The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-16 00:00:00

SPORTING.
swot/BAIL COURSING MISETING.—Fatter.
CCP wag won by Mr. B. Muyth's euesia, Mr. Durkin:edit Bak-
*Wish MS 110.
Dauer war woe by /J r. paeker?ftlei 81.100anfdte. Yr. R.Bagge's
*W. ...-o ran nu:
OAK drama litre won by Mr. R. Nisei Twilitht. Mr. Gurnai'i
Amy being drawn.
BARTON-UPON-11VMM M/XTVG..-Faiirar.
Allan &TAXIS (IR don), were won by str. T. Duekle's Prime.
Mr. J. Hutchiaeon't Fipanker ran up.
&Aim fur It mingle., were woo by Mn. Gunning's Lull Bertram.
Mr. Mapes's Molly ran up.
Itorn.um CV! (16 dop), ens won t y Yr. Gunning's HlBbisod
Larne. Mr. Garlick's ••e ran v._
BitTfING AT MANCHG 'TER.—Farrar.
Not a bee °° the Chwter Cup, and or Jy 30 to I (taken freely), abuet
Old Port, for the Derby.
ASHDOWM PARK OOURar ;43 lIEETIMO.—Tina.m
Mater was won by Mr. Etwelf 4 Wyandotte. Mr. Parkinson's
Stockton ran up.
Guns Smart were wan by Y r. King's White Rose. Mr. W.

' -
Cur was troy MMr. Bowles's" du* of Manner. Kr. King's Will
the Smuggler ran np.
Ca."'" Pv11.7 6"1" Wt" won by Mr. W. Etwall's Wit- Mr.

On!thrd'aGladiator ran ap.
Cu.'s.", ALL Mal, *TAUS leers won by Mr. Geedlake's Gotkiess.
Rake's Reserve ran up.
Amp°lm ALL A." BTAII a were non by Mr. Rake's Rosana and
Mr. Etwalt's Etonian, oboe' „ode&
W.TLA" 6TAKW Were won by Mr. Goddard's Bracelet. Mr.
Ltlndt's Mbitelbot ran top

Elltrilierltte.
LAW NOTICES.—Tuts DAT.
Court or CIEW.C. r, Westminster, at 10.—Appenie ; Eyre V.
Oren. part heard: .ell e. Earl Me:borough, by order; Ansley v.
Cotton; Colotabine•
Vick.Camscluxua .• coven., Westminster, at ie.—Before lir L.
BkadwedL—Outer GW, petition by order' Tamley v. Reynolds
ditto. Gawk ha, : Grand Junction Canal v. Dimas, part
heard: Heath hadwick; Boyar.. Scott (2) ; Parker v. Day 12)t
Johnson v. Farrar ter; Terry v. Hacker ; Bimreon V. Holt ; Harrod T.
Hoff; Sank r- 7 shacked (2) ; Peacock v. Kennet; Morrison Wat-
kins; Wright Barasswall. Before Sir J. Knight Bruce: Raven v.
Grdr. notion b 1 order: Naylor v. South Deem Railway Company,
v. Gordian. op aor, ditto. Quoile, he., Stewart.. Buatiby ; Apperley
Pegs; Cow .rd v. Coward; Francs.. Francis (2) ; Edwards v.
Browne ; Cyr on v. Browne. Before Sir J. Wigram.—Causea, ke.,
Mair T. Brawl my, part heard; Bono* v. Slum ; Preaton Wilson
Enter", V-, 'person; Hamner v. Sedswick ; Warner v. Hodgson,
(2): fib-'. Mush ; l'rnningtori v. Buckley.'
Bow' VRT, Westminster, at 10.—Bobinson v. Wall, for judg-
ment ; Par ey v. )(eddowcroft, cause part heard.
The Coo la of Quern's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer will
sit in Ban a 3.

EQUITY COURTS.—SATVRDAT.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
WI ere s. HUM—This case came before the court upon
appee 1 from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Brut e. From the statements of counsel, it appeared that the
bill was filed by Mr. Alaric Watts, who is a literary gentle-
mar 1, against Mr. Hyde, who is a solicitor, under the
fel Lowing circumstances :—Mr. Watts having been engaged
f". several years in the publication and preparation of
•arious expensive literary works, became greatly embar-
r mei, and, at the latter end of 1841, those embarrass-
/ments had become so great, that Mr. Watts was in prison
for debt. The defendant, Mr. Hyde, who had been Mr.
Watta's solicitor for some years, advised him to make
some arrangement with his creditors ; that arrange-
ment was, that Mr. Watts should execute a deed of
composition, by which, in the course of three years, a
sum of 1,500/. should be divided among his creditors.
This arrangement was carried into effect, and accepted
by all the creditors in full of all demands. In order to
ensure the payment of the 1,5001., it was provided that
Mr. Watts should insure his lite for that amount, and the
policy of insurance was to b 2 deposited in the hands of the
trustees of the deed of composition. The defendant, Mr.
Hyde, in 1812, executed the deed of composition, as did also
several of the other creditors. la the year 1843, a quarrel
having taken place between the plaintiff and defendant, the
latter delivered to Mr. Watts his bill of costs, and brought
an action against him, for the purpose of recovering the
amount. In answer to that action, the deed of composition
was pleaded as a release, but that plea was considered as of
no avail, on the ground that the covenants in the deed of
composition had not been complied with, inasmuch as the
plaintiff, Mr. Watts, had not kept up the insurance on bis
life. The bill was then filed, praying an account of all the
transactions that had taken place between the plaintiff and
defendant, and also an injunction to restrain the defendant,
Hyde, from proceeding with his action. The injunc-
tion was granted upon the terms of the plaintiff
paying into court the sum the master of the Court of
Exchequer had found due to the defendant, upon the
taxation of his costs. The suit then proceeded to a
hearing, and upon its coming on before the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce, he gave it as his opinion that the plaintiff was
entitled to consider the deed of composition as a release; but
in consequence of some suggestions with respect to the con-
struction of the bill, a special order was made by the court
below giving liberty to the plaintiff to amend it; that bill
was amended, and answers put in to the amended bill.—Mr.
Anderdon submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that the
order to amend was against all authority and practice of the
court. —Mr. Bacon supported the course pursued by the court
below, and cited in favour of the proposition that the court
had power, at the hearing, to order the bill to be amended,
a case that occurred in the House of Lords, in 1720.—The
Lord Chancellor thought the subject ao important, that it
was desirable that all authority upon it should be brought
before the court, and for that purpose his lordship ordered
the case to stand over to this day week.

Before ylec-Chancellor Wigrant.
BLailt v. BROMLEY.—LIABILITT FOR TR! FRAUD OF
A PARTNER.—This was a bill filed by William and
Thomas Blair, the executors of the late Thomas Blair,
against Joseph Warner Bromley, who was a partner with ,
his brother, William Bromley, of Gray's Inn, for the per 1
pose of compelling the defendant to refund a sum of 4,5001. ,
remitted by the plaintiffs, as such executors, to the firm of the
Messrs. Bromley, to be invested in mortgage, but which the
plaintiffs alleged to have been fraudulently misapplied by
William Bromley. It was stated by the hill, that the defend-
ant and his brother carried on the business of solicitors in
partnership up to the year 1834, and employed as their
bankers Messrs. Rogers and Co.; that the deceased, Thomas
Blair, had on various occasions communicated with the firm
respecting his affairs, but usually corresponded with William
Bromley, with whom he was on terms of intimacy ; that the
said Thomas Blair had requested William Bromley to invest
the sum of 4,3001. upon mortgage, which sum was sent up to
W. Bromley by a cheque signed by Mr. Thomas Blair, dated
Oct. 2, 1829, and drawn upon the Bank of England, but dated
London. This check was paid into the bank ofMessrs. Rogers
to the account of the joint partnership of Messrs. Bromley. It
appeared that this sum of money was never in fact advanced
upon mortgage, but the Messrs. Bromley paid interest upon the
amount from year to year until 1841, at which period a suit
was instituted for the administration of the estate of Thomas
Blair, and in 1844 it was discovered that William Bromley
had appropriated the money to his own use, and the object
of the executors now was to compel his partner, the present
defendant, to repay the snooty.
In the course of- the arguments this day a question arose
of some importance. The cheque for the sum of 4,5001.,
whichwu sent up to the Messrs. Bromley, was signed by
Mr. Thomas Blair on the 29th of September at Ilfracombe,
but dated London, the 2nd of October. This was objected to
as not being good eel& nee, on the ground that the Stamp
Act required every cheque not drawn within fifteen miles of
the branch at which it was tobe paid to have a stamp upon it.
The act also imposed a penalty on cheques which should be
postdated. It was argued in favour of the admissibility of
the cheque that it was perfectly right to date it from Lon-
don, as that was the place at which it was intended to be
issued, and that although it might have been drawn three
days before it was to be paid, still, as it was forwarded to the
agents in town to be by them presented to the banker, the
cheque had not in fact left the custody of the drawer till the
day on which it was to be issued.
His Honour reserved his judgment upon this point, and
the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were continued until
the rising of the court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.
THE QUEEN 0. THE CoMMISSIONERS OP STAMPS AND
TAIES.—AMOUNT OF PRORATE DUTY AFTER PATURNT OF
Deers.—A mandamus was some time since granted, directed
to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, commanding
them to repay to the executors of Lord Wallace the sum of
651., which they alleged was an excess of probate duty paid
upon the effects of the deceased on two probates, one granted
in the province of Canterbury, and the other in the province
of York. The executors, on obtaining the probates, had
sworn that the assets in the province of Canterbury were
under 45,0001., and the duty payable upon that sum would
be 6601. In the province of York they had sworn that the
assets in that provinee were under 6,0001. ; the duty payable
en that sum would he 1401. The total amount of the suets
in the two provinces as sworn was under 53,00 W., and upon
that entire sum the duty would be 7401. The precise
amount of the assets in the province of Canterbury was
43,371/. 3s. 6d., and in the province of York it was
7,5691. 18s. 24., so that the real amount of assets taken toge-
ther amounted to 50,0471. Se. 81. The deceased's debts within
the province of Canterbury were supposed to be 2,2891. 15X.,
and those within the prevince of York were supposed to be
3991. lla. 10d. These put together amounted to the sum of
2,6891. fir. 10d.. and this um being deducted from the total
amount of the assets, left the latter 48,2671. 14a. 10d. The
executors contended that they bad a right to deduct Mee
gross amount of the debts from the gross amount of the
assets, and then they would have to receive back the sum of
651.. as the amount of the assets would be reduced from
60,9471. 6...fit1. to 48,2671.145. 10d. To this mandamus the
defendants bad made a return raising the question whether
the debts were to be taken from the gross amount of MMUS, or
whether the debts in each province were to be deducted bun
the assets in each province.
Mr. Watson appeared for the exeeutors, and Sir F. Then-
ger (with whom were the Attorney-Cieneral, the Solicitor-
General, end Mr.Crompton) argued the ease for the commis-
dossers, contending that the debts in each pit:nines mast be
deducted from the amen in each province. The case had come
before the court upon a demurrer to the return.
Their lorlsbips, in delivering judgment, were not prepared
to say that the commissioners cony./ ham devised any more
equitable mode than that which they contended for. The
executors were bound to take out two probates, and they had
not satisfied the Court that they could have beentaken out for
a blossom. The Court was et liberty to look to theniandatory
pert of the writ, and if that commanded the commissioners
to do that whielt by law they were not bound to do, then
they were mot based to act upon it—Judgment for the
datcodatila.

BAIL COVET.
Defoe Mr. ThiUce Pittman.

Tax Qualm KIM' AND ♦xoraa,—Mr. Maconlay
moved to Make a rule almetate, calling upon the magistrates
of Warwickshire to emit the defamation to bail. The
learned comma' said his ammalwere committed to Warwick
gaol on a charge of mnwslaughter, under the following cir-