The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-24 00:00:00

MILITARY.

LIEUT.-GENERAL SIR WY, NAPIER AND MS. S.
OVHNEY.—A correspondent says:—Sir William Napier, in
his last letter to Mr. Gurney, dated the 21st mat, says
"But he (the soldier) loves not war, why should he? What
does he gain by it ? Death, wounds, pain, disease, prema-
ture old age and poverty, and insult when his services are
no longer in request. Is that justice, friend ? Is it credit-
able ?' Now, although there may be in the army men who
have undergone most of the ills so graphically described by
Sir William Napier, he and his family cannot complain
about poverty, insult, or neglect; for Sir William enjoys
the Culonelcy of the 27th Regiment, at least 1,0001. per
annum ; Sir C. J. Napier, the Colonelcy of the 22nd ; and
Sir George Thomas Napier, the Colonelcy of the Ist Wert
India Regiment, which two latter colonelcics are, we confi-
dently believe, worth more than 1,0001. a-year each.
It is now understood that those officers holding
staff appointments who, by their recent brevet promotion,
will have to vacate these appointments, are to continue to
hold the same until the cad of the financial year, via., 31st
March neat.

Colonel Taylor, late of the staff at Parkhurst, Isle
iof Wirht, is, it s said, to succeed Sir Richard Doherty as
inspecting field officer in London.
The United Service Gazette states that Lord Cath-
cart, who at present commands the northern and midland
district in England, will certainly have the command in
Ireland, which Sir Edward Blakeney is about to vacate.
The United Service Gazette says :—The law re-
ports of the week announce the committal of Mr. Harris to
prison for the publication of the libels on Captain Hort, of
the 4th King's Own, one of which libels Lieutenant Harris
was dismissed for disseminating. The particulars of the
case must be so fresh in the memory of our readers that it
would be superfluous to repeat them. We cannot, however,
refrain from remarking how much it is to be lamented that
when the treatment which Lieutenant Harris was alleged
to hare received from Captain Hort was represented to the
Commander-in-chief, his grace should have " declined to
' interfere." From what has since transpired in reference to
' the King's Own, it is manifest that there was a lack of that
capacity for control which would have enabled a finn cam:lan-
,ding officer to deal summarily with thecase. The interfer-
ence of the duke therefore became the more necessary, and it
is fairly presumable that if the subject had been entertained
at head quarters, unanimity might have been restored,
I Lieutenant Harris deprived of en inducement to circulate
libels, and his father saved the ignominy which is to rob
him of his liberty and his fireside for the next six months.
On what principle his grace declined to interfere, we of
Bourse do not know. Is it uaremonable to conjecture that '
this was one of the many affain put de rote because it din-
tubed the leisure tithe setegeuerisa chid?

Zab3 intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.--EATUIDAY.
Bisesz nor Loans Joaricas or Ansa.
ATTOREZT•OINERAL O. MURDOCH AND OTHERS
• N. •

Mr. Malian was heard in completion of the defendant's case.
The court observed that the substantial quer ion in the
cause was whether the declaration, which formed the key-
stone of the decree—vis., that the minister of the Low
Meeting-home must be a minister of the established
church of Scotland—could or not be made out as matter of
fact?

The Solieitor-General then replied. Ile said that the
terms of the deeds evidencing the trust, of the Meeting-
house showed that those trust* were for protestant die-
renters. This was a general term, and would include all
who were neither papists nor episzopalians. It was admitted,
however, on the othertide that the trusts mustbecontined to
presbyterians. At the period of the foundation of the con-
gregation the various classes of English dissenters had
become merged into the two great divisions of independents
and presbyterians : and these with the presbyterians of
' Scotland formed the three great bodies of dissenters. Now
the independents were a self-governing body, and acknow-
ledged no allegiance to a superior or governing body. Not
so the presbyterians, who were as strict as the episcopalians
themselves in their allegiance to a superior governing body.
They recognised the authority of the presbyteries and the
generul assembly. It was admitted that the congregation
of the Low Meeting-house wise not ,elf-governing, but
that they acknowledged a superior authority. They were,
therefore, presbyterians, and the only question was to which
order of presbyterians, the English or the Scotch, they were
connected? Now of this there was no room for doubt. It
had been attempted by the other side to prove a connection
with a body of English presbyterians called the Northum-
berland class, but this the evidence failed to establish. On
the other hand, the evidence showed an uninterrupted con-
nexion with the presbyterians of Scotland. This was fully
shown by the fact that from the foundation of the congre-
gation downwards the ministers chosen by the congregation
had been either ordained ministers or probationers of the
kirk; and also by the mutuality of occasional services be-
tween the Berwick ministers and those of the kirk. It was
shown moreover by existing records of the chapel,
evidencing a custom of the congregation previously
to the election of a minister, to pass a resolution
by way of announcement that the candidate must be of the
kirk. This was sufficient evidence to establish a connexion
with the Scotch rather than with the English presbyterians;
and that point being established the inference followed that
none hut a licentiate or duly ordained minister of the kirk
could be allowed under the trusts to officiate as minister of
the chapel.
At three o'clock the court rose, the remainder of the
learned counsel's reply being reserved for Monday (this day).

&TYING' AT I INCOLNIFINN, A.M. 155 tans CRAPICELOS.
Sewatt v. MtinaLY.—Moicroata: INCumnit.liSCKS.—
REcniveitsxiy
This was an. appeal from a decree of the late Vice-Chan-
cellor of England. The case was somewhat complicated in
its facto; the object of the present appeal on behalf of the
plaiutiffs was to hare a receiver of rents appointed over
certain leasehold property, of which the chapel in Quebec-
' street is a part. The plaintiffs claimed a certain annuity
and interest charged on the estate, and the main question
was as to the validity of certain incumbiances on the es-
tate asserted by the defendants, and it involved allegations
of improper conduct on the part of a trustee. It appeared
from the state of facts betbre the Master that Beeston, the
trustee fur one Benjamin Simmonds, deceased, a defendant
in the original suit, claimed a considerable sum of
money in respect of these ineumbrances. By deed in 1815,
Sewell and wife, the original plaintiffs, grunted au annuity
of 671. 103. on his life to one Norris, and the leaseholds in
question were assigned to Carpenter us trustee for Norris.
In 1831 Carpenter died, leaving Cresswell his executor. By
deed, dated August 29, 1836, in consideration of the sum of
1201., paid by one Etheriugton to Norris and Carpenter,
the annuity was assigned to him, and the leaseholds to
Stevens as his trustee. Another incumbrance consisted of
a judgment debt for about 700/., in a cause " Carpenter v.
Sewell." On the 29th of August, 1836, Cresswell, the executor
of Carpenter, in consideration of the sum of 301., assigned
that judgment to Etherington. The next indenture was
dated July 20, 1839, and by it, in consideration of the sum
of 600/. paid by Beeston to Etherington, the latter assigned
the judgment and annuity to linu, and Stevens assigned
the leaseholds to Yastori, as trustee for Beeston. That was
the state of facts, as it originally appeared ; but Beeston
subsequently made an affidavit before the Master, on the
production of a receipt dated August 1, 1839, by which
Beeston acknowledged to have received a auto of
2,000/. from Sirnmondo, the original defendant, in discharge
of his (Betston's) claim to the annuity, ikc. In that
affidavit, Beeston declared that the transactions were
fictitious, and made by Simmonds for the purpose of
defeating the plaintiffs' claim. With respect to the sum
of 120/., he declared that no such payment was ever made,
and that the only sum paid was 30/. 2thcrington, a common
friend of Simmonds and Weston, was procured for that
purpose ; and Stevens, another friend, named as trustee.
Simmonds, he said, gave him a cheque for the amount, and
the costs of the deed. Notices of Clear incumbrances were
afterwards served on Simmonds to make it appear a bona
fide transaction. It was further stated that the money was
immediately handed by Ethcrington to Beeston, and by him
returned to Simmenda. 'the must curious part of the affi-
davit was that which related to the alleged payment of the
2,0001. It was arranged, so the deponent said, between
him and Simmonds that Simntunds should pretend to pay
hint 2,0001., sad the transaction was managed in this way :
Simmonds gave Weston note* fur 400 i., which the latter put
into his desk and then left the room. Simmonds opened
the desk, took put the money, called Beeston into the room,
paid it again, and it was again placed in the desk, and the
form gone through until the payment of 2,0001. had been
completed. The deponent further added that the
whole scheme was devised to "do " the plaintiff
out of his claim. Simmonds died in 1811, and
a bill of revivor was filed against the present
defendants ; under these circumstances it was the ob-
ject of the plaintiffs to obtain the appointment of a
receiver of the rents. The Vice-Chancellor of England re-
fused the application, and the question again came on ou
exceptions to the Master's report, its an argument before
Lord Cranworth in July last; but the pro', nt appeal was
from the decree of the Vice-Chancellor. The appeal was
partly heard last term.
Mr. Bolt and Mr. A. Smith were for the appellants ; and
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Elmsley for the respondents.
Mr. Smith having now concluded his reply in urging the
right to the appointment of a receiver, the Lord Chancellor
took time to consider his judgment.
OROTE O. BASTARD.—MARKETABLT. TITLE.

This was mainly a question of costs, and arose out of a
suit for specific performance of a contract to purchase an
estate. The plaintiffs, • solicitor and medical gentleman,
were trustees under the will (dated June 15, Ittl4) of Mr.
Clifford Martyn Young, a gentleman of Devonshire. In
July, 184.5, they entered into an agreement with the de-
fend=t, Mr. Richard Bastard, for the purchase of a free-
hold estate devised by that will, the contract to be com-
pleted by the month of December then ensuing. An ab-
stract of the title was furnished, which contained, amongst
other matters, the terms of Mr. Young's will. By that
deed the testator devised his estate, subject to the wife's
interest, to the plaintiffs (the testator's medical attendant
and the solicitor who drew the will), as trustees. After
providing for the payment of certain legacies, the estate
was to be divided into three equal parts, one to go to the
children of each of the trustees, and the remaining third to
be divided amongst certain charities in the city of Exeter.
By a codicil, executed on the following day, the latter
bequest was revoked, and the third part devised to the
children of the testator's sister, and on a specified contin-
gency to be added, in equal portions, to the other
two thirds. Shortly after the abstract was given
to the defendant the heir-at-law threatened pro-
cee,:ings to set aside the will. The plaintiff soon
after gave notice that unless he proceeded to do so
within one month they should go on with the completion of
the sale. After some delay, about the beginning of Janu-
ary the heir-at-law instituted proceedings at law in the
form of an action for money had and received. The plain-
tiffs however did not wait the result, but on the 19th of
February filed their bill against the defendant fur specific
performance of the contract. The defendant put in an-
swers stating his readiness to complete it whenever a good
marketable title was given. On a motion for reference to
the blaster to inquire as to the title, the matter stood over
to wait the result of the proceedings at law. Meantime
the heir-at-law failed in his action, and a motion for a new
trial was subsequently refused. The Master's report set
forth, amongst other things, that the plaintiff, Mr. Grove,
three days after the execution of the will by Mr. Young,
made a declaration before a MasterEstraordinary in Chancery
that on the mention by the testator of his intention to make
a bequest to deponents children, he had done all that lay
in lus power to dissuade him from doing so, urging
him to leave his property to his own relatives,
and it was only on seeing that the testator had
very positively made up his mind on the subject
that he, the deponent, consented to carry out his instruc-
tions. It further appeared from the declaration, that it
was not until the testator was actually about to make a
formal execution of the will, that the deponent knew how
the blanks which he had been instructed to leave in the
deed were to be filled up. The master reported that a good
title was shown before the filing of the bill, which
view was adapted by his Honour `ice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce. On appeal to the late Lord Cottenham, his lordship
directed that the proceedings should stand over 01 a bill
was filed to establish the title against the heir-at-law. The
present appeal related to interest ou the purchase-money,
and costs arising out of these proceedings.
Mr. Wilcock, on behalf of the appellant, said his client
bad expressed his willingness to complete the contract
whenever a good title was given.
The Lord Chancellor asked what was the objection to the
title
Mr. Wilcock—The objection was that the will was in ilis-
inherison of the testators brother and sister.
The Lord Chancellor—But is that an objection to the

validity a will?
Mr. Warmth argued that there might be a good title, but
under the eireststances it was not a marketable title ; and
at all events the defendant was entitled to have the validity
of the will established. A title like Ciesar's wife should not
only be pure, bat above suspicion.
The Lord Chancellor—lf that rule is to be rigidly adhered
to, there will be a great many bad titles. Every disinherited
heir suspects the will.
Mr. Wilcock contended that his client was bound only
from the time a good titlewas shown, and that he was entitled
to interest on the purchase money, from 19th January,
1846, during the time the property had been with the
vendors.
It was contended contra, that a perfectly good and mar-
ketable title was shown in the abstract furnished to the de-
fendant when the agreement for purchase was made.
The Lord Chancellor postponed judgment.

Boom rig Mum 01 TVS Um.
ALDEVIRT V. SAYS: ALBEBLItT V. ALVERVRT.

The plaintiff in this cue married, on the 17th of October,
1840, a Miss Mann, and a settlement was executed the day
previously by which anyproperty which the plaintiff had,
or might become p of, was settled upon the wife
and her children. The object of the suit was to limit the
words in the settlement to any property which the plaintiff
is or may become possessed of under the marriage settle-
ment of his mother, which only, it was contended, was the
intended object of the settlement.
The Muter of the Rolls decreed that the words in the
settlement should have the limited construction put upon
them prayed for by the bill.

BOORS Tea-Casmcatwa TCINF.II.
HUGHES r. WELLS.—PowEU OF ArpotsrHENT.
The bill was filed in this case by the plaintiff, as the
representative of the surviving trustee of the settlement
executed upon the marriage of Sir John Wells with his
wife, Jane Dealtry, daughter and coheiress of Peregrine
Dealtry. The settlement was dated in 1815, and by it all
the personal property of the wife, which consisted of money
in the funds and various sums on mortgage, amounting al-
together to about 25,0001., was conveyed to trustees for her
separate use, with a general power of appointment to be
exercised by her notwithstanding coverture, during the
joint lives of herself and her husband, by and with the
consent and approbation of the said husband, testified in
writing under his hand and seal ; and if she ahould survive
her husband, the property was made subject to her own
appointment; and in default of appointment, subject
to various trusts. The property was never transferred
into the names of the trustees, nor did they in any way
interfere during the life of the husband. Before 11, r mar-
riage Lady Wells had kept a banking account at Smith,
Payne, and Smith's ; and shortly after the marriage an ac-
count was opened in the joint names. This was, however,
very shortly afterwards closed again, and the balance trans-
ferred to the account of Lady Wells, but she not liking the
trouble, as was said, of business, gave orders to the bankers
to honour her husband's cheques. Some time afterwards
pewees of attorney in the usual form were executed by Lady
Wells to her husband, and certain sums standing in her
name in the hooka of the Dank of England were transferred
into his name. Sir John and Lady Wells then went to live
at Butler's-green, near Cuckfield, and Lady Wells became
desirous of purchasing a house iu that neighbourhood.
Accordingly, after some time, a house at Lindlield
coming into the market, Sir John Wells entered into a con-
tract for the purchase of it fur the sum of 5,500 f., which was
ultimately carried into elicit, and the house was conveyed
to him absolutely. The purchase money was paid by
cheques on Smith, Payne, and Co., drawn by Sir John
Wells, and paid out of Lady Wells 's account, to which the
proceeds of the sale of the money in the funds, sold by the
powers of attontey before mentioned, was carried. Sir
Jahn and Lady Wells lived at the house thus purchased,
and a very considerable sum was laid out in improving and
rebuilding it. This was done at the request of Lady Wells,
and paid for out of the same funds by cheques drawn in the
same manner. Sir John died in the year 18.11, leaving his
wife surviving. There were no children of the marriage,
and there had been no formal exercise of the power of ap-
pointment contained in them irriage settlement. Sir John
left a will, dater: in 1815, but which had not been repub-
lished since that date, and therefore did not pare the house
and property at Lindfield, and being illegitimate the
estate was claimed as un escheat by Warden Sergason, the
lord of the manor; but it was contended fur Lady Wells
that as no powerof appointment had ever been exercised,
the dealings irf the husband with the fund were the deal-
ings of the wife, and that the real estate still remained sub-
ject to the trusts of the settlement; and the bill prayed
that an account might be taken of the persoinil property
comprised in the settlement, of which the husband had pos-
sessed himself, and that the trustee of the settlement might
be declared entitled to a lien upon the land.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. l'rior appeared for the plaintiff,
and contended that the execution et the power of attorney.
by Lady Wells could not In, considerisl as an exercise of
the power of appointment. That it was simply a manda-
tory instrument, and not an instrument of alienation, and
that the court could not give it a greater effect than the
parties intended it should have, and that the whole of the
evidence showed that the husband hail always considered
the property as that of the wife. That Sir J. Wells was,
therefore, trustee for his with, and the property was by the
Escheat Act (4 & Wni. I V., c. 23) subject to all the equi-
ties with which it was previously eflbcterl, and that that
act applied as well to trustees by implication of law as to
any other trustees.
Mr. Follett and Mr. Kerslake appeared for the personal
representative of Lady Wells.
Mr. Molt (with Mr. Selwyn) appeared in opposition to
the claims of the trustee, but had only just commenced his
arguments when the court rose.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—SATURDAY.
Strum. PgITEMOX, MIL Junta

COLARIIO4III. AND 144 JV.I ma WKINTILIM.
THE QUEEN V. AVEHY ANII BENCEA Fr.-CRIMINAL
IN !VEXATION.

Sir F. Thesiger TROVed for a rule calling on Mr. Avery,
an alderman et Barnsteple, and Mr. Bencraft, wan clerk
of that borough, to show cause why a criminal informa-
tion should not he Meet against them for certain alleged
corrupt and improper practices at the election of town
councillors Mr the North Ward of the borough of Baru-
staple on the Mt of this mouth. Mr. Avery was the pre-
siding alderman of the ward and received the v. tine papers,
which he placed OK a file and which were taken off and en-
tered in a polling book Icy the town clerk, who sat behind
a screen in the same room. There were three candidate ein
the liberal, and three in the conservative, interest; and at
the close of the proceedings the three former were
declared by the town clerk, in a printed hand-
bill, to have been elected. The defendants were
both in the liberal interest, and were anxious to
secure the return of the three litteral town councillors, in
' consequence, of the election of mayor and the appointment
of some aldermen about to ensue. Upon a scrutiny of the
voting papers by a solicitor on behalf of cafe of the unsuc-
cessful ca lutes it was found that seven of such papers
which had been given in for the conservative candidacy
were nut on the tile or in the polling book; and those
votes, together with others which had been improperly ad-
mitted, would place Mr. King, who was at the heed of the
conservative list, in the position in which Mr. Avery, at the
bottom of the liberal list, stood; whereas the numbers
stated to have voted for the hirmer were 267, and the latter
2143, making an apparent majority for Mr. Avery, the liberal
candidate, of 16 votes.

Rule granted.
Tug QUEEN e. AVERT.—QUO WAIULANTO.
Mr. Montague Smith then moved for a rule calling on
Mr. Win. Avery to show cause why a writ of quo warranto
should rot be filed ainiiii4t bins, in order that he should
show by what authority he claimed to be the Mayor of
Barnstaple. There had been two candidate,,, Mr. Avery,
who bad 13 votes, and a Mr. Harris, for whom 11 were
given ; but it was alleged that Mr. Avery was not eligible
for the office, not having been duly elected a town coun-
cillor of the borough.:
Rule granted.

BAIL. COURT.—SATURDAY.
&mem is BANCO. -OVUM MIL Jurmee EELS.
THB QUEEN V. TATS.—QUESTION OF TITLE.
In this case Mr. Jones obtained a rule, on behalf of Mr.
Bass, M.P. for Derby, calling on Mr. Tate, the lord of the
manor of Merton, in Surrey, and upon his steward, to show
cause why they or one of them should not admit Mr. Bass
as tenant of certain premises in the said manor. The ques-
tion involved is whether the title of Mr. BASS under a will
is good, independent of the trustees, or merely derived
from them.
THE QUEEN V. LATINIEIt.--CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

. .....--.......
At the commencement of the term • rule nisi was
obtained calling upon Mr. Isaac Latimer' the printer
and publisher of the Piermoide ./nomad, to show
cause :why a criminal intiirmation should not be filed
against him for a libel which appeared in that
journal, reflecting on the conduct of the Ilea. Edward
Jerningham. The article stated that Mr. Jerningham,
who was a Roman catholic, bad paid his addresses to
a Miss Mangles, the daughter of a protestant clergy-
man in Cornwall, who had, however subsequently,
turned Roman catholic. They were afterwards mar-
ried, it being arranged between them that all children
of the marriage should he brought up in the ltoman catholic
faith. There wore several children. After living together
for many years, Mr. and Mrs. Jerningham separated. Two
of the children had been previously placed in the Roman
catholic establishment at Taunton. They went home, how.
ever, to see their mother at Southampton, and it was said
that Mr. Jerningliam had contrived to take them away.
Mrs. Jerningham, after the separation, returned to the pro-
testant faith, and at one time resided in Plymouth. She
was then in the habit of going to a particular chapel, and
took with her her little boy. On one occasion, when she
was in that chapel, Mr. Jerningham went there, and as the
mother and child were going out of the chapel, Mr. Jer-
, gingham contrived to take away the boy without the know-
ledge of the mother, but he wrote to Mrs. Jerningham, and
told her he had the boy under his care. The article then
I went on to say that the boy had been taken away by the
I father in direct vioiatiou of an agreement that had been
entered into between him and a Mr. Williams, that he had
been guilty of a breach of honour, and that to enable him
to do so he had obtained a dispensation front his church.
Mr. Collier now appeared on behalf of the defendant, and
stated that his client had made inquiries into the matter,
and had discovered that so much of the article as related to
1
the alleged breach of faith could not be supported. His
client was desirous to retract that part of the article. of lie
defendant had obtained the information which had led a,
I the publication of the article from Mrs. Jerningham herself,
I the truth of whose statement he could not doubt ; but it
I appeared that she had acted from a false impression of the
nature of the arrangement between her husband and Mr.
I Williams, and, therefore, they most admit that Mr. Jer-
ningham had not been guilty of any breach of faith. The
defendant was, therefore, desirous of retracting that part
1 of the article, and of making any reparation in his power.
The week alter the alleged libel hail appeared the de-
fendant had given insertion to a letter of a Mr. M.Donnell,
in which the error was corrected, and he had supposed this
explanation would have satisfied Mr. Jerniugham ; how-
ever he (Mr. Collier) was now instructed to express the
deep regret of the defendant for having given insertion to
that part of the article imputing to Mr. Jerningham that
he had been guilty of a breech of faith.
ablela r.toK"ne discoverfot
l tnmelious manner in whiji the defendant had written of
Mr. Jerningham. aMnry. Jerningham,pi . f saidreghreet hadfor notthe been
Mr. Collier had intended to express that regret.
Mr. Justice Erie said in pursuing such a course the only
- question was whether the apology was satisfactory; if it
1
• was the rule would be discharged, upon payment of costs
Iby the defendant.
Rule discharged upon payment of coda by the defendant.
Uinta,

~~j_.'_~
~~~=;

COURT OF COMMON -
lUSI no
nceinns_ Ma. ferries
"Maas
LiMalanaaaan.— WILLIMICNMiIi NIL JetvieaT.wear.
TAINA/iT ANOLIAN RAILWAY COMPANT C. TNT EMITTIVI
• COT IiAILWAT C . Tea AOOKIIMINT TO
LTA, L TOT k:Va ANULIAN Linz.
Tot, aa. au action to ree user upwards of 21,0001., the
mown of the nests of promoting certain bills in parliament
ohich referred to works to be executed in commence with
the lines h,longing to the pleintiffs. The action was
,
founded upon an agreement set out in the p and
the mac Came before the court upon demillTertadainAL, the
question raised being whether the agreement was a valid
one.
Mr. Bramwell, Q.C., and Mr. Wheeler, appeared for the
plaintiffs; and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Crowder, Q.C., and
Mr. Duval, were for the defendants.
The denaration stated the fact of certain bills being at
a time before the commencement of the suit pending
before parliament, and then set out an agreement, dated
Feb. 26, Pea. This agreement was made between the
Lynn and Ely, the Ely and Huntingdon, and the Lynn and
Derehain companiesof the first part, and the Eastern Coun-
ties company of the second part, and it recited that it had
been agreed that the companies of the first part should
amalgamate themselves into one company, under the name
of the Eint Anglian' and that it had been agreed that their
lines should he leased to the eastern Counties for 999 years.
The 15th covenant was that the East Anglian should
proceed with the bills which they had then before
pseliamr nt, and if any of them were parsed,
should complete the works, and when completed
transfer them to the Eastern Counties. The 16th
covenant stated that the Eastern Counties should find
the necessary capital for making the works, and pay the
East Anglian all costs of promoting the bills, whether any
of them were passed or nut. The declaration then stated
the history of the halt and various other matters, and as-
signed for a breach that the defendants had not paid the
ante of the bills so prosecuted in parliament, in pursuance
of the said indenture. The defendants pleaded a plea,
stating that the plaintiffs had not procured any act of par-
liana-et to authorise them to lease their lines, and that cer-
tain shareholder,. in the Eines% Counties had not instated
to the peeper...l for le..siug the said lines. This was the plea
demurred to.
Mr. Itremwell now submitted that the defendants must
maintain one of these two points; first, supposing that all the
shareholders of both companies had invented to the agree-
ment and iudenture, still it we an illegal contract, which
either iminpany could set aside whenever they thought fit;
or secondly, that it the agreement was a valid one, yet as
there was one or more noiematating shareholders in the
defendmit'scominny, the whole company might take advan-
tage of it not to consent to the agreement. If the court
should adopt either of these views, the consequence would
be meet aerrius, for railway compares might then get out
of almost any contraet which they did nut think it their
interest to carry out. The law it was submitted was this,
that as the agreement was properly executed and sealed
with the seal of the defendant's company in proper form, it
mu-t Le held us binding upon them, and that they could
not nee tilt illll,tillll of its invalidity.
Sir Enemy Kelly, on the part of the defendants, sub-
mitted that this contract bad been entered into contrary to
the defendants, and also the plaintiff.' acts•of parliament ;
that it was, then fore, altogether illegal and void, and that
the plaintiff. could maintain no action upon it. The
third seetion of the defendants' act said that it should be
lawful fur the company to raise among themselves any sum
of mem y not exceeding 1,600,10.11., " fur the purpose of
making and maintaining the said railway, ani other works
authorised by this act ;" unit the fifth section enacted that
the money to be raised by virtue of this act, should be laid
out, and applied, in the first place, in paying the nuts
of ..Irtaining the act, and the remainder in making
and maintaming the said railway and other works,
and otheriane iu carryiint this act into execution. This
being so it wax sulnuitted-that the purpose fur which the
defendants could raise money, and the manner in which
they could apply it were strictly limited, and that they
had not the slightest power to use their funds for any
other purpose.. The agreement in question therefore was
quite uusiutburised by tie act, and the defendants had no
power to enter into it. Under these circumstances the
agreement was an illegal are, and no contract could he
tomeded upon it, sad theta must, therefore, lie Judgment
far the defendants.
The court took time to consider the matter.

tiILTEKLIWIL O. IRWI:4.—REVJNW OE TAXATION.
This wax an action to rewire, for work done in printing
LDa Larrury ifirsz4 are, and it was tried wine tune ago and a
verdict found for the defendant.

Mr. Bramwell. ti c, to-day. moved for • rule to show
MOS why the Master iou.M not review his taxation of
oats.— Rule grants d.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUEIL-SATURDAY.

4171101. n 14••01_ -Fir,..• 180 Cosa Clll.ll/ HAWN. 51. BARON

Ns.; Ya. Kamm Aa.aarrrn..•n Ma. BARON Itaans.
IluArv... BA LUWI74.—LIMEL.

The plaintiff appeared in person, and applied for a rule
calling ..0 the delendant, the proprietor of the Morning
'lrma, to .how cause why this cause should not come ou
for trial first on Widnaday neat, its proper place in the
hat, and he tried by a common jury even though the special
jury should not he in attendance. For two sittings this
case had *toad in the paper u a cantinas jury, but for the
map., of a further delay, as the plaintiff now urged, the
defendant hail made it a special jury care. The main
ground of the present application was that several of the
plaintiff's willies.. s were on their journey ham the south
of Fence and other places abroad fur the purpose of reach-
ing this rountry in time for the trial on Wednesday neat.
It MA% Inirow.•l4l.• for her to communicate with those parties
DOW in time to present their corning over.
The court granted the rule to show cause.
EXCHEQUER CHA3IBEIL--BAII7IIDAY.
CROWN CASKS KKKEItgED,

limas Loan CNN, A. Int Cdarstu., Ma. BARON Aunnual,
Mc S•acc rum MI. Pen/ea Tm.rotac. AMY Ma. Ilasum
M•in•.

TOR QUETS ON THE r SOGICCTION TSOMAS JOllrbloN
AND l'usAiti.L. WbIIUUT.—THE l'amousovult SWIM.
IA IMO tr.L.

_ ...... .
This was alit a ease which had been very fully argued ou
the preview. Ssturday, Mr. Bliss, Q.C., appearing for the
prisoners, and Mr. Muller, Q.C., in support of the convic-
tion. It will be remembered that the prizosen had in-
duced the praise-cuter to act as go-between in a pretended
sale of some cows; that Wright counted out 42 sovereigns
and pawed thew through the prosecutor's hands to his
accomplice; that Johnson put them down again, and said
that, in order to satisfy his father, he should prefer a
cheque en prosecutor*. bank ; that the prosecutor wrote
him one, and, at his desire accompanied him to the
bankers, keying Wright and the severrips in his shop till
they should return to finish the transaction; that Johnson
having cashed the cheque contrived to give prosecutor the
slip • and that as son as the latter reached home (whither
he had immediately hastened) he found that Wright had
also de rangya with the sovereigns, leaving him thus minus
the 421. °lmitated from his hankers. Mr. Bliss had con-
tended that the fraud amounted to no more than embezzle-
.
meat or a ',retch of trust.

The Lord Chief Justice now delivered judgment. The
court were of opinion that the conviction for larceny was
right with respect to the tour ten pound notes and the two
sovereigns which were given in exchange for the cheque.
It appeared that the cheque was the property of the prose-
cutor, and the jury had found that the prisoners had in-
tended throughout to get it into their possession by fraud
and to apply it to their own use. They bad also found that
the prosecutor did not intend to part with his property in
the cheque or change until Johnson returned and the pro-
secutor had received the 42 sovereigns. It appeared that the
cheque had been cashed-
en the presence of the prosecutor
and at his express desire, so that it must be considered that
Johnson hail only loco intrusted to hold the change, and
that the possession still remained with the prosecutor. The
prisoner Johnson therefore did steal the change and had
earned it otr insito domino. It appeared then to be •
simple case of larceny, and the conviction ought to be
affirmed.
The rest of the court concurred.
Convietion continued.
TWA QV EY,N ON THE PKORECCTIOX OF WILLIASCRIAPOIL

Aut tAva.PlOl,O/4e, CAr•st.zoll, Ii1;17401170L11,1

The Lord Chief Justice rid that in this ere the r
had been indicted, at the list Retford serious, att., on
the 7th of July, for stealing four pigeons, the property of
John Mansell, such pigeons being alleged to be tame and
atdaimed. It appeared that at the time the theft was rim-
raitted the pimsnis were in precentor's dovecote over his
stable, and on his premises. The ern was as one,
with holes at the top for the fres irtrhrLgirotilet di,
and having a door which was wait
to the dovecote at midnight,ierok• apes grisly and
stole the pigeons. At the trial his goarill dig
the pigeons being at liberty to go la and sea am ma as.
claimed, and mad not therein* be *II Ildiest at businy.
The learned ehairran coincided bait MI% GMiligli
the**, accordingly. They, haarros talk a banar riaw
of the taw than the judge, and am& aka resat guilty.
(Laughter.) Accordmg to the Obiolar rams there
mould be ao Luray of oldie ate pat% or docks, or
palsy of any deseripties, biome lay was also allowed
to run about. He (Lord Oragisell) therglit that the jury
had core to • proper combrlca, sad that the carrictioa
ought to be
Judgment 'armed acconlingly.
Tan WS'S on TIIS_PROSICCTION Or WK.

• _
LIABILITT 01 ♦ YAT.L& To MOST ■IS CIILD.
. _

Ia ;;;; ti;e -pris;;;;hai ieWes7tvisiaa-t. the
Letiambwiingli tikaieus,
Bain,lii.
to he baying eased
ia laving rehrai to e body anis child.
This pekoes. was • raw sad was reselviag waredrier re-
lief at the thou his WM died. By ea order of Os Peer
Comelemisasse the maim were sepowered
MaidLawr& relief ia sertek ewes by way of loan. One sf these
eon was be mai& peer pineal to bury their near rela-
tives but the guardians granted as loan fact that parpeor
without tibiae ma mekaowledgemmeat fee the sea payable
as dimmed, ia owe they dissid We& wt to require payment.
la this ewe the mama rehmed to saga sod the still maimed fiabwied. At the trial the
the paper. man directed the jory that the prisoner, hay*, the spies
of the lona, wee of ability to bury the child, mad be INIS
aeserebyr_ly a:witted.
Mr. o'lAm having addressed the court la support of
that view of the ease
The Lard Chief Judea: amid be wog tiardi of gibs
that the wavietiou was ea d, std MO is dbeeles
of the oakum seats ast be ..washed. Ter was
andsubleiCy bound le ban lit algid if be woo AIN but be
was art bound to resin Ibe haat, and thereby reader Mar
Maself amide M the hoe et We libureLe
pi= Idea et
ifat
tt ra awd
bies yeealleelben u a pelt if be., by
tbe
lb. Sem Aids au :arm Kr. Off)—Toe wield bare
bow ens sibs noel* aim
Oeselides

4
t

PREROGATIVE COURT.-EATIIRDAY.
Brrou Ma H. 1. Elm. _

BXITIE Wald HER MAJEETVE Paocenttoit-Gaste.m..
Thu argument. in this te•tameutary care were not conclu-
ded when the learned Judge rose.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—SATURDAY.
Irma Y. Commies= Oootavas.
Ix as I.2as.
•• • - • •

... -
Th. bankrupt, a draper, at Malden, applied for his cer-
tillage a week ago, wn judgment was reserved. His
Honour now said, the main charge urged against the bank-
rupt was fraudulent preference to his own children, and it
woo contended that the offence brought him within the
fourth clause of the 256th section of the Consolidation Act
that if the bankrupt shall at any time within two
months next preceding the issuing of the fiat, or the filing
of the petition for adjudication in bankruptcy, fradulently,
in contemplation of bankruptcy, and not under pressure
from any of his creditors, with intent to diminish the sum
to be divided among his creditors, or to give an undue
preference to any of his creditors, have paid or satisfied
any such creditor wholly or in part, or have made away
with, mortgaged. or charged any part of his property of
what kind soever should be disentided to protection.
The evidence did not show that the bankrupt had come
within any of the four requisites of this clause. He had
neither acted fraudulently, nor in contemplation of bank-
ruptcy, nor under pressure, nor with intent to diminish
the sum to be divided amongst his creditors.
He had acted In pursuance of a former agreement, in ful-
filment of a bygone intention, and not at all in the manner
which the act contemplated. AU he intended was to dis-
charge what he believed to be a moral. if not a legal,
obligation. Upon the whole, he thought the bankrupt'
ought to have his certificate ; and the only question was the
class. It had been stated that the bankrupt had • good
business at Camden-town, and that he chose to wander to
Malibu, and there, in a short time, he got through all he
previously made. That act of the bankrupt could not be
said to have been unavoidable, or his losses consequent
thereupon to have arisen from unavoidable losses or misfor-
tunes; and therefore the Court could only award a certifi-
cate of the third class. He must say there were many fa-
vourable features in the ease, and no one had any ground
for imputing anything like fraud to the bankrupt.