The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-05 00:00:00

tato Entellionut.

LAW NOTICES.—THIS DAY.
OMR' ow CILLVCCRT Westminster, at 10.—Appeals: Tande-
lent ". Blagrave, part heard; Lord v. Wightwick ; Carmlellael v.
Carmichael, (2) ; Hawke... Howse.
ica-Cassicattons• COURTS, Westminster, at 10.—Before Sir L
ShadwelL—Adjourned cause petitiono—Commencing Fear v. Sutton,
part beard. After motions: Kingham v. Lee, demurrer; Baldwin
v. Damer.—Before Sir J. Knight Bruce.—Causcs Sowerby v. Pontop
Railway Company, part bard; Tweislow v. Bullock ; Brighton v.
North.—Before Sir J. Wigram.—Sayers v. Lowe, for judgment
Sidney v. Ranger, to be mentioned ; Barry v. Marriott, to produce
wilt —Causes, tn.: Campbell v. Brighton Railway COOlpany, part
heard; Hunter v. Macklew (as to parties) ; plowdeo v. Thmw ; Dun-
onnbe v. Levy ; Fraser v. Jones ; Dole v. Hamilton ; Phillips v.
Meinbeltzhagens Bostock v. Shaw.
Bow COURT, Chancery-lane, at 10.—For Judgment.—Hargrave
v. Hargrave. In re Currie ; —Causes, tc. : Horsley,. Martin; Browne
v. Bonne; Gustard v. Richards; Carpmael v. Powis ; Benet] v.
Reynell ; Filby v. Filby ; Robinsoa v. Hall; Knight v. &rester ;
Clark v. Church; Perry v. Meddowartt ; Attorney General v. Magdalen
College; Teistell v. King's College.
COURT or Quian's Smut, Westminster, at 10.—Sittings in Bann.
BAIL Cot: wr (Qrstm's Basco), Westminster, at 11.—Middlesex
Common Juries.—Wright v. Beams; Lander v. Jackson; Greville v.
Stultz and others; Dean v. Sims; Sweet V. Everett and another;
CUITORiIIg V. Smith; Richard v. Leyte; Maugham v. E. W. A.
Gathercole ; Medina e. ; Bingham v. Livingston; Maugham
v. M. A. Gathercole.
COURT OF CONNOR Puss, Westminster, at 10.—Sittlogs in Banco.
Cot= or EWER:WEN Westminster, at Rh—Middlesex Common
Juries.—Mllier v. Harding, part hearoL—The Court will also sit in
Banco.

EQUITY COURTS.—YEATERDAT.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
IN RE PERI:MR.—TAXATION OF SOLICITORS' BILLS OF
COSTS. This was an application to discharge an order of
the Master of the Rolls, directing taxation of certain bills of
costs of Mesas. Pender and Gem, solicitors carrying on
their business at Falmouth in Cornwall, under these cir-
cumstances. Mies Glaseon, of Falmouth, representing
several deceased parties to suits in chancery carried on by
Messrs Pender and Gem, resolved to change those solicitors,
and instructed her new solicitors, Messrs, Willoughby and
Farquet, to apply to them for their bills of costs, for the pur-
pose of settling and paying them. Messrs. Pender and Co.,
delivered to them three bills amounting together to 451.,
hissing previously delivered to Miss Wasson other bills of
costs amounting together to 3791., which they had against
W. Gleason, to whose estate she had sdministered. They
had received 2011. of this latter sum. Willoughby and Co.
having objected to several items in the bills, and not being
able to prevail on Fender and Co. to reduce them, obtained
the common order to tax the bills delivered to them, and
presented a special petition at the Rolls for au order to tax
the other four bills. Fender and Co. opposed this petition,
and at the same time moved to discharge the common order
to tax the other bills, on the ground that none of the bills
had been signed by them, nor inclosed in any letter signed by
them,and they were not therefore taxable within the provisions
of the 37th section of the act 6 & 7 Victoria, chap. 73. An-
other objection made by Fender and Co. to the common order
at the Rolls,was, that it ordered them to deliver up all papers
belonging to MSS Olafson in their possession, although the
order to tax applied only to some of them. The Master of
the Rolls overruled all the objections, confirmed the common
order to tax the three bills delivered to Willoughby and Co.,
and made an order on the petition, as to the four other bills
made the usual order to tax them. The motion to this
Court to discharge these orders was supported by Mr. J.
Parker and Mr. W. M. James, and opposed on behalf of
Miss Gleason by Mr. Roupell and Mr. Goodeve. The argu-
ments occupied the Court the greater part of Monday and
Tuesday.
The Lord Chancellor now gave his judgment. The ques
tion turned on the construction of the 37th section of the
6th and 7th Vict., chap. 73, by which it is enacted in sub-
stance that no solicitor shall commence an action for the
recovery of any fees for business done until the expiration of
one calendar month after he shall have delivered a bill of
such fees to the party to be charged therewith, or sent or left
it for him, and which bill shall be subscribed with the proper
hand of such solicitor or inclosed in or accompanied by
letter subscribed in like manner referring to such bill. The
course of practice founded on the construction of the act
went far to dispose of the question raised in the case.—The
Master of the Rolls put the same construction on the
words " such bill," in the dist section, in a case re-
ported in sth Beavan, as he has put on the same
words of the 37th section in this case. The result of
a construction that no bill could be taxed unless signed by
the solicitor would not be a benefit to any party. Jf a soh-
, citor delivers a bill, which, on taxation, is reduced by one-
sixtb, he incurs a penalty by being obliged to pay the costs
of taxation. On the other hand, having delivered the bill
i without his signature, if that bill could not be taxed because
I not signed, he might get out of the difficulty alter making
the experiment on his client to obtain more than he was
entitled to. It was, therefore, important to see if the act
allowed that to be done. There is really no ambiguity in
the terms of the clause of the act, and his lordship had no
hesitation in saying the Master of the Rolls put the proper
construction on it. "Such bill," clearly meant the bill
delivered, whether signed or not. The solicitor may sign
the bill itself, or sign the letter inclosing it, which last sig-
nature is referrible to the bill. The act proceeds, " And on
the application of the party chargeable by such bill, within
such month, it shall be lawful," &c., fur the judge to refer
" such bill," &c. The words " such bill " must be taken to
apply to the bill delivered, and the Master of the Rolls put
the sure construction on the words. That disposed
of the three bills delivered to the new solicitors. The ques-
tion as to the other four bills must be disposed by the ordi-
nary jurisdiction of the court. As to the last point, viz., that
the order of the Rolls ought not to direct all the papers of
the client to be delivered up ; but the order should be qua-
lified. His Lordship saw no reason for the solicitors not
complying with that part of the order also; and on the
whole he would dismiss the present motion, with costs, as all
the objections were urged on behalf of a party who ought to
know the practice of the court in this matter, and that his
objections were not warranted by the true construction of
the statute. It was a motion that ought not to be brought
forward.

VANDELEC'R v. BLADROVE.—This appeal from a decree
of the Muter of the Rolls was opened, and Mr. Bahell, Mr.
Romilly, and Mr. Nevinson, were heard on one side, when
the Lord Chancellor rose to go the House of Lords, to pro-
rogue Parliament.
Before the Vice-Chaneellor of England.
RUSSELL O. NICHOLLS.—PROPERTY OF A WARD OP
COURT.—DIRECTION FOR A SETTLEXEST.—This was a peti-
tion presented by Mrs. Russell, the mother of a young lady
who married Mr. John Brook Rush shortly after she had
attained the age of seventeen, and, as the petition repre-
sented, without her mother's consent. The petition prayed
that the young lady's property might be settled under a
decree of the Court, and that the sums to which she was
entitled might not be paid in the meantime to her husband.
It appeared that Mrs. Rush, who was entitled under her
grandfather's will to certain property upon her attaining
twenty-one, on marriage had joined with her husband in
assigning this property to a person named Warden, who ob-
tained a stop order to prevent the fund being paid out of
Court to any one but himself.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Hallett appeared in support of the
petition.
Mr. Toller, on the other side, contended that the peti-
tioner, the mother, was in the position of a stranger to the
property of her daughter, and had no right to come to the
Court to have it settled, and that as the daughter had no
property in possession till the time of her marriage, she
could not have been made a ward of Court.
The Vice-Chancellor said it appeared to him that Mrs.
Rush might have been made a ward of Court. She had a
vested right in the property, which was quite sufficient for
that purpose. It was property which the Court was bound
to take care of for her. It appeared that the young lady
had married shortly after she was seventeen years of age,
and whether the mother had consented to the marriage or
uot,was immaterial; she presented this petition praying that
a settlement might be made. His Honour considered it a
very proper petition. It appeared that Mr. Arden had ob-
tained a large assignment from the husband of this lady, of
property in which she was interested, and upon that assign.
meat there was a reference to the proceedings in this court,
from which he might have ascertained that the lady was a
minor, and was a ward of court. He then obtained a stop
order, to prevent the money being paid to any one but him-
self.—His Hump thought this order was too extensive, and
must therefore be di.-charged with coatis, and he was also of
opinion, there being nothing special is this case, that there
should be a reference to the Master, to ascertain whether the
marriage bad actually taken place, and then to approve of a
proper settlement of the property.
VARTT V. DUNCAN.—LkIa case, which was reported in
the Express of yesterday, was concluded.—The Vice-
Chancellor thought that sufficient evidence had not been
produced before the jury at the trial at law, and that justice
could net be properly administered without a new trial
being directed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
The Lord Chief Justice renewed the intimation given in
the course of the sittings in baneo, after last term, that the
special paper would not be taken in term, and that on the
deys usually devoted to the special paper (Tuesdays and
Fridays) the new trial paperswould be taken. The crown
paper, however, is to be taken on the usual days (Wednes-
days and Saturdays). During the sittings in bongo, after
term, certain days will be given to the special paper.
MAROETSON O. 81MTEON.—ld EANINO OP THE WORD
" MONTH " IN • WRITTEN CONTRACT TO REMUNERATE
AN AUCTIONEER.—Mr. Watson, Q.C., moved for a rule
calling on the plaintiff in this case, which was tried at the
sittings in London after last term, to above cause why
the verdict which paned for him for the amount
he had claimed beyond a sum paid into court, should not
be set aside, and one entered for the defendant, The
plaintiff is zu auctioneer, who was employed by the deiSnd-
-8,0 to sell an estate in Norfolk, under a written contract, bj
which it was stipulated that the plaintiff should receive one
per mat, oti the purchase motley if the estate should be sold

by auction or within two months after auction held, and if it I
should not be sold by auctiou or within two months after-
wards, one-half per cent. on the reserved price. The auction
was held on the 6th of August, and the estate was not then
sold ; the defendant, lufwever, sold it on the 2nd of October
following, that, is mr.:re than two lunar months, and leas than
two calendar v.:.onths after the auction. If the word
" months " in the contract meant calendar months, the
plaintiff i 9 entitled to keep his verdict ; if it meant lunar
montlis, then, it was arranged after the trial, this rule ought
to be g-ranted, and eventually be made absolute. The
learned counsel then contended that in a written contract
the word " month " must be taken to mean lunar month,
unless the contract should distinctly point to another mean-
ing.—The Court granted the application.