The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-29 00:00:00

preceded by a high continental reputation, and already
on in this country by several published works of great
merit, his arrival canted much interest in metical circles,
and his concert stow teal a very cronded audience. Ile is
certainly owe of the met accomplished performers we have
ever heard, combining the manual strength and brilliant
execution of the modern school with the slid and
regular style of the older masters. The sonata de-
cheated to Chopia, of which he played the first
movement, is not unworthy of Beethoven, being sym-
ssehrisal in design, and lull of melody, fire, and passion.
His caprice on natioaal riJhemino airs contains a fine speci-
men of the music of his country, admirably treated. SVe
pawns a copy of this elrgsnt piece, and recommend it to our
musical readers, who will find in it the beauties of the mo-
dern school of pianoforte playing, without its extravagance.
M. Schalhoff had the aeastance of the Messrs. Helmesberger,
the Mimics Williams, Miss Bataan°, Madlle. Vera, Madame
Mseferren, and other eminent performers, wham talents con-
tributed to produce a very agreeable concert.

an inquiry as to the balances in the hands of Edward
Allfrey, with a view to future adjudication, and the
muter must have liberty to state special circumstances,
particularly u to loss of documents aid evidence.

Before the The-Chaneellor of England.
WHINLDON V. THS NORTH STAPPORDSHIRS RAILWAY
C MOTION FOR AN INJCNCTION TO HISTRAIN
THS COMPANY PROM TARING LAND WITHOUT PATMINT
OP THE PURCHASI MONEY.—This was MD application for an
injunction to restrain the North Staffordshire Railway Com-
pany from continuing in the possession of a mansion-house
and 12 acres of land, called the Fenton-grove-bouse," until
the y should have paid the purchase money or deposited the
amount in the bank, under the provisions of the act of par-
liament. It appeared that the railway company hail con-
tracted for the purchase of the property, for the sum of
10,5001., and the timber upon the estate wu also to
be paid for by the company. After the notice
of motion for this injunction had been given, the
company paid the purchase money into the Bank,
but did not pay in the value of the timber, which
amounted to 2101.—Mr. Stuart and Mr. Campbell, in sup•
port of the motion, contended that the railway company had
not paid the money according to the directions of the act of
parliiment ; that they ought to have paid it to the plaintiffs
themselves ; and that the plaintiffs were therefore entitl'd to
the injunction. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Melina, fur the company,
contended that as there was a mortgage upon one-fourth of
the plaintifrs property, WI effectual release for the purchase
money could not be given, sod that they were justified under
the net of parliament, in paying the money into the bank.
The Vice-Chancellor said he thought the case was one in
which the company would have been justified in paying in
the whole amount for nurchase money and for the timber.
He should, however, allow the motion to stand over till to-
morrow, to sire the company an opportunity of paying in
the money, in which cave there would be no necessity for
- the injunction.

CLERICAL
MAT 27.—The theme ter petheated the Bee. A. Hal-
tett to the eh .rge and cake of first minister of the march and pas tab
of otitis, a thr presbytery of thecith mad Wee at Angus, vacant
by the death at the Rev. N. bliarren.—Geseete.

NAVAL.
PORTMIOrin, Mar 2$ —I love, HO. Capt. NT J. Ildrtingorse brought
!pithead tail morainic by the Terrible, atl., is company with the
Birtrntieal rate.-.h. The Howe, we understand. kr MO dar sea
her fitting. eqn lie with the St. Vincent or any &Arr. ehip. want-
ing men and practice only to render her a perfect ship. She now
awaits orders in comp inn with the St. Vincent, Terrible, end ittrken•
itr, rt. towed out of harbour this morning a drie Vain, the
Herefordshire for New York, sea afterwards proceeded on her voyage
to the eastward.

SPORTING.
MANCHESTER RACE.4.—FRMAT.
RATLIWAT STARK. 0110 00•6. Mel, ft, and 40 added lor 2-yr olds,
fia 71b, sad thige,list 101 b; fillies 31b. Three-cmarters of a
male. :3 sobs.)
11
Mr. Green's Pet of the Fancy
Mr. Meiklam's Otterburn
11
Mr. Lulle's Tweed
tisi.rent• Boaosurt Cur of 100 AMR, added to a handl.. 0 WI
lam earn, 5 tt„ and 3 only if &eland. One mile and • MIL (0
subs, 16 of whom declared.)
Lord The.ternes Lad/ Wildalr, ;.t 00 Nat) I
ltr
Mr. (*Ahead. 41b
Mr. Worthington's Sbarston, _- * ... (Whitehouse) 3
The following also start, d :—L4thtedag, Sheraton, The Slayer's
Daughter, Jack Code, romance, Alba, and &motor. Won by half
a larigth.
NEWTON (LANCASIIIRE) R 10ES.—Tittasoar.
Sr. Lrop Spans, of 20 saes mob, with 30 added; far cob., fat
7lb ; and Inligs, 6s; 21b. One mile and a half. 4 gobs.
Mr. Skelmerdiue's Walongate Bar Without ...(0. Whitshoute) 1
Mr. I. faborne's br e by Inheritor, out of Tian, (Marlow) 2
Mr J. Corartfis Ydstrard.) 3
Beam: I to I apt Walnigaie Bar, 5 to 1 apt Inheritor e, and 6 to
4 apt DiAboug. Won by a length. Run in two minutes tifty.seven
woods.
Oot.t.oen a tie ear.., of Woo,. each. and 50 added, for tan-Yr-old mil&
0,1 alb; and Illiies.l44 'lb. Gotham. eaurse. to subs.
Lord Odedon's 4hylock ........... . 'Marlow) 1
Mr. T. II 11•000'1 named The Stnniard
The followdag aNn ran : S,r J. Gerard's Matodore, Slr. W
ton's br e by at .rles Nll. out of Manilla, Mr. Mammon's=
Morning Star out of Lady Frances, Mr. S. Standl.ih's Emma.
Sating : 6 to 1 apt Manilla colt, 2 to 1 apt Sbyloek, 3 to 1 apt
Matstiure, and 4 to 1 apt The Spaniard. Woe easily by • le. gth.
Bs
In fifty-four strata.
Gnaws uou Hear Praxes of 10 nom each, 3 It, for hunter., 13ot alb.
Two miles. 0 oda.
Mr. R. T. Gerard ad Harbortiorh
Ilototani err of 104 ram,nelded to • 101440 of 15 ton molt, 3 lt.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
BARILET V. KEMP.—A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF
SCRIP CERTIFICATES OP A COMPANY NOT FORMED HT
ACT OP PARLIAMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY ILLEGAL.—
The declaration in this case substantially complained of the
noniseceptance of "certain shares or aliquot part of, and in,
certain joint stock companies, into which thanes or aliquot
parts the rights and property of the said companies were
treated as being divided, and which said shares then were
the au' ject of tale and traffic, and were transferred by the
delivery of certain certificates called scrip certificates." The
plea stated that the companies in the declaration named were
formed after the lit of November, 1841, and were not com-
pletely registeted or incorporated by iirt of parliament or
charter. The replication 'tatted that the companies were
constituted for the execution of works requiring the consent
of parliament. To this replication there was a demurrer,
which resolved itself into the question whether the declare-
lion was good. Several objections of a very special nature
wee, raised to thc mode in which the contract and the breach
of it were stated ; but the supposed infirmity chiefly relied
on was the statement of the consideration. Alto this it was
urged by Mr. Flood, in supp -we of the demurrer, that the con-
' siderat ion was impossible, because as thc consent of all the part-
' nem to be such is the very essence of a pattnorship, an interest in
a partnership contract. like nn interest in a marriage contract,
was uumnignable ; and, sec ndly, that the consideration was
I illegal, because the issue of transferable stock by a private
association was an unlawful usurpation of corporate rights
that could only be conferred by an act of parliament or a
charter, because it was an interference with the currency,
and in cause bargains in such stock were in fact wagers on
the event of a hill before parlian:ent.—Mr. Rew, for the
plaintiff, had made some observations, when he was stopped
by the Corot, which intimated an opinion that the only
point in the case was whether a contract for the S Ile of
transferable shares in a company not formed by act of par-
liament, was necessarily illegal. No authority -ad been
adduced to show that it was, and on the other hand, in two
I recent Gees in the Court of Exchequer, actions on such
shares had been supported. With regard to the lanieuage of
the declaration, the phraseology of railway transictions was
now as much a part of the English tongue as anything to to
found in " Johnson's Dictionary."—Judgment for the
plaintiff.
Gomm( v. WATTS.—WHEN BLANKS ARE LEFT IN A
Darn FOR THE DAT ON WHICH A PAYMENT IS TO ICE MADE
IN A OITEN YEAR, A DAY OF WHICH REASONABLE NOTICE
TS GIVEN IS MEANT.—This was an action on a covenant in a
mortgage deed. by which the defendant covenanted to pay
sum -of 1,3001. on "the day of , 1845." Hea
had craved oyer of the deed, and had demurred on the
around that the covenant wait insensible and, therefore, void,
the blanks not having been filled up. Mr. Prentice was heard
in supportof the demurrer. Mr. Willes, for the plaintiff,
was stopped by
Lord Denman, who said : This defendant seeks to relieve
himself from raying a sum of 13001., which he has received,
by saying that his own deed is void. We will help him to
bc an honest man. Whatever the parties may have intended
when they give instructions for this deed, it is plain that
when they executed it, they fixed the year in which the
payment wan to be made, and left the day uncertain, There
u, under such circumstances, a mode of making that day
rrtain, pointed out by Lord Coke; it is by giving reason.
able notice of some day within the year, or other period Co
fixed. The declara'ion sufficiently chews that this was done.
and our judgment, therefore. must be for the plaintiff.
The other judges concurred. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Ono It 'lle and • bat. NIS.
Sir J. Gerard'.. Morocco, 4 yrs, 7in (W. Ahdale) 1
Mr. Copeland'. Arthur, 5 yr*, let 91b (G. Whitebait.)
The following also ran Mr. Clarke's Maid of Lyme. 4 yeti lat Mb ;
Mr. Flintoff a Princess Re: .1. 5 yrs, Tat 21b ; Mr. Waller's eolumbna,
5 yr., Tat; and Mr. Melkianes rtribstane, 4 yrs, fiat 1016.
Betting: 7 13 4 art Pr liars lk.ral, sto 2 ear-hart Morocco and
Arthur, 4 to I art Softat,e. sto 1 art Maid of Insley, and 6to I
art (laiornbas.—Wun by In If a length. Run in 2 min. 53 ace.
braxas of 10 SW. each, 3 rt. Winner to be sold for 2001.
One mile and a half. 6 subs.
Sir J. Clerard's Parma:ad Motion, 5 na, I lst 1016 lOornerl I
Mr. Legh nd Ratcliffe, 6 yra, I2st. 21b (Mr. Moore) 2
Sir J. GerarWs The Snob .5 via, 1 Ist bib (Mr. e. Bruoke) S
Mr. T. T. Parker nil Fair Itik.amond, 6 Test 12•1. Sib . (Mr. Parker 4
Won in a canter.

'Lab) Entrlliamce.
EQUITY COURTS.
&fire the [not Clieneetkm
THE EXETER AND Carol cox ItAILWAT COMPANY e.
HULLER AND OTHERS. —THE NARROW AND BROAD GAUGE
AGAIN.—CONTLET BETWEEN TWO CORPARIEIL—Tdis was
a motion by way of appeal from a decision of the Vice-
Chancellor, and the object of it was to have the bill which
was filed for an injunction taken off the file, on the ground
that it was filed without the sanction of the majority of the
company, although it professed to bare been a bill by three
of the directors on behalf of themselves and the other pro-
prietors except the defendants, who were oven of the
dirutors. The facts which led to the contest bet..rren dif-
ferent members of the same company, one party wishing to
least or sell the line to the Bristol and Exeter Company
with the braid (gauge, and the ether party preferring •
junction with tut Tow Yfeo Company and the narrow
gauge, were stated in the report in this journal last
Wednesday. The Vice-Chancellor rented the motion be-
cause it did not appear to his honour that the company
had sanctioned the suit, and his honour recommended to the
plaintiffs to convene a general meeting of the proprietors to
ascertain their wish. Mr. Holt and, Mr. Follett were now
heard in rupport of the appeal motion.
The Lord Chancellor, without hearing the counsel on the
other side, stated the allegations in the bill, and after refer-
ring to clauses in the act constituting the company, expressed
his approbation of the view which the Vior-Chancellor had
taken of them. His lordthio having dismissed the applica-
tion, a discussion took place as to the costs, the result of
which was, as we understood, that his lordship dismissed the
motion with costs, with liberty to either party is apply to
the court on that subject.
PERRY O. MEADOR CILOFT.—QVIDITION or LIOITISI %CY
AFTER NULLITY Or THE MARKIAOI OF THE PARENTS.—
Mr. Bethel' stated the nature of this Cu., which came before
the court upon appeal from an order of the Mester of the
Rolls. As the learned counsal had not proceeded far when
the court rose, adjourning the further hearing to next Wed-
nesday, we reserve WI then the full statement of the case.

BAIL COURT.
pen*.—Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.
Trtoursom e. BLUNT.—RzcoTERtato or DEroerre Olf
RAILWAY STIARIYI BY AN ALLO/TER.--Mr.Wataon and Mr.
Unthank appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Skinner for the
de'endant.—The plaintitiwas secretary to an insurance com-
pany, and the defendant was the chairman of the managing
committee of a defunct scheme called the Direct Binning-
ham, Oxford, Reading, and Brighton Railway, and the
action was brought to recover the rum of 621. 10s., amount
of deposits paid on 20 shares. Thee ise for the plaintiff was
founded on the authority of the well•known ease of " Wal-
stab e. Spottiswoode," in which it was decided that such
depx.its were recoverable •under similar circumstances.
Proof of the defendant's liability haring been given, a ver-
dict for the plaintiff was taken by consent, on coadition that
execution was stayed for three months.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before the Muter of the Bella. Menge Is Basco.
ALLFREY r. ALLFILEY.—OPENING SETTLED ACCOUNTS. POWELL O. BRADBURY AND EVANB.—DISCOVERY.—Thin
—The Master of the Rolls in giving judgment in this au, was an action by the formerly sub-editor of the Daily
which wu heard before him some time store, said the bill News, 'drained the proprietors of that journal, for dis-
was filed by Mr. Allfrey, °tie of the children of George missing him from their service without reasonable and pro-
Allfrey, against the execute» of Edward Allfrey, who was hable cause. The de Pendants pleaded that they did not
the personal representative of George Allfrey, end sgairtat the promise to employ the plaintiff, and that they did not dismiss
children of George Allfrey, who were living, and the repre- him without good and sufficient cause. There was also a
'tentative% of those who were dead. The bill peeled that a plea of justification.—. Mr. Huddlestone applied on Thursday
settlement of accounts might he declared invalid, and that an for a rule to show muse why the plaintiff should net be at
account migle be taken of the estate of George Allfrey, pea. liberty to obtain a copy of the original report furnished by the
+used by Eiward Allfrey, and of balances in his hands with correspondent at Bristol, Monier that he might be enabled to
half-yearly rents. George Allfrey died intestate is 1802; compare it with the altered report which had appeared
leaving a widow rod five children; and Edward Allfrey was in the paper. A similar application had alrealy been made
his brother. The plaintiff was born after the death of his to Mr. Justice Manic at chambers, and that learned judge
father. Edward Allfrey, on the representation made by him had refused to grant the order. The ground upon which the
to the Eceleeitutiesl Court that George had left no widow or present motion less sought to be supported was, that several
children, obt ,ined letters of administration of his estate to be witnesses would be called at the trial to prove that the report
granted to him ; and he procured himself to be admitted to in queetinn had been properly abridged by the plaintiff in
certain copyhold estates to which the plaintiff, sa the youngest his capacity of sub-editor; and it would save the court and
son, was entitled by descent. Edward Allfrey also acted Pay a great deal of time if those witnesses were allowed to
as • kind of guardian or protector to the plaintiff enmpere the original report and the report which was
and his brothers and sisters daring their minority. alleged to have been garbled. The learned counsel
It was stated by the defendants, in their answer, that Ed. stated, that when he applied to Mr. Justice Made
ward Allfrey only acquired a netaral and proper influence at chymbers, be had cited some authorities upon
seer the plaintiff. But the facts admitted by them were the subject from " Arehbold's Practice;" but it did
such that he considered that Edward Allfrey stood in loco net appear that they were sufficient to establish the plaits.
parentis to the plaintiff. Edward Allfrey managed the in- tiff's right to the privilege he sought to obtain. Ile would
testate's estate, and he kept accounts and made occasional neer refer the court to the case of " Barry v. Alexander,"
investments of the balances in hand, anal he settled accounts (Tidd's Practice, p. 02), in which Lord Mansfi Id had said
with each of the children as they respectively attained 21, that, " whenever a party would be entitled to a diaeovery.
The plaintiff attained 21 in September, 1822, and accounts he should have it without going into equity."
were delivered to him, showing a balance duo to him of The Lord Chief Justice said, that if the court were to ex-
-171. 125., and the plaintiff said, that at the instigation of ercise that equitable jurisdiction, the defendants would be
Edward Allfrey, he wrote a memorandum at the foot of one compelled to give the discovery without such an explanation
of the accounts to the effect that the accounts were eatisfse. as would be necessary in equity. He apprehended, how.
tory. This niemorindem was in the plaintiff** ens hand- ever, that no witnesses could be examined upon the point
writing, and was signed by him and in Janne,' 18M • he suggested, the question being one to be decided according to
received from Edward Allfrey the balance of IV: 'lb. El. the judgment of the jury.
ward Allfrey died in June, 1831, and the dehndants, lisit. Mr. Huddlestoue submitted that the abridgment of a
fraret Allfrey, his widow ; Robert Allfrey, his son • all escort wa a matter in which it would be necessary to hear
George Allfrey the eldest son of the intestate, Own; Al-the evidence of practical men.
frey, were his legal personal representatives, sad the The court decided that in the present are there would be
defendant, George Allfrey, had also become its We no necessity for uncle evidence, and that, therefore, the rule
personal representative of hi. father. The plaintiff, man be refuted.—Role retested.
who was a barrister, was allowed, by the exiteu• PARSONS T. GiNoELL.—A Mottos Lure AT A LIVERY
tors of Edward Affray,. to examine his accounts, STABLE LIABLE TO REARIZED FOR THE STABLEBBEFER'S
and he alleged that he had discovered errors of such &nature Resr—This cue came before the court upon demurrer to
as to manifest misrepresentation and fraud. The exeentors • plea. It was an action of replevin for • horse, which hat
seemed to have been willing to correct the mistakes, but not been left by the plaintiff at • certain livery-stable, and which
to afford to the plaintiff all the relief which he demanded ; the defendant, in his capacity of broker, had seised, in Ivry.
and the latter filed this hill to Impeach the 'eel:tants more tag a distress upon the goods of the landlord of the stables.
than forty years after the death of George Allfrey, nine The defendant pleaded that he was justified by his
years after the death of Edward Allfrey, and three years ,DIFRisiTICS. and the plaintiff had put in a plea in
after he first discovered the errors ; and he insisted that he her to which the defendant demurred. Mr. Serjeant
was not bound by the accounts at all. There was not, and Chan/nil and Mr. Bramwell appeared in support of
Mild not, be any evidence of the circumstances under which the demurrer ; and Mr. Pickering against it. The
dr pishatiff signed the memorandum at the foot of the qneetion was, whether or not there was anything to
eienemL But, looking at the relation between the plaintiff exempt a horse at livery from the operation of the general
eat Edward Allfrey, and the errors admitted to be in the low of dieter's, as the ease did not come within either of the
he thoueht the accounts could not be supported. exceptional class of eases. According to the law upon the
=era might have been without any intention to mis- wattle», goods which were "in comae of sale," is inereban.
✓ousessat ; and it was to he observed that they were not all dew an a wharf or in a warehouse were not liable to be
ea Or Mon side ; but some of the entries were fictitious, seised for the rent of the person employed to sell such goods.
gni wine, in feet, wilful misstatements, for the purpose The court held that the same argument would not apply to
eminently of making up the acroants • This was done to the present case, as it could not he said that a horse at livery
Mei en extent that whatever the intention might have been, was "in course of sale ;" and there was nothing to distinptish
ibe asmems ark be samillang improper, and, in the esti_ the ease from that of "Francis e. Wyatt" (2 Burrow's
neaMeindlleberenneelleenieinefla And he also thought that Reveals, 1498). Judgment must therefore be for the
Iheraiiiisa alba war Ims mob that the accounts could not defendant.
be finally settled in the manner adopted. Edward Allfrey v Mr. AIM' ee Willimv and • Ceenns
ought to hove called the errors to the attention of the party 6 11,1*IPP"r`‘ON'ITRPeCnrCETNAlt. I).—The hearing of this eameo.wjauris 're-
with whom he we, settling the account, and to have pee- earned this morning, the facts of which, so fur as they came
served evidence that he had done so. An amount containing ant in evidence, were given in oar paper of reetertlay
such errors as these, and settled between parties no related' Mr I H. Sereouthe. • clerk in the office of the Solicitor
could not be maintained. And there w facts enough in of StaM ps, wee called, on the port of the plaintiff, and proved
the case to show that the memorandum was not written and that it lees put of his duty to affix the proper stomps to
signed after a fair investigation of the accounts, or atomised otherwise
than under the influence of Edward Allfrey, and that dat deeds presented to he ped at the commissioners' office
at Sernerwehouee after Push deeds had been executed. From
influence must have continued when the balance wan paid the faint remains of e"rtaie pencil marks placed by the wit.
over. This accounted ter the acquiescence of the plaintiff ness neer the dote of the deed in question in this cue when
in the amounts for so long a period, and the Particular errors
did not appear to have been di, covered by him till the time it ens sent to him to be stamped on the 22nd of March last,
he bail no doubt Shot a memorial had been madi to the
alleged by the plaintiff; nor did it appear that the accounts
could have been examined by him in the lifetime of Edward Cemiwioners of Stamm for the remiedon of the
.penalty
Allfrey; and though lus bed no doubt that the executors of which had supervened by re-seen of the deed not having been
resent, el to he stamped within BO days after its date and
Edward Allfrey would have •Ilowed the plaintiff to examine
lire; ttehm, and that the penalty had been remitted. He be-
the,. wit .
destroy the
that It was the practice of the commission-
omission
teat antaakearliek.
aarLeariato let lee did
.. nor t
.tahincleactle.
dimeneacept from the pencil marks to
st...
to
bah..
Th.,.
...
citc.=
whicht circus,-
alone. o.7zany thedmernorisle mule to them on ouch nen-
made, state on any ether ground
te show that eke plaintiff had formed too great expectations wich referencocenhl
presented in this case.—Mr. Bre-
athe benefit to be derived from opening the amounts, ana that a risme» il baud %ren
be thought be would do well to compromise his claim. But leant IVilletne wit,
ince of the last witness from the stamp.
be was swum la she WOW** he caked, and there must be miteed that the °eel the je" for the dertedeet'"d "h"

;v ' • •••.