The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-25 00:00:00

SPORTING.
TAITERSALIAL--Kasom

Beire v ebaa-e-Wre6 mar— d bessiej emit err% and
elbeelder the herr bars 6r the 01 oh; whir bre
*erre sr neer sr riek Ibuit Or re um bur bib* et
be as way sr. Soak. boo yr bender erl6 mot te en re
ate, oe Mar ; Lee err prormar 16 freers set
berg es Glirre ler the Err. is us deed ea Ibilmeley, art
are brae the feerwith X masa wry pea ler err to
be berd quern; tee bre* therelin. Ur re gig erre will
be mark ar lbet ft WSW le blie el beilerlfeeeered
ell Orr seeperillearerph Uwe wen sr baits dera bib Lid
reier4lolYr grim at Nor re ere
me the rebilleree et Ye arts Met bar bet eP=
ries lesl :
Erma% Ifus.-2 to 2 t Ileadliest. 4to 1 air Tr Berg 6
to t web* Tree Dykes, 7 to ap I
mat ibratas. 10 to I mist (L),
10 be I sperildrlea
we terrier that Err le sot likely to Mart.
Away ferrah—Evan ter the 664.eip.art

er. isess.-4 • to 1 ogot Vas Thom SO to I opt
Mr. Narita

looort.--1110 to 100 opt Bow 11Waatcher, fool Moult (t).

WIDUITLLNO AT TEM IDICIIDOCIC
Yesterday the ram& at die Deseirrit Arate.Oradea TOII/11,
were draws eraise the dirlaysiveallig la dr Deaserite
It ins lidded that ihe herr ea alat ardle et Or
roar be mamba sersdne OD wratit art podemes, :Mr In
order to wade la Se Neral dm err 111 traYbll throw
his WS let ilia, BY thre ea saresetal rime Wilds (C),
who VMS (D) tedekaallipirly. (lederl), a ataated
Ajax, vbe Who drawl Z. %,C), art Cher (C), lbßarr, a
little phisearra, rho drat awl Dr heard Kemp (0).
Guar.,. the Chembh ( et theme prres last year), now
faded draddleteled eilopke, ed Deem, Cad their mars.
meals Wan midst n, after strength
' ire WU& her *hart exhauaroGumy threw Inn power-
tut oppeara a rude 611.

Two berm Torstvas ow ill; 11AWnisows Curs MOS aIIOOND.
—Mk diottitplikeit dub sprit their wow rmatity by • gee
dare Nosh bitussa tes esbuist die at Imre. Me mood was
tor barr al
ea dos ssraisa lies w bet asellyabd vaid
Saws bon do some mem was nibs dims trosatbitr. Ms wart
nig ot Strotbmsro was mils is bo leo Ms IsedoLplo lbw was
rasa by land Itosbutab. • vim bets•tsfogibe lest two
r tbres yews aisibitsi Bosh l• dr waft sisa ray by tbo
.4, Is as Mein pigmy bb Nebo Nes sasstitblagli boo
moist at effort salreaftsr It be Ism mos •. as bo
orlOnlkild, es se isibst, me loyal= as vivo leas
wet. Dili yisyed beastitally. Mos 11••• tx lips• sir bit a
warns* all; whilst Mr. lisegarth bre art llorplies lindmidloras.
TM Mltea burs sil litswili to tin Am% sot wllk birsoseptims
were dam* is be ost sissy. Assam Mabel Miss bitty
tire stomps wow dm% me et lot resitdoe brows lot lb.:

-307.10.na--21-nig Ile.—
Lord Idnombrepb Swig.
Lard lett sisth nes
C. H. Hare, list, • Dm,
bßayley... .............. 0
Myer, 0 Dean
Clarke, b I.lll7whlte l6
Mb eat 30
Hon-C.
h*. bladrettite l3
IL kW b Bayley
Lord Onmenery, b Dna
W. lirnaW, /eq., b Bayloy 0
Goad. b Dean
T. barrrybo, Tag., not oat
Blw
127

iinrrsaTtoes Stos.
Toler, Eat, • lard Bar-
k*, b 11.111yer ........ 1
Took, leg, nava
A. Haw* Beg, b /Myer 13
Dem, a
fires 6
Uskle, e b» 33
Lltlyerthe, b 11•1•16 a. 3
1
Bayley, a Ileddat. b 4
Earl Wisentsis.ll=ya• 6
IL Maws, Bre. vet out
111dreaeb. 134., rout out 4
010.111Nektesed. • Barl4lllll,
b Oaf
By% I; ao tell, 1

lab) Entrlltatna.

EQUITY COURTS.
Dire the Lard Mamelke.

THZ DIAN AND C711:7711110P ELT 0: BLISIL—TITNIA.
—ETATZTZ FOR LIMITATION 07 SUITS.—This was an
appeal hook an order of the Master of the Rolls. The
bill was BIPd in 1842 for an account of tithes of lands,
held by the defendant, in the parish of Lakenheath,
sines the year 1837. The bill stated a decree, made
in 1813, establishing the plaintiffs' right to tithes of the said
lands, but did not state that any tithes were accounted for or
paid under that decree or before ; it also stated that the
plaintiffs had granted a lease of the tithes of the parish in
1831, and whlah existed till 1837, but did not allege that the
loam comprised the lands of which the tithes were claimed
in this suit, or that the defendant paid any tithes to the
lessees. To this bill the defendant pleaded the above-men-
tioned statute as a bar to the claim, denying that any right
to tithes accrued to the plaintiffs within 20 yeses before the
institution of the suit. The question in the came was,
whether the plea was a sufficient bar to the suit. The
Master of the Rolls held that it was.—Mr. Bethel, Mr.
Lloyd, and Mr. Fleming were heard fur the sppellants, the
dean cnd chapter, on Saturday.—Mr. Eindersk and Mr.
Holt were elm heard on Saturday ; and Mr. Eagle was now
heard in support of the plat, and of the Master of the
Rolls' judgment. —lt appeared front the gatemen' of
counsel, that the appeal had been before fully
heard by Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst ; and that, in cense•
quenoe of a doubt suggested in the coarse of the argument
whether the act 2 and 3 WM. IV., cap. 100, was repealed or
affected by the an 3 and 4 Will. IV., e. 27, his lordship di-
rected a came to he sent for the opinion of the judges of the
Conn of Exchequer; that that court returned their answer
that the plea was bad, being of opinion that the ovation arm
decided In the previous ease of Grant v. Ellis" (9 Menton
and W.).
The Lord Chancellor, at the conclusion of the argument,
expressed an opinion that the eimunatances of the present
came differed much from thine of " Grant e. Ellie," and be
would, therefore, be better pleased if the court had decided
this case on its own merits, as the learned counsel at the bar
had argued it. His lordship seemed inclined to think that a
ease should be sent to another court, but he postponed the
consideration of it for the present.

Before the Waage of the Rolls.
PITITION TOR Ravine or kiASTEII:II RIPORT.—In
this cue a decree had been made in the year 1841, by which
the Master was ordered to take an account of all sums come
to the hands of the Drapers' Company sines the Ming of the
information. The blamer' in his reps", katiag included certain
GUMS which bad accrued, due before the filing of the intones.
tion, but which had been paid afterwards, this petition was pre-
seated by the company to correct what they alleged to be an
; eme in making out the accounts, and to hare these mime
disallowed.

The ISl;4er of the Rolla said that he did not think the ,1
words of the decree ,justified him in saying that there was a'
mistake in the way in which the accounts had been taken ; if
the company were diaawisfiecl with the decree they were at
liberty to present a petition for its rehearing.—Petition dia-
-1 missed with costa.

Beim the Vlee-Cteatteeller otEadlesd.
GERM V. OERVIS.—PAYERST OZ A TESTATOR'S DetteTe
RoPOETION ABLY BY SPECIFIC LEGATES/ AND D SYMMS.—
TheVioe-Cleaseellor deli veredjadvarat le this case, which wee

by camera in th dean lent team. Thsieseistor is e* hlie
trieettele speedo *par. ad devised the rest of his paw
pert; ie wawa Sada imuliesed. The testator daring hle
lifies led pramarsi an MN., bet had not paid the pee•
chasemmay. Eis loss Wig treacient for metered
his deb., • piddles Wm waked, out of what toed the paw
chaise Meney ought to sere ; whether the specific legatees
were to be charged before the devisees, or whether both the
speelfic legatees and the devisees were to contribute prem.-
tbly.
The case of" Long v. Sheer (1 Peere Williams) was aid
Oil as authozity in support of the argument that the smith
r:and devisees should contribute proportionably, sad
eel
se of " Cornwall v. Cornwall" (12 Simons), was relied
epos by the other aide, in which the Vice-Chancellor had
decided the contrary.
Hia Honour maid when he decided the ease of " Cornea
e. Cornwall," he had referred to his volume of Paw
Williams, in which "Long and Short" was reported, red
he had found an observation to the effect that Lord Talbee,
had decided, or appeared to have decided, differently in dr
case of " Haslewood v. Pope" (3 Peere Williams), and he
had noted down as his reason for the supposed differentia
that the statute of fraudulent devises seemed to have has
made for the benefit of creditors, and not of legatees. He
had then decided that the specific legatees were liable in the
first instance. Since that time the Vice-Chancellor ILMOt
Bruce had given a very elaborate judgment upon this
subject, and had himself inspected the decree in "Eisele-
wood o. Pepe," and it turned out that the report of that
cage was incorrect. His Honour agreed that that report we
erroneous, and he found in a note of his own in the 3,4
of Peere Williams, that Lord Eldon had stated that the Ist
and 22nd volumes of Peere Williams were published during
his lifetime, but that the 3rd volume was not published till
afterwards, as be considered the"Mois in that volume of less
authority than the others. His Honour thought, under these
circumstances, that notwithsteading whet he hid decided in
" Cornwall v. Cornwall." be wee bound by the decision io
" Long v. Short," and that the specific legatees and devisee,
must contribute proportionably.

Notelt Pnoe.

AINSLIE 4. 811/4H.—THI3 AINSLIS BAICIL AND TILE
MACHINE COMPANY.—Thia was a motion on behalf of the
plaintiff; who wee the inventor of a machine for a new ►nd
=pro, ed method of making and moulding tile*, Ike , end for
which he had obtained patents in England and Sentient
From the statements in the bill it appeared that In 1843 the
plaintiff mime to Landon and wee introduced to Mr. J. Coe-
. nell, Mr. O. Webster, Mr. J. W.Butherland, and Mr. Boyd,
four of the defendants. Mr. Connell and Mr. Webster were
solicitors, and article+ of agreement were drawn up by the..
for the working of the patent, by which the plaintiff was to
be paid If. a day for his superintending experiments en to
the invention, and a share of one tenth of the net profit*,
should they not exceed 20 per emit., and other shares as the.
amount of expenses might increase. After these articles
were signed, a field was taken at Alperton, for the purpose
i of working the patent, and theo,mpany of which Mr. James
'Smith, of Dunstan, was chairman, was !Wet rtised. The de-
fendants expended large Sums of money in matters connected
with the invention, and, in 1845, they took from Mr. Ainslie
an absolute asAignrnent of the patents and all his interest in
them, in consideration of the expense* the company had in-
clined. This wignment, it was alleged by the plaintiff. had
been executed b> him in the beliefaad upon the alem rane.• that
• new agreement for the purpose of securing to turn the eti-
pulated compenaation was to be executed. On the 13th of

2ob. last tbe dehndants gave Mr. Ainslie notice that his
services were no longer required. Alter the plaintiff had
rennoestrated by letter with the company he Fled this bill.
The melee now made was for an injunction to restrain the
compaay from the use of the patent, he., and for a receiver
of the monks due to them on account thereof—The Vice-
Chancellor, without bearing defendant's counsel, said that
the hill admitted an agreement to be in existence
different from that on the parchment produced, and
dealing with the motion, as he must, upon that
Sooting, he had no evidence that certain destruotion
or serious damage would ensue to the plaintiff
by the court not Interfering. In hoe state, therefore,
he could not now interfere, as the rights of the plaintiff
were in much too obscure a state for the court to grant the
injunction. I: might perhaps be dune at the hewing of the
cause. Ile should, therefore, refuse the motion without pre-
judice to any question in the cause. reserving the costa.
Ram D. WILLIAMIL—BasAen or TRUIIT.—The defend.
ant in this case, a solicitor at Carmarthen, was the surviving
trustee of the marriage settlement of the plaintiff's father.
That settlement was dated in 1803, and by it an estate was
settled to uses in favour of the father for life, and, after his
decease, of the plaintiff in fee. In the settlement there was a
power for the trustees, with the consent of the tenant for life,
to sell the leads and invest the purchase money in the pur-
chase of other lands or on landed or funded security. In
1107, Mr. Williams, with the consent of the tenant for life,
said part of the estate for 1,a1.51., but no investment was
once made of the money. In May, 1843, the plaintiffs father
died. It did not appear that Mr. Williams hail applied the
=iuto his own purposes, but he not haying invested it
g to the trusts of the settlement, the principal ques-
tion in dispute was, whether he was to be liable to purchase
for the plaintiff mach a sum of consols as could have been
purchased in 1807 with this money, or whether he was
simply liable for the sum of money with interest front the
death of the plaintiff's father. The Master of the
BOIL and Sir J. Wigram had decided differently in cams
similar to the present.
The Vice-Chancellor said that he was of opinion that the
plaintiff was not entitled to have an option as to the stock or
the money; but directed that the 1,2051. with interest at 4
per sent. from the father's death, should be paid into court
by the defendant within two months.