The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-07 00:00:00

lain Entelligcncr.

LAW NOTICES.—Tuts DAT.
Cour or CHANCERY, Weatminater, at 10.—Appeal. • Riming
V. Swtnnerton, part beard ;CA rmictwel Carmichael-(2) ; Wrightson
v. Macauley ; Lawrence v. Bowle. Causes, by order: Gomperta v.
Gomperta (3) ; Morris v. Howes (2).
Vica.Crtasciu.kons' Covers, estminster, at 10.—Before Sir L.
StiadwolL—Causes, Bu.—Kinghani v. Lee; Baldwin v. Darner ;
den v. Stephen.; Penny T. Watts; Kirke v. Bromley Cnion; Lewis
v. Cooper; Grand Junctean Canal Company v. Dimes; Bowen v.
Scott (2) ; Parker v. Day (2); Johnson v. Fora.. Ater ; Terry v. Witcher ;
Simeon e. Holt.—Before Sir J. Knight Bruce.—llatticla v. Payme,
petition.—Caugek by order Weston v. Radford : Bout:bre v. Collier;
eib!horpe v. Cooke; Wilcocks v. Cooke; Pow% v. Price.—Causes
Re.: Brighton v. North, part beard; Taylor v. Thomas; Goff v.
Brennan; Taylor ...Taylor: Malta v. !Rice; Money v. Johnson;
Hulbert v. Hulbert; S ibire v. Callbeck ; Croxton v. Croxton ;
Taylor v. ; Wilson v. Parker; Pascoe v. Hendon (2).
Before Sir ]. Wigr.un.—Seven cause petition., the unopposed beet, and
four abort causes. C.:mem—Framer e. ]ones; Leigh v. Earl Balearras;
Dale v. Hamilton ; Ilaitock v. Shaw ; Preston v. Wilson ; Emerson v.
Emerson.

ROLLS Cora; Westminster, at 10.—For Judirment.—Lancroter v.
Evora; Hicks v. Lord Alranlev. Causes, &e., by cormait, and short
causes. To be spoken to—Hamilton v. Lawler (2,; Hargrave v.
Hargrave; Lockhart v. 1 lardy. Causes, &e.— tier nell e. 14y.x U, part
heard; rilby v. Pithy ; Robinson v. Wall; Knight v. Stanton; Perry
v. Meddoweraft; Attorney-General v. Magdalen College; Telstel v.
King's College; Attorney-General r. Ludlow; Hopkinson v. Ellis;
Ottley v. Gray; Wilk"( v. Douglas; Howard v. Howard.
Coeur or Moira/. 'a Baseu, Westmbeder, at 10.—sittings in Banco.
BAIL Corny (QUEEN', BENCH), Westminster, at 11.—Middiesex
Common Juries.—Semple the younger v. Baker ; Joy v. Showier.
Culla or Cornrow l't.r.as, Westminster, at 10.—§ittmes in Banco.
Coca. or Excitor:ea, Westminster, at 10.—Sittings in Banco.

EQUITY COURTS.—YERTERDAY.
Before the Lord Chancellor. _

HEMING V. SV.7I;NEATON.7-AWAIII7.:-JURI6IIICTION.
This was an appeal from an order of the Vice Chancellor
of England, overruling a demurrer put in by the defend. n;
to the plaintiff's bill. The defendant became tenant to the
plaintiff, Mr. Dempster Ileming, in 18:18, in a mill and
premises in Warw;ekshire, which, from being a carding mill,
the tenant was, with his own capital, to convert into a flour-
mill, according to an agreement with the landlord, and to
hold the same at a lease of seven, fourteen, or twenty-one
years ; but if called on to give up the premises at or More
seven years, he was to have 4001. in respect of his etelay ;
and if within fourteen years, he was to have 21101. The
tenant laid out his money, and converted the mill intn a
Hour-mill, but before the expiration of the seven years dis-
putes arose between him and Mr. Heming, and the latter
gave him notice to quit. Mr. Swinnerton then filed a bill
in Chancery fur specific performance of the agree m nt for
the lease. Before further proceedings both partie s agreed
to refer all matters in dispute between them to the ar-
bitration of a Queen's counsel, and the reference was made
on order of this court. The arbitr..tor by his award,
I directed Mr. liming to pay the tenant 1,7321. within a
certain time, together with costs of stilt and interest, et 4
per cent. on said sum until paid; and also the penalty of 4001.
for determining the lease before seven years. Mr. liming,
dissatisfied with the award, filed this bill to set it uside, and
to get possession of the premises. The tenant's demur to
that bill was overruled by the Vice-Chancellor, from whose
order the tenant brought this appeal.
Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Daniel were heard for the appel-
lant, and they contended that the award could not be set
aside iu that form—that the proper mode to get the opinion
of the court on it was by motion to stay its execution, and
that the order of reference under which the award was made
having been made a rule of court agreeably to the act of
William 111., the court had no jurisdiction to entertain a
suit brought in the face of the award. Several authorities
were cited on those several points.
Mr. Itolt and Mr. Wright supported the order of the Vice-
Chancellor, and contended that the award was had on the
face of it, for want of mutuality, of finality, and other
defects, and ought not to be allowed •o stand in the way of
the court's doing justice to the plaintiff. They also sub-
mitted that the act of William 111. making an order of
reference a rule of a court of record binding, did not apply
to courts of equity. The arguments were not finished at
the rising of the court at 4 o'clock.