The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-01 00:00:00

m Ay•;,.

Peesmeets. Wee 31.—ii•TerrIbirT (et. Me.), Oeit. Luray,
lest siebt ressiest ceders to bold bweeT b reedloses be peened to
the liedlisersesso at a memeses seem The Tonle bee Mee
reedy ow elsar, and (I pr.) Mil mein weleg Yr leg orders.
A Wet vie ea 18 tray to bee. edlb elm LILAi y et II AWL
Lidos is uselksed as the iesliestased the Tirade.
Asameter. NAY $l.--/MEIMIIMM—Lieat. W. Amehlett, to
Ezeillset Wet A. 0. arbebide I 1111011 r, T. Mende, Ad-
is( Par. H. 8. Oahu 0110 t hsikewit, J. Time • Owner,
WARM"; Alliazo.u. W. MI 110 (impure', anima,
an le Them. Wee% TrAwww; sea Neetere Aedeleat,
E. D. Mr% . Idesterce Areeriest, 0. IL Denim le
W. leitle, to Terrible.
YBDICAL. _ _ _

Anssiwrif Baize.' m files-Ys gmllemeamardra admitted
Mamas at t C. flywall. Dory Alls L D.
Mama; V% 11. .110111; IL Masa. A. M.
ammaiMIAMIM; M. TA= bawls/ ; H. H.
ObrilL- Limbs I Lamm: . Mime.

SPORTING.

The botany ommeilieelllato, lert et earth woo extremely limited,
mod mil very WAY lidammea the plea
Amor Oraima-11 MI eYI limdrest (t 7 to 1), I tot apt Oder
1~(tr Aril Ste 1 sot ihx: end aft of ), to 1 apt
Ciremmet (t and alteSl. VI to I Slydriamee (t), II to 1 apt
PSellit (1), 11 ea 1 opt Mmieleset 14 to 1 egg Armombelm
Ihermotea Taim—S M ema (t) to legit MMus
SYMesatlo to 1 ise after (t wad altel7), I he 1 apt Whim (t
sod el). • suglaymlim (t). Several lab we Mid at mem
ea Minalld. Mil MI Win S&
SlLomm-7 MI opt ftemet (t MK). WY 1 meet Mellow (t),
XI to 1 apt lb& Dem( (aSe to g, M Y 1 eget limeetem (t).
Smart Asa Oaaa Seemaem—Wo last a is
Moat tole eatadtled Um eiehmemla ea Lea Omits sad
that Mere te every premolar*, ultimate aittlarmet et lie axatat.

tats NNWHmet.
11011113 Or LORDS!
Hoot: The Lard CkesMorar, lard Dropthase, sad Lard Onspbse.
WOOD (on WYLIAMI) t. Yoanto (oa Fasarat.).—AD-
WHISIBILITY or Beurionat.—Tbis appeal against a Jodi/.
tont of the Court of Bunnies in Boatload, was mod en the
6th and 20th of May, ma the bets of it were delta in the
report in Ws jwsal w ths Pk. Our realm will re-
member that the stemoties fa the appeal vs/ whether a per-
ms, who in bar ezmieelhen ea ea Mu le by width of two
sampsdai pestle aro the semen amid= at a deemed in-
testate, opened to be lateemit ass of the next of Ida et the
intestate, was a t wham, sa *Kilos kakis been
taken to her as the round of her lateramL—Tbe Lord
Chrocellar, sew
tai
judgment of the Ileum said
that the bar en 111 wee the OM tst gad wad in
SWAMI until ths oath ls tbe law el Idea by
Lord Dames ed. And her the stele et the cow me it
helmet, sleek bib Usable redissed M the Bestial sass of
" Beet v. Pekoe tad to the Beet* 0111 St " Ralston v.
RowoM,' bath whisk sea. mimed that the wit
aareM a• the pentad of interest was
anthem smelt without bad a dined interest
to the smolt etas ems. As it did not appear that tits wil-
low Wedgelike' Is had such intend, his Wald, was of
aphis& that lie wart below was in error, and that *mkt*
newt en to be reversed.
ad end Lord Campbell severally mewled
their_ in seasarreece with the Lord ChsaoeDer's,
mad thejelignint vereaseeteemd accordingly.
CISSISTAL AND OTRINS V. ALLAN AND OTHERII.•—Caw.
PLICATID Accourres.—Thls appeal against interhenters tat
dm Court of Soden related to a competition Woe= cre-
ditors of bankrupts' estates In Scotland, in rape* to the
midair the accounts. The lords present upon the epenhaget
the appeal were of opiates that dos cookierailoa WM ROY
given to the came by the court below, and their lordships
attend the cause to he remitted.
RANORR e. THE OIBAT WIRTNIN RAILWAY COMPANY.
—Sir Fitzroy Kelly proceeded to open thia appeal, but, se
he had not pone through the facts when the rose, we
reserve the statement of them.

ii;l;e-

Before the Monet at the Belb.
WIL/LINSON O. CHARLUIVORTR.—PRIONITY Or CLAIMS
ON WIPI'd CIIOBI IN ACTlON.—Marriott Thoroton, end
Rosilia, her sister, were entitled in equal moieties, under the
will of a Mr. Edward Manners, to a legacy of 120001
Li=by his will os his estates 1* Yorkshire and Leices-
subject to a life interest in a Mrs. Stafford. A Mr.
John Byes; Wilkinson married Harriett in 1804, and they
were mbsquently separated. John Byng Wilkinson after-
wards became paymaster of the 10th Hainan, and on that
occasion his brother, James Wilkinson, became bound for
him as surety, and in 1813 J. B. Wilkinson executed an as
signment of his wife's share in the legacy of 12.0001., to
trustees, to indemnify James Wilkinson from liability in
respect of his bond. and se to 2.0001., part thereof, in trust
for his, J. B. Wilkinson'. wife, Harriett, for life, with re-
mainder to his two natural children, Ella sixth Wilson and
Frances Wilson. In 1821 James Wilkinson was stalled upon
to pay 1,0001., to make good J. B. Wilkinson's deficiencies
as paymaster, and he died shortly afterwards. In 1824
Marriott Wilkinson sold her reversionary interest in the
legacy of 12,0001., to Maur'. Thompson, Bell, and
Chapman, as trustee* of the Reversionary Interest
Society for 3,350/., and this deed was afterwards confirmed
by John Byng Wilkinson, her husband. In 1827, Mrs.
Stafford died, and the interest of Mrs. Wilkinson then be-
came an interest in possession ; and this suit was after-
wards instituted by the representatives of James Wilkinson,
to have the benefit of the trusts of the deed of 1813, as an
indemnity in respect of the 1,0001. he had paid for John B.
Wilkinson. In 1836, a decree aas made giving the plaintiffs
the benefit of this indemnity, and certain accounts and in-
quiries were directed. John Byng Wilkinson died pending
the proceedings in the master's office, and the master having
in 1848 made his general report, the cause came on now for
further directions. The pleintiffs bad been satisfied their
claim, and the question now was between the co.defendants,
as to their respective claims. Messrs. Santos and Moron,
for Rile. Wilson, one of the natural children of J. B. Wilkin-
son, claimed the benefit of the deed of 1813 to the extent of
the 20001. thereby settled on them, in priority to the claim
of the Reversionary Interest Society, under the deed of 1824,
and they contended that the court, having already partially
acted on the deed of 1813, were bound to carry it out, and,
at all events, they insisted that J. Bong Wilkinson was,
from 1827, when the legacy fell into poeseesion, entitled to
the dividends of it till his death, and that the 2000/. ought to
be provided for out of these dividends.
Mr. Kindersley, for Mrs. Wilkinson, said that she bad
arranged to give up her claim, which was not barred by
either of the deeds, to the Reversionary Interest Society.
Messrs. Turner and Sidebottom, for the Reversionary
Interest Society, claimed, is right of Mrs. Wilkinson, all her
interest in the legacy including the dividends which accrued
during the life of J. B. Wilkinson, after the death of Mrs.
Stafford, which, they contended, were not affected by the
deed of 1813, inasmuch as it was a mere voluntary settlement
of a wife's reversionary chrome in action.
The Master of the Rolla held that the interest of Mrs.
Wilkinson in the legacy was not affected by either of the
deed.; but he reserved his decision as to whether the income
which accrued on it after the death of the tenant for life in
J. B. Wilkinson's lifetime belonged to him, which he coati-
dered to be an important question.

Before the rteo-Caanseitor of embus&
Toxin 0. HISWITT.--IN2 UNCTION—PIANOFORTE WOW-
FACTI:RER.-Mr. Wißeech and Mr. Harrison applied for an
injunction upon notice under these circumstances. The de-
fendant had taken out a patent for certain improvements in
the construction of pianofortes, and the plaintiff had been in-
duced to advance the defendant various sans of money,
amounting to above 8,0001., towards the carrying out of the
invention and the manufacture of instruments, and had en-
tered into partnership with the defendant. The business had
been carried on for about seven yearn, and the plaintiff had
not received any profits from the trade during that time. It
was now ascertained that the defendant had abut up the
place of business and had carried off all the instruments and
stock in trade. The application now made was for an in-
junction to restrain the defendant from receiving or collect-
ing the partnership debts, and that a receiver might be ap-
pointed to take possession of the assets.—The Vico-Chancel-
lor granted the injunction.

Before Vire-Chsueeitor Knight Bruce.
SIMON O. EDOWORTII.—RAILWAY LIABILITIRe.—THE
NANTWICH' AND CREWE JCNCTION RAILWAY
COMPANY —The bill in this cue was filed by one of the
shareholders, who had pail the deposit upon his shares, on
behalf of himself and the other shareholders, seeking to have
an account of the assets and property of the company, in.
eluding the unpaid deposits, and of the application of the
meets, and that the defendants might be personally charged
with the liabilities ; that the surplus of the assets, after pay.
ment of the debts, alight be distributed 401011; the plaintiff
and the other sharebelders, according to their rights, &c.
From the bill it mewed that, in 1843, some of the defend-
ants eriginatedthere =lly registered the scheme br
this railway. mei Mime ..Lawrie. as •
provisional esemither, Med. the pris-
pined capital *lie 450,0NL ,sCloBlll.'sherr 11,1111. sea.
with • deposit et 21. 2s. el per share. Application he a
mate, member of shares than proposed wen math be the
tZlcommittee, who, in October, i
= t tdiedegiginiell
, Lewis, and other members of the eim-
mitt" to be directors of the erimpany. The nectars allotted
the shares to the plaintiff and others. The plaintiff paid the
digests en the shares allotted to him, but, with one
ezragratia, none of the provisional committee paid any de-
=their shares, and not more than one-sixth of the
ea the intended number of gene was pad. The
aseseguently could not peeved, but the directors
pia to advertising and npreeinties the whim as in a
=rmadition, thereby hawk. the ether than-
holiree that the ethos* wield be peeeseiled with,
and diet ellthe_ogn been paid. Sabeerjamitly the.
ilimehes }shined as advertisement, coiling • medal gene-
sal of the the eseremy, le men' • repel it the sem-
= eel to delimmint cm the coeval to be
the direstem heed • eirsalie WWl=
Tenor to whim shares bed bees allotted, bet who had net
peal the &pee*, requiriag them to pay is. ed. a shin to
at tin prellethary meow ; they ales desolated a re-
peat stating mesons for the hilnre of the matese, other to
these alleged by the bill to he the true tigniting, via., Unelab-
orated sad almemegemeet of the provisionel tonamittee.
At the seeetteg ear dtarehelders the meet was rejected.
The bill also charged that no Matson had bees
mak by the ilehaiiiele of the emapeny's affairs,
sad that they bad refired to aDow the plaintiff
to inspect their books. To this bill demonise Ike
want of equity and for want of parties, were put in by mere
et the defendants, and these demurrers were se DMZ
mil to-day argued by Mr. Wigrato, Mr
vert, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. J. H. Palmer, foratenellthalle,
and Mr. Russell end Mr. Anstey far the *kelt The
Vioe-Chancellor said that he doubted whether the demerer
was not sustainable open the ground of the ahem . item
the record of the person described as the Mayor of filleseler
field, and the want of any explanation of that absems. He
did not forget that in cases where fraud was committed by
several parties, some of the parties to that fraud might be
sued alone, without joining the rest ; nor did he beget the
32nd order of August, 1841. He did not, however, my that
it would be necessary to decide it, but he maths* put it ea
a doubt, whether it would be right, 'veil upon the theory of
the plaintiff-s argument. As to the three dehadeats, (the
two Thompson, end Sir Rai h Pendlebiuy) neither of them
wee alleged to have claimed an iaterest or to have
been • slianholdcr. The bill elthil that allot-
ments were made to them width they did eat
accept ; they paid nothing, and from the word sells
on the shareholder the bill and the argosies. lilt the lid&
tiff appeared to exclude them. It was eafi, Isor=dirsti
they were strobe?' of what was called the "
exasetthe," and that they were affected by freadaeless-
Prerthledell, and aelligenes. As lassibere of that essolt•
tee, it wee veld, awl in Abet Wag imgpd ensdpiests
of the army la by limegese or their
agents. It wee saidlCati
assiktswesk ilwessowd, se wok Ist=
sintation, and se Imo showl
them se that they ougwitesh
ht to held anowaratio. It was,
however settled rule of pleading in this court, that a de-
fendant is entitled to have stated spina* him with dillies".
new and certainty the ease or the state of thin., ups. mil*
in still for relief, relief is sought against hint, sea the ebb
sewn of that distinctness sad of that certainty is • pond of
demarrer. The can, as against the Muslim" sad
Sir Ralph Pendlebary, was not skeet to sq mess
with dless or certainty as to Gs* •
either as members of the committee or ass ymly
with repel to fraud, asisreprosentationars=
Upon than grounds the bill as to those
As to the ether damning detandasts be the* w* is
hear essweg in reply...4h. Wignin having nylied, the
Vies-Chenealter said it he were to accede to the agemen-
that the woollier* committee were to be treated as net(
pin* ef the sessey, he should be under the necessity o
eilewies ii the deeturrers on accountigh oft
thebel, abeam 'lithe
mayor if Mesdedeld whoever be m and the mat
of estplesodas of his (
istemee. But be did not amok to
that amegesemth VI& -te Mr. Moslem it Iss,seld
that he waste wad in Sethi id net
ossoor. The bia way la behalf 'of all the
sherebeliers oreepting the tlehmlatals, onsioliag,
free, this this defsedant. me bin, therehma aguagaiszt
him could be sustained. The other two
were assignees of Lewis, who had an interest brides bogn
=et: a liability, and that interest would not in kb
. The plaintiff was, thereihre, justified in making
the meigneos parties. The demurrer to be allowed as to the
two Thompson', with Meaty to senesd, raining the mots;
as to Johnstone and the magma of Lewis, the demurrer to
be overruled, reserving the sons; and, es to Sir Ralph Pen-
"'bury, the demurrer to be allowed with cons, but liberty
-en to emend.

Belize ester m.
STREDMAN o. POOLN —CONSTAT'CTIoN op Wity.—Rs.
STRAINT UPON ALIZNATION IT A MARRIED WOMAN.—
George Serooby, the testator in the cause, died in March,
1836, having by his will bequeathed to his eldest daughter
Mary Ann Steedman, two leasehold houses in Kent's-place,
Paddington, fee her whole and sole use during her natural
life, and fne from the control of her present or any
future husband, and not to be sold or mortgaged
and after her decease to her heir or heirs; and
provided her child or children shall die before
her, then she, at her decease, may leave them to
whom she w4l for the remainder of the term.' Several
advances having been made to Mary Anne Steedman and
her husband by the defendant Poole, she, in March, 1840,
joined her hwband In the execution of a deed, whereby, in
osonsideration of welt advances, and the payment of 103. a
I year rent by Poole, the premises were demised to Poole for
28 years, if Mary Ann Steadman should so long live. The
premises were afterwards underlet by Poole, against whoa
and his under loom the present bill was Sled by Mrs. Steed-
man by her next friend, to est aside the transaction of March,
1840 ; and for an account of rents since the tiling of the bill.
—Mr. Wood and Mr. Bow brats for the bill, contended that
the indenture of March, 1840, weainoyeratire as "ain't Mn.
• Steedman, who, they 'twisted, took an estate for life only for
I her separate use, and without power of anticipation under her

. -
father's nomilly, Mr. reeks, and Mr. Tremen-
heere, for the defendants, tbe under-lessees of Poole,conte nded
that the words of the will conferred upon Mrs. Steadman
a separate estate for Kb in the premises, with a contingent
reversion ; and that the intervention of her life-interest
did not defeat her disposition of the reversion. They
contended, also, that as they had taken an reader-lease from
Poole, without notice of the lessors' title, they wen entitled
as purchasersfor value without notice. His HOOWIII thought
that the words of the will gave a 'operate estate to the
plaintiff, with a restraint upon her power of alienation ; and
that, as to the question of notice,. notice of the lease to Poole,
in which Mrs. Steedenan had joined ber husband as lessor,
ought to have set them upon inquiry as to the nature of her
interest in the premises. His Honour then made a decree
setting aside the lease to Poole, and the subeequeat under-
leases, with a direction that the under-lessees, to whom all
just ellowancee were to be made, should deliver up posses
sion, and account for the rent and pro Sta received from the
filing of the bill.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN V. BUCHANAN.—Ass THE MEMBERS OF A
COUNTY LAW SOCIETY, WHO HAVE PROSECUTED TO CON-
VICTION, ON AN INDICTMENT REMOVED INTO THE QUEEN'S
BENCH FROSI THE SESSIONS, A PERSON WHO MSS
TISEDIN THEIR COUNTY WITHOUT REMO QUALIFIED, ,EN-
TITLED TO COSTS AS PERSONS AGGRIEVED THEREBY ?
The defendant had been convicted of having, in contraven-
tion of the recent statute for consolidating and amending
the law relating to anomie.. practised as an attorney at the
Canterbury sessions, he not having been then duly qualified
to act as such. The indictment against him had been prose.
cuted at the instance and expense of the Kent Law Society,
which is an association of attorneys and solicitors all prac-
tising in the county
.of Kent. The indictment had been
preferred at the sessions, and removed into this court by
writ of certiorari at the instance of the defendant, and after
the conviction the prosecutors had obtained a side-bar rule
for having their taxed costs paid by him. A rule for dis-
charging the eidehar rule was subsequently obtained on
affidavits, which suggested that the prosecutors were not,
within the meaning of the statute 5 & 6 William and Mary,
parties inred or aggrieved by the 'misdemeanour of which
the defendant had been convicted. Against this rule cause was
now shown by Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr. Hurlaone, who
contended that as the prosecutors were persons possessing
exclusive privileges which the defendant had invaded, they
had been aggrieved by the offence of the defendant, although
none of them had sustained actual damage. The real ques-
tion to be determined under the statute, was whether the
persona actually. prosecuting were individually, or as a clam,
distinguishable in respect of the consequences that followed
on the act of the defendant from the rest of the public. Their
case was like that of commoners whose right of common bad
been usurped upon by a stranrr, or that of tee dippers of
Tunbridge Wells, whose contingent interest in the gratuities
given by visitors to the wells had been held sufficient to sup-
port an action by all of them against a stranger who had in-
truded. Mr. Horn and Mr. Paisley, in support of the rule,
insisted that the statute only applied when the prosecutor
could show' some special private damage, some grievance
peculiarly his own, on which he could maintain an action ;
that no one of these prosecutors, and still less all of them, could
have maintained an action for this alleged grievance ; that
the attornies in every other county were, in this ease, as
much aggrieved as those of the county of Kent ; and that
when the grievance was not partial in its operation, but ex-
tended to a class, the persons who volunteered to prosecute
were not entitled to the benefits of the statute.
Lord Denman said that as the case was one of very great
importance the court would require time to consider its
decision.—Judgment deferred,
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF CARMARTHENSHIRE.
—HAVE THE MAOISTRATES IN QCARTER SESSIONS AN
kIiSOLUTE DISCRETION TO ALLOW OR DISALLOW THE
Pass LED DISBURSEMENTS OP CORONERS ?—A rule had
been obtained that called on the justices of the county of
Carmarthen to show cause why a writ of mandamus sheet' d
not issue, commanding them to make an order on the trea-
surer of that county far the payment to Mr. Thomas, one of
the coroners, of a certaia sum no and for the fees, mileage,
disbursements, and expenses, of two inquests held by him.
The Attorney-General and dr. Crompton now showed cause
against the rule, and read affidavits, (rem which it appeared
that the first inquest had been held on the body of a person
who had died in a anion workhouse of locked jaw, occa-
sioned by his having cut off three of his fingers when
engaged in cutting chaff, and who, it had been rumoured,
had not been properly attVed by the medical officer;
sad that the second i eat lead been held on
the body of a little girl w having been loft alone in
a room where there was a fire, had been so burnt by
her clothes accidents/Iv taking fire, that she died the next
day. They contended, that by the 25 Geo. 2, coroners
were only entitled to fees and mileage on inquests " duly
taken;" that the justices in quarter sessions WWII the sole
judges whether an inquest had been duly taken; that all
other disbursements and payments which coroners, under
more recent statutes, were entitled to make and claim, were
in like manner within the proving of the justices to allow ;
and that, if thessealid the power to review the discretion
of the justices. alma were not eases which called for the
exercise of dug posser.—Mr. Pasbley, in support of the
rule, insisted tat the words "duly taken" in the statute
of Oeo. 2, only authorised the justices to inquire whet's.... an
inquest, for which fees were claimed, had, in fact, been
formally held ; that the coroner was bound to execute the
duties of his office immediately, on notice ; that the remedies
for his misconduct were quick and direct; that the expendi-
ture, which more recent statutes forced upon him, ought not
to be the subject of allowance by a body of man having, as
rate.psyers of the county, a direct interest to disallow it;
and that, as the office of coroner was instituted not merely
to detect a crime actually committed, but to relieve from the
suspicion of criminality those who might unjustly be
exposed to it, the court would think that, in these cases,
the coroner, who had only acted after due notice,
wee entitled to his fees and charges. The justices, he sub.
mitred, were as little empowered to refuse this order, as
magistrates in petty sessions to withhold a distress warrant;
they had no power to decide whether an inquest ought to
have been held; and if they had such a power, they had in
these instances exercised it improp.rly.
Lord Denman said that this was a ease in which the court
thought it right to take time for considering the judgment.
Judgment postponed.
HILTON V, Loan GRENVILLE.--CONSZBT OF THE CROWN
TO TERMS, IN ORDER TO REMOVE TO MIDDLESEX THE
VENUE OP A CAUSE IN WEICH IT IS INTERESTED.—Mr.
Godson, Q.C., appeared to show cause against a rule nisi,
which the Attorney-penersl had obtained for summoning the
Middlesex
for the trim' at bar in this cause from the county of
instead of from the county of Stafford, He was
ready to withdraw his opposition if the crown would consent
that the jury should be a special Jury; that if the jurors
thought it desirable to view the mines which formed the
subject-matter of the litigation, six or more of them should
have a view ; and that if enough special jurors should not
attend, the Attorney-general should be bound to pray •tales.
The Attorney general did not object to these conditions.
Rule absolute eccordingly.
THE QUEEN V. THE COMMIeSIONERS OF CLEREENWELL
IMPROVEMENTS.—COMPENSETION CLAUSES IN AN TM.
PROVES'S= ACT MUST BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY
wane Possession or Parisians Has BEEN otoex or.
This was a rule fulling on the Commissioners of
Cleekenwell Improvements to show cause why a writ
of mandamus should not issue commanding them to
Mae the value of certain property of which, for the
of their act, they had taken possession. Mr.
Clardy showed cause, and contended that the application
for the rah had been made after the lapse of the period
fixed for that purpose by the local act. Mr. Pashley was to
have supported the rule ; but the court thought, as an ae.
don of trespass would not lie, the clause relied on against
this application mast be construed liberally. Were that sot
so, there might be no remedy at all in such cases as this.
The limitation of time, therefore, must be taken to apply to
the particular eases specifically mentioned in the set, leaving
those act specially provided for to be dealt with according te
the general rule.—ltuk absolute.

r BAIL COURT.
Before Kr. Jr** Wliblaisa.
IN TH. bOalma Or —. —lx mama TO ENTER UP
JUDGMENT ON A WARRANT OF ATIVIIINZT, TEN AFT!.
DAVIT MUST 'TATA TEAT TEI DE:MaI/MT WAN MAN
" ALMen."—Mr. Peresiseff haft. awed to efts,
eftlweirdo whiskpoll%
mt on a warrant deftest', apes
stated dot the dolftlesis bad heft eses at a add=
dr. Judd Wisteftentedd that,
assn lbauthority ed
I &tided saw, be thought's& West saddes,
and that It wee aesuseerthat it *odd that the pugs.
wee sees " alive." Ts 4ft 01.1 A add dist be
had seen a party ea padeadee tramet. due,
he had sees him deed, eft prise bla gala. Beth ft.
Justice Putman aft Mr. Justin NrWiaiNS had Mil that tbe
word " alive" wee Warmed., aft hi egad sot, theft•
fore, make the rale stedete, until the aftlevlt was naiad
in that respect.