The Express.
London, England, 1848-04-18 00:00:00

SPORTINO.__

TAITERBALL'iI—Hour.
Two THOUSAND Ountata STAIRS.-6 to 4 art Blase,
7 to 4 asst Flateatcher (take 2 to I), 5 to 1 apt Fern (take 7 to I).
The above were the laying priors at the close ;on much as 7to 4 was ;
laid in one quarter nice Blasco and 2 to 1, three or four times, apt
ulotcatcher.
ONE THOUSAND GUINEAS STAIIE9.-5 to 2 gent Lola
mootea, 5 to I apt Prairie Bird (t), 5 to I apt Attrattion (t).
CHESTER CUP.—I 2 to 1 apt War Eagle (1), 18 to 1 Apt
Glen Saddel (t), 18 to 1 apt Lightning (t),20 to I apt Maid of my soul
(t), 30 to I aget Magnet (t), 30 MI apt 'lemma Platoff colt (t), 38 to I
apt ConynOam (t). 30 to I apt Enchanter Tat , 33 to 1
opt Sunnyside
(t), 35 to I apt Girlie, 40 to I apt Mrs t (0) to I apt
Kekshe (3 freely), 50 to 1 eget Rufus (t), SO tot apt Pantomime (0),
000 to 40 apt Intrepid (O. Tbe betting, taken as a whole, waa ex-
t2,remely dull; a few horses, however, were in good demand, particu-
larly the Magnet, Sunnyside Giselle, and Release Very little wen
done on the leading favourites.
DEIiHT.-8 to 1 agst Surplice (t 9 to 1), 10 to 1 apt
Springy Jack (t). 12 to I apt Glendower (t and aft of), 13 to 1 apt
Losdistone (1 and aft off). 18 to 1
apt Eagle's Plums (t to 2001.), 25
to 1 apt Besborouh ( 25 to 1 apt The Fiddler (t and alt off).
25 to l apt Fern (20 't
t), 30 to I agat The Stinger (t), SO to I aget
The Swiss Boy (0), 30 to 1 agst Sponge (0), 35 W 1 apt Flatcatcher
d aft off), 40 to I apt Great Western (t), 2,000 to 40 apt The
(Sheriff (t and all off), 1,000 to 15 apt John Orridie (t and oh elf),
2,000 to 20 apt Sunny-side (t). The above quotations, made up
in
la
the close of the betting, show very little alteration. Surplicv wan
steady demand at 9 to I, and some hundreds were invested on Springy
Jack at 10 and 11 to I. Not much done on the other favourites, but •
podded of money lied out on Besberough and ;sponge at improred
the
prices. Eagle's Plume, Fern, and Great Western, ware also en
rise. With reference to Epange, we are enabled to contradict a ru-
mour that he has changed hands.
°Ans.-10 to 1 agat Lola Montca, 12 to 1 apt Do-it-again,
1510 l asst Queer' of the May, 15 to 1 agst Prairie Bird, 16 to I apt
lodine, 16 to 1 apt Attraction. All the quoted odds were taken in the
course of the afternoon ; but were subsequently offered.

_o
_
I.at Enttlligence.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
LAPSLET AND OTHERS V. ORIEUsoN —COB ktitTiTION.
—Leorrimeer.—The appeal in this matter against interlo-
cutors of the Scotch courts was areued on the 28th and 30th
of March, and the 3rd, 4:h, and 6th of the present month ;
and circumstances in which the appeal arose were reported
in this journal. It may be remembered that the question
was whether the appellants were legitimate accerding to the
laws of Scotland. The case stood over fur consideration.
The Lord Chancellor now moved the judgment of the house.
The question raised in the case was one of tact, depending i
on the evidence ; it was whether the parties, the parents of ,
the appellants, had been married at the time of the birth of
the first of the appellants. It seemed to him that that ques-
tion must be answered in the negative. His lordship,
having gone into • statement of the facts, as proved, ob-
served that the evidence showed that the cohabitation of the
parents had commenced while Paul, the husband of the wis-
man, wee still living. It had, therefore, in fact been • co-
habitation illicit from its commencement. Hadethere then
been • change in the relation of the parties, to as to make
legal that cohabitation which had at first been illegal ? TM
fact that at a subsequent period the disability on the part of
one of the parties (the woman) to enter into a contract did
wholly cease, was not sufficient to make the cohabitation •
lawful marriage, and there was nothing to show that then
had been an actual marriage before the birth of the children,
or at any time. His lordship was of opinion that the illegi-
timacy of the children bad been conclusively established, end
the judgment, therefore, of the court below must be affirmed.
Lord Campbell agreed, and observed that the law upon
this matter was before settled; but there were particular
circumstances in this case to which the house was required
to apply the principle of the law. They might lament the
loose state of the law of marriage in Scotland. In their
legislative capacity they might afford a remedy for the evil,
but sitting as judges they were bound by the law as it now
stood. There was here no controversy about what was the
law of marriage in Scotland. The appellants, who were the
pursuers in the court below, relied on a marriage et their
parents as proved by " habit and repute." Habit and repute
did not constitute marriage, but evidence merely that a mar-
riage had taken place, being evidence of the consent of the
parties to live together in that relation. The rule of law in
Scotland was not disputed, that if the connexion was in its
origin illegal, it must continue so, unless it was clearly
changed by the act of the parties. But then it was con-
tended that the rule was not applicable here, for that the
parties lived together from the first in the belief that they
might lawfully do so, and that the law would not presume
that they intended to commit a crime, and consequently
that the onus lay on the other side to show that Paul, the
woman's husband, wilS alive at the time at which she and
the lather of the appellants were living together. His lord-
ship did not think that, under the circumstances, a presump-
tion of the legality of the marriage was to be made. There
had been one very important question proposed to be con-
sidered here, via., whether, supposing Paul to he be
hen
alive when the appellants were born, they could still e
considered as illegitimate, both the parents having believed
at the time that he was dead. That was a most important
question, but it really was not raised here, for it was clear
that neither of the parents believed Paul to be dead at the
time they began to live together. Ilia lordship went through
the evidence in the case as applicable to this point, and ex-
pressed his opinion te be that the judgment of the court be.
low.should be affirmed.
Lord Brougham said that he bad not hesrd the arguments,
but, at the request of his noble and learned friend (Lord
Campbell), be bad read and examined the printed cases, and
also considered the elaborate printed opinions given by the
judges in the court in Scotland. On a full consideration of
all these, he was deafly of opinion that the majority of the
judges in the court below were right, and that there was no
good ground for this appeal. One most important question
was proposed to be raised in these papers, namely, it Paul's
death was honh fide believed by these parties, the parents of
appellants, before the period of their cohabitation, though
in fact such belief was groundless, yet if afterwards Paul
died, and the cohabitation continued, that cohabitation really
illicit at first, though boni fide, was made licit by the
death of Paul. But that question did not arise. The case
was purely to be decided en the facts, and on those facts as
he found them in the judgment of the judge. in the Scotch
court, he thought the decision to which they had come was
the proper decision.
The question was then put by the Lord Chancellor, and
the interlocutors complained of were affirmed with costs.
Their lordships were engaged yesterday in hearing
counsel in another appeal from the Scotch courts, in the
case of "Fleming and Co. tt. Smith." The arguments for
the appellants only were heard, when the further hearing
was adjourned. A report will be given on the further
hearing.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
HOLDEN V. THE LONDON AND NORTII WESTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANT.—INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE RAIL-
WAY COMPANY PROM APPROACRINO TOO NEAR AN HOTEL
AT L‘AMINOTON.—This was a motion for an injunction to
restrain the London and North Western Railway Company
in the construction of their railway at the point where the
line is nearest to the Crown Hotel at Leamington from ap-
proaching nearer to the said hotel than was shown bh
the
y the
line of railway as delineated in the plan depoaited wit
clerk of the peace. Affidavits were produced in support of
the injunction, to show that the railway company bad devi-
ated from their plans at this particular potnt, an
of
d
bad exceeded the limits prescribed by the act
parliament. For the company it was contended
that the terms tot the act hail been misunderstood, and
that the company had not exceeded the limits prescribed by
their act.—The Vice-Chancellor said he thought upon the
evidence produced that the company had brought their line
within a less distance from the hotel than, according to his
view of the act, they were entitled to do. legixerefore con-
sidereal there was a sufficient case for an injiunction.

Before Vice-Chancellor Wigram.
ROWLAND v. MoRGAN.—WILL OF HENRI LATZ EARL
or ABIROAvENNY.—The bill in this case was filed by the
executors of Henry late Earl of Abergavenny, the father of
the present earl, to obtain the opinion of the cow t upon the
construction of certain clauses of their testator's will,
CLERICAL. and the second codicil thereto, relating to a bequest ---
of articles of plate, jewellery, ttc,, as heirlooms.
(CRAB CHURCH BUILDING FUND.—On Sunday a The clause contained in the will was as follows :" I hereby
. willed St. Mart's, situate In Prineen.terrace, Regent's. COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Ag been duly beensed by the Bishop of London, was opened give and bequeath usto my son John Lord Viscount Neville, Sittings in Banco.
; sereioe by the Re.. T. le, rector of as Pancras. It is and to his heirs Earls of Abergavenny, all my gold and silver FOTRZ v. CILOBSOP.—BILL DISCOUNTIRB.—It will be rso
ne•fou recently opened in that district, and contig. Gm) plate and pictures, and all my books, lace, family pearl membered that thin was an action brought against a clergy •
ma•lburth of them king hoe. necklace, silver boxes, and family robes, and all diamonds, man, who bad been induced to give hie acceptance to a 2001,