 8.-Arrua NTH. NTS.-Faranle a 01
Ichlpwrlghts : 0. Netbigrwood and A. Moore, to
Itheerneas
bloater Rigger : W. Andrews, to Portsmouth yard. -Maned
Enterer: C. T. RMlNlngas. is yen Josef: W. B. sniinower, to
Enterpries.- lAMI/MI: C. D. Mailawa, to Ilanlngs.-B.mtswatu :
IL llstrvey, to Panama& yard.

SPORTING.
NEWMARKET SECOND SPRING MEKTINO.
NNWNIANKV.T, MuNDAT NlollT.—The tolls:swing are the
present. enengements for the ensuing meeting, Including the eutries
fur throe stoke., which elueed this evening. • Now at Newuterket :
601 for 3.% r old., 64 211 s; four, fist ; Eve, Net 710 • ste and
aged, Set 121 b; T.M.M. • winger to
Dula. be
sold fur 2001., he: No.go,
Yninconl, Cipher, retlani, Hecuba,
HANDICAP SWICIPSTAItee 01 10 each, for 3-yr olds,
he., T. Y. C.: Mom Hood, Cantle', Keratin, Lloton. et. Antonio,
ibotus, lois, Ciromehm Maid, Plocinino, BOwstriug, Cartesuas,
ose*, Kanproo.
6Prknor 3•yr old colts, flet 71b., and filltee, fist 4lh ; K. M. :
Remembrance, Theraph, ?Coto, etwootria, 80 Oliver, et. Ann,
liwordPlayer, Tlppett, Athelstano.
BWarPOSTAKKet 01 10 sore tads ; for 3.yr-olds Tat 41h and
fours eat 71b. The winner to be Fold for 6111. T. V.C.-6d not MU.
liarett, 100 sore. hft • first half of Att. M. *Duke of
Bedford's het"! Welt% statist •Lord Wales's Casbier, est.
MATCH. TOO .ore.: Is ft T. Y. C. *Duke of Bedford's
Meddle, est /lb, against *Lord Eoeter's Cocos Not, Dit 1111 b.
WBIOIIIIDaY.—HANDICAP PLAT! of 60 Wyo. for Syr-olds,
tic. A.V.
JOCX EY CLUB PLATO Of 50 sOvs. for horses the proprrty o 1
members of the Joekey Club, 4-yr.oldo, 7st 21b ; five, list 31b ; de said
aged. Settee. B.C.
Sers: AAAAA bee of 10 sore. each ; fee 3-yr-ol lts, flit 71b ;
MIMI, Sot 4th. The winner-to beer& fur lOW. T. Y.O.
SheroLit fitsttes of 16 roes. each; 6 R. sod 100 added,
the seeond to rave his Make, Ike. Loot lo mile of R. C. (111 au*/ of
whom declared)l94l. Deroetri, yro, 71b;•Viotisais, 4pc sot 4lb ;
Stahl. 4 yr., Sot •flb ; •Walosyste-bar-witbout. 4 yrs. Tat Deb; •Str
Peter Laurie, 4 gra 7ot 91b; *Admiral, 4 yrs, 7ot alb ; •Ctrawsbia
maid, 4 yrs, 31b; •Itimbleowortb, 4 yrs, lot; *Paladin, 3 yrs,
eel 6th; ...word Player, t Tea, is.t.; *Lin:slow, 9 yrs, Set 21b.
CHAII1•10/4 STAN hes of 60 SOTS. each, 11 ft ; for 3.yr old
colts. Net 7lb ; mime and geld:nes. Set. Iby
and furlonp. If
at:lWO—al, by St. Fraosisosst of harbors, no by !Iceman Plata out of
Meld of Lune, • Xxntbuo, Otrotins, 'Die Munk. 'Dover. •f by Car.
' slinal Puff out of Croton!ti's dam, th cby Grand fluke out of Addl.
' gund, aleot, Sincerity, Adair (poll), Preis' Marshal (gold).
SW earnest' as ul6O soya each ; for 1 yr old mite, Set 101 h;
ehiss, est 31k; maiden horses allowed slhs. last 3 miles of D.C. (3
sub..) --Ingotdsb7 (1' h 1). Vanity, Signet, Projectile.
VRADAY.—HANDICAr BWE hi•eTAK Pa of 20 roe. each,
3 ft, if deelared ; for 3-yr olds and upwards. T.T.C.
and billies,
Of 10 DOM odd or 34-41 r old colts, fist lib ;
and Set 4lb ; the winner to be for sow. D.M.
Este AAAAAA KIS of 10 son. each ; 3-yr olds, 7,1
1b ; (our,
Set elb ; five sad upwards, Bot ; whiner to be sold tor 20 T.V.C.
SWISMITAILIS o 1 10 WWI. each, With 60 added ; for 2-yr
old colta, set 71b Set Ilb ; winner., bibs extra. T.Y.C. (21
subs.) —*Plight, *Goodwood, •Itctoll, •hipsaway Kittlerit, •Pri-reer.
•Itacketty (101, •f by Ilia ksway by
of Mum Twickenham eltodney,
elms, ere, b,y Lsdrue dont by leßyllle. be fby Veation to of
notary Gal (pd), •bsmther w Ekkm, *Chum. •hr s by tilsdtstor
dam by Discount, *Willingboro, *oh f by itariunrsy out of Agnes,
•Vranorscs, *Naos.
IdaThif, 100, lt ft. T.Y.C.—Duke of Bedford's *Mint°,
est 71b, oast Lord Clifilen'o :85whier, fat 91b.
(No day mentioned.)—Mar,
300, h ft. A.F.—Lord
Waterford's •wunot cat Lard Catalan's f by Simeont out of Coss
eandrs, est /lb each.
The races oommence to-morrow, at half-past two.

lath inttlliscrar.
ROUSE OF LORDS.
Present: The Lied asencellor, lord Brougham, Lord fteniphell, and
other Peers.
ItOWLET AND OTHERS V. AL•lea AND OTHERS, IT I CON-
TRA; AND WYATT tl. ADAM., AEU °THYIO.B.—DCTIES AND
'ALTRI-IVES Or BERCI:TORE AND TRC TT T S.—The litigation
in which these three appeals arose has been going on for 20
Lean. henry Wyatt, turenerly a brewer in Dugs business in
rortpool.lane, near Gray's lun-lane, took two of his eons,
11. Earley Wyatt end George Wyatt, into pancership
with him, in certain sine lual proportMue, prior to
1826; and by his will, made in that year, he gave all
his property to his widow and two others, Mr. Samuel
Adams and Mrs. Marks, whom he appointed his exe-
cutrix and executor, up m trust, fur the widow for her
life; and as to his treehulds and copy bolds, and kis shares is
the brewery, be gave the same among his said two sons and
his third son William, then a minor; and conceiving that he
had a surplus capital beyond his share in the brewery, I
exceeding 48,0001., he directed his said trustees to hold
13,0001. for each of his two daughters, Mrs.
thßowlor ey I
and Dint Orchard, fur their respective lives, e
pital sums on their deaths to be divided among
their children. Disputes arose after his death among the
two eons, the partners, end the executors did not prove the
untillB27 or the beginoing of 11441,:and,sthey did not inter-
fere to protect the property, but they and the partnen them•
selves supposed, oath* testator did, that it wee ample enough
to answer the hoeraciee. The disputes were ended by the
younger brother George agreeing with the consent of the
trustees to pay E. Morley Wyatt 20,000(. for his share.
Re retired from the concern, and • Mr. Thomson was faken
into the partnership. Upon the valuation then made the
concern was finial to be indebted to the amount of 7,0001.
and more. The surviving executors (the testator's widow
was then deed) filed a bill against the legatees and others for
administration of the estate. The children of Mrs. Rowley
and of Mrs. Orchard Mid a bill against the executors and
others for securing the two legacies of 13,0001. Several de-
crees and orders were made in these suits, but the appeals
complained of those only which wire made, one at the Rolls,
in 1839, one by the Lord Chancellor, in 1811, and a final
decree at tho Rolls in 1845, upon exceptions to the Master's
report, and further eirectious. (See 7 Bateau, 395 and 548,
and 4 Myl. and Cr., 534.)
Mr. Betbell, the leading counsel for the legatees, was
heard on their behalf op to the rising of the house at four
o'clock. The hearing will probably occupy the house for
two days more. The principal question raised in the appeals
is whether the executors were not guilty of wilful default,
and therefore personally chargeable with the lose sustained
by their not possessing themselves of the property at the
testator's death.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before vieseheneelior Knight Bruce.
SKINNER V. Kr DoUALL. PLEADINO STATUTE OP
FRAUDS.— file V ice• Chan. ellor gave judgment in this case,
which was a suit for the specific performance of an agree-
ment between the plaintiff and the defendant for the pur-
chase by the latter of a leasehold house in Stratton street,
Piccadilly. It appeared that negotiations had taken place
between the defendant and a house agent named Reily, in
the course ot which the former stated to Mr. Redly that he
would be willing to pay a premium of 250/., and that after-
wards, in answer t a communication from Mr. Belly, the
defendant wrote end a rat to him a letter containing the fol-
lowing passage : " 1 have no objection to give 501. more of
premium for the lease, and take the fixtures and furniture
at a valuation, provided I get the profit rent of the present
tenant." Mr. Roily wrote an answer to say he was autho-
rised by the plaintiff to accept the terms. The defendant,
by his answer in the suit, submitted that this was not a
binding agreement, but he did not expressly claim the benefit
of the Statute of Frauds.—His Honour considered that
upon the pleadings and the evidence there was no doubt hut
that by the phrase " :Al. more of premium," the defendant
meant to offer 3001. and the only question was whether the
plaintiff was eetitled to the Name relief as if this had been
so expressed in the letter relied upon I Although the point
was not clear, and without saying how the ctse might have
stood if the Statute of Frauds had beset insisted upon in the
answer, his Honour's opinion was, upon this record, in
favour of the plaintiff.
CORPORATION OF ROCHESTER o. Les.—TOLLE.—His
Honour elan gave judgment in this case, which came on to I
be heard some time since, upon a motion for a new trial of
an issue directed by his Homier. The issue directed to be
tried was, whee.,er the plaintiffs, ea the owners of the port
of the city of 11,iehester, were, on the 7th of August, 1845,
lawfully entitled to demand the toll of 301. for every ton
weight of coals brought by water tn, and unloaded within,
the said port of the said city (pa)able by the person or per-
sons bringing such culla by water in any ship or vessel to
and unloading the ALMS VOll,ll within the said port of the
said city h for the weighing of the mild coals, or being ready
and willing to weigh the same. The issue was tried on the
11th of February last, when the jury found g Ily for
the defendant, and specially that the corporation were not,
as owners of the port of tne city of Rochester, entitled to
the due claimed by them on male imported for sale, but not
for consumption, for the weighing or b, tog ready and willing
to weigh the same. The deli ndant, who imported large
quantities of coal for his own use an
the due , d consumption in
ground
that the c irporation had no right to the due at all, or
that if they had any such right, it was only on coals
imported into Rochester for sale, and not for one
and consuivp.ion. One of the principal points involved in
the ease was whether the plaintiffs had made themselves out
to be owners of the port of the city of Rochester. At the
trial of the issue, the corporation produced extracts from
"Doomsday Survey," the " Pipe Rolle," and the charters to
the corporation, to show that they had been immemorially
possessed of the cif), of If...chewer, the limits thereof by water
extending from Sheerness to Hswkwood, a distance of about
30 mikes, in fee farm, and contended that the grants in the
charters Were ample enough to carry everything that the
crown eould by possibility mimes or grant away, thoubh
without granting the port to 'tontine. They also produced
the account banes of the corporation (227 in number) and
parol evidence to prove a eoniin•ions and uninterrupted
receipt by them from the year
18 do
1573,d0wn to the commence-
ment oshe reeieranee, 41, of the due in question
on all coals imported into and =boded within
the city and port Groin eheerntes to Hawkwood), including
coals imported for consumption in lime-burain in
rdbricks of.
making, in vaa-works, in the government dockya
Chatham and Sheerness, and on stale Imported by the Tun-
bridge Company, and tarried through the city and port by

wafra to Maidstone, 'f unbnoge, and inner place., au slough
set sold within the city or port, or nusanred or weighed.
Thal7atilien foe a new trial was argued at great length, and
tin thus days, by the Attorney-General, Mr. Russell,
Mr. olasertart and Me, W. D. Lewis, for the corporation ;
and by Sir r. flair; Mr. Witham, Mr. fihapter, and Mr.
Bovill, tor tie aelwallie.s.—Sla Moamar now said that the
question appeared fitheraff** le ha mbilher the chugs of
the Lord Chief Herm *a jag Maim trial was as had
been contended as bola Of Ibe smgamaMila &fedi'''. or
otherwise open to ohjection ;fur, on thet semiarid's. el the
whole of the evidence, his Holum tllnneht Wipe
wee no ground fur directing a new trial lobs lb
charge was shown to have been defective or objeaMerb
able. Now his Honour Mond himself unable to say that
the plai• tiffs were entitled to complain of the charge.
Ths most plausible objection urged was, that the law had not
been sufficiently mud by his lorship to the jury. That
objection, however, failed ; for eases ere eked and com-
mented upon, and his Honour had been unable to discove
or,f
that the Lord Chief Baron bad exprimed any opinion
which the plaintiffs could complain ; our did his Honour lind
that any matter of fact in contention was withlidrawn
berty from
to
the consideration of the jury, who were left at
draw such inter/nee from the facts proved as they thought
proper. The learned judge had told the jury that there wu
some evidence of the existence of a port as contended for by
the plaiatiffs, but that such evidence was insuffici adducedhlkh the fact, opposed as it was by the evidence in
support of the negative. That was also his Honour's opinion
of the effect and force of the evidence. His Honour thougheht
that, upon the evidence, both oral and documentary, t
plaintiffs failed to establish their title as owners of a port of
the city of Rochester, and saw no judicial grounds for dis-
turbing the verdict with which his Honour had ascertained
from the Lord Chief Baron, that his lordship win well satis-
fied. The defendant's outs must he costs in the cause ; and
the bill should be ultimately dismissed, its dismissal would
be scoompenied by a declaration protesting it from having
any undue afire', or prejudicing any claim which ought not
to be prejudiced by the &charm.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
HILTON V. EA !IL 0 KAN Mt.!. -In this case, which was
• trial at bar. and the facts ot whch will he in the remem-
brance of our readers, the plainiiff, who was the owner of
two boners in Union-street, Hanley, Neweeatlemnder Lyne,
sought to recover compensation in damages for iejuries on,
to his property by the detendant, in negligently working
ceruin coal and Iron mines, by reason of which the plain-
tiff's hones were thrown down. Almcet the entire strict
had shared • r
ight,,te, and this cue was selected to
the
,le gumption of it being contended on behalf of the
defendant, who had a lease of the manor from the crown,
granted in 11539, for the purposes of mining, that a
special custom existed, by which he was at liberty
to work his mine notwithstanding the injury it
might inflict on the owners of the property
the surlsoe. issue, were raised upon the reo.rii, and on
the jury found • verdict for the plaintiff, on the heat and
second (the latter involving the querion of negligent work
ing of the mine), and for the defendant on the remaining
issues, applying to the custom. &c. The Attorney-General
sabsequently obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff to shoo
saute why the verdict should not be entered for the defen-
dant on the two first issues. Mr. Serjeant Talluurd, Sir F.
Kelly, Mr. Oodson, QC., Mr. Steiner and Mr. Brown, were
now hi and against the rule, and the Attorney-Oeneral, Sir
F. Theviger, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Peacock, and the lion Leveson
Gower, in suppart of it. The argument occupied the entire
day, but involved only some dry questions of law. The
wart took time to consider its judirment.

BAIL COURT.
tutting. In beneo berme Mr. Justice Erle.
EK TART It NoUVAL.—UUtINTY Cunt i'IIACTICE.—Mr.
Parry moved fur a rule to show cause why a writ
of prohibition should not issue, directed to G. Chil-
ton, b: q., the judge of the Is imbeth County Court,
to restrain him from isauibg a warrant of possession
under the following circumstance : The plaintiffs in
the ease were Mr. Pearson and Mr. Yates, the executors of
a Mr. Tentyman, whose tenant the defendant was. An at
tion had been brought to recover possesahn of the house in
whisk the defendant lived so far beak as June, 1847, but no
warrant of poasseain had yet been issued. By the 122nd
section of the new County Courts Act the judge had power
upon the hearing of the case to grant a warrant, and he (Mr.
Parry) contended that the word •' upon " MOW be co
held, anstru nd
ed
as meaning on the very day.on which the court was
not within a reasonable time after, therefore the judge
could nut now issue a warrant of possession. In support of
this view of the matter the learned counsel referred to the
cu of " Rea a. klumphr " (10 Adolphus & been The
defendant in his affidaviety swore that he had to the
clerk of the court to know whether there was any warrant
in existenoe against him, but that functionary had refused to
give him any information. The object of the present appli-
cation was that this warrant, which now hung
in terrorem over the head of the defendant,
might be put an end to.—Mr. Justice Eels : You wish
me to prevent the judge from taking what would now be an
illegal step, when there is no ground for supposing that he
would do so T—Mr. Parry felt there was that ditfieulty in the
case, but his client win apprehensive of being turned out of
his house by the plaintiffs, and then he would have no re-
medy but by an action —Mr. Justice Erie said, even if hie
view of the meaning of the word " upon" were the same as
, that of the learned cowmen's, still the rule ought to be re-
fused, as there WAS no foundation for thinking that the judge
intended to issue his wareant.—Rule refused.

COURT OW hP COps lnM MON PLEAS.
o
JaItRETT V. IttliteEnT.—LtattiLlTY OY RAILWAY DI.
nac-tona.—This ease was tried before Mr. Justice Maude at
the sittings in Middlesex in the presenStetm, and • verdict
was found for the plaintiff, damag lOs. It was
action for money had and received, brought by an *Dottie of
shares in the Direct Manchester, Leeds, and York ft:away
Company, against a provisional and managing committee-
man of the company to recover his deposits. At the trial it
was proved that the consent of the defendant to act as a
committeeman was registered on Dec. 2, 1845, and that he
acted as a managing direvor at meetings on the Ist, 3rd, and
4th of November. On the 4th of, November 15 shares wets
allotted to the plaintiff, and a letter of allotment sent bias
was put in and read, but the only part that became material
was, " That scrip for shares would be delivered in exchange
for the letter and banker's receipt upon the executiod of the
parliamentary contract and subscribers' cnn'rect, sill that the
&reds would li., tor signature on Nov. 13." On Nov. 14,
the plaintiff paid his deposits. The defendant, in eonjusic-
lion with some other gentlemen connected with the com-
pany, hail gone over the line and returned to town on 29th
November, and made a report of what they had seen. On
the 30th the plans and sections were deposited with the
Board of Trade, and the rending orders so tar complied
, with. On the Bth December the report was made ; it was
I not signed by the defendant, but he moved its adoption. It
I appeared from this report that there had been two engineers
to the company: the tint of theta, Mr. Blunt, had expressed •
his surprise that the company shou'd have proceeded with
the survey, although he could do it, but tie believed that the
capital would nut be sufficient to complete, half the line.
Mr. Bill, another engineer, was subsequently apteinted, and '
completed the survey. It went en to say, that the difficulties I
of the line were far g than was stated in the prespectus„
and that the statements contained in it were false; that the
engineer knew nothinw about the line when he said that the i
capital was adequate; that the names of noblemen and Rinds-
men had been placed on the committee without their being -
consulted, while the names of publicans and *mall sh tp. 1
keepers had also been inserted as those of persons ot intiu ,nce;
that the engineering difficulties were great; and whereas it was t
stated in the prospectus that a preliminary survey had been i
made, and that all tunnels had been avoided, it was with 3
some difficulty that the number of tunnels had been reduced
to three ; anti that In the neighbourhood of L cds the scheme p,
was considered a bubble. It also stated that it had been 4
proposed to the committee to shoo don the project, but that I!
would be fir the meeting to decide; it however concluded y'
with urging its being proceeded with. Tois rep rat was pu.
in to show that the defendant was a piety to the false state
menu. Two letters front the secretary to the p.aintiff were
also put in. The first, dated 18th February. 1816, stated
that the deposits held on shares tot being sufficient to pay
the deposit required l.y the standing orders to be mule with
the Accountant-General, the bill must stand over to the next
session, and that the shareholders' di plaits would be retorted,
leas a few shillings a share for expenses. The other, of Oih
July, 1846, stated "that every A ffort had been made te
compel the provisional committee to contribute to the ex.
pens s, and the moment there were sufficient funds they would ;
all be paid. It was hoped that the plaintiff would not proceed i,
against any of the maneging committee, a• thi y had already .1
paid large sums out of their own p abets." Its ppeared the de- 6,"
fendant had p kid 300 f. The learned judge lel
tit to thej tiry to aj
say whether there was any freud in not m:painting i he plaintiff:
with the contents of the report, which impugns d the pro. 4:
spectus on which he had taken shares, and also whether it a
was an abortive undertaking.-11r. Serjeant Bytes now
moved for a ear to show cause why the verdict fur the
plaintiff should not he set aidoe, and the verdict entered for
the defendant, lie C. atended that this was not ii case in
which an action for money had and received could be main-
i
taMed; on the ground—firstly, that there was no fraud before '
the 4.11 of November, and the allotment of shares accepted
by the plaintiff was a valid contract • secondly, that there I
was no prod that the fraud had been practised by the de- '
1 fendant personally, that he had rather been deceived him-
self, and, if there was any fraud, it was the act of the cow-
-1 Mittel., and did not affect him so as to render him personally
liable ; thirdly, that there was no roof that he had ever
seen the fraudteetit prospectus; and lopurthiy, that the pro.
lject was not such an abortive project RA to entitle the plaintiff
to remain r beck his depmitc—The court mid they would see
Mr. Juatice Manic before they deci ied on the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Kuban in Ininc°'
Antiewcw OP OWN...ISL.—In consequence of the absence
of counsel in several special ewe which were tire for he
ew
ar-
ing yesterday, the argument& were postponed.d f
eases disposed of, up to half-past two o'clock, afforded no ma-
terial• for a new-paper report.
Mr. Boren Parke commented bri. fly on tbe irregularity
of counsel's attendance, whenever sp. cial cives or demurrers
were to be arguer' in that c .arts. It so happen( d that in some
instances learned gentlemen alleged a • their excuse that they
were unprepared, and in many cases, as in wet ral of dime then
called, trove was no counsel for either of the parties, although
their professional services had been retained.—The Lord Chief
Baron said, for bis own part he was disposed to lay dowu a
strict rule, such as that invariably acted an at Nisi Piaui, that
the business of the court should be proceeded with regularly,
without consulting the convenience of any gentleman of the
bar. It was a great Injustice to suitors that learned gentlemen
should be absent when their services were required. They
' shoula refi,ct, when they accepted briefs, whether they
would be able to.discharge the duties they owed their clients.
He hoped the other members of the court would concur with