The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-13 00:00:00

tats Enttittgenct.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lard Chancellor.
Ire THE MATTER OP MOTHERS% A BANINUPT.--COM-
NITEENT PON UNSATISFACTORY ANSWERS RESPECTING A
BANE/SUPT.'S ESTATE.—APPLICATION TO BE RE-EXAMINED.
—Mr. Swanton, in support of the bankrupt's petition, to be
brought up from York Castle for re-examination, said the
bankrupt had carried on business in Huddersfield, and a fiat
was issued against him in August, 1844. In the month of
September following he was committed to prison for not
giving satisfactory answers before the commissioner to ques-
tions respecting his estate. It was not necessary to make
any statement of the proceedings on this occasion ; they
would come before the cloud if the prayer of the petition
should be granted, which was that the bankrupt be brought
up at the expense of the assignees or one of the funds in
bankruptcy, to be re-examined before his lordship, The es-
tate produced very little, and there were but 101. in the hands
of the assignees, who refused to pay the expenses of bringing
np:the bankrupt, or of having a commissioner sent to examine
him in person. The touts of a bankrupt were in the first
instance to he applied to pay the expenses attending the exe-
cution of the fiat and the realising of the estate. it was for
the benefit of the estate to have the necessary disclosures re-
specting the estate from the bankrupt himself. In "Ex parte
Graham," Lord Mansfield held that a bankrupt was to be
examined as often as it was necessary for the benefit of hie
estate, and in " Ex parte Cohen"( 18, Vesey), a ease very like
this, Lord Eldon directed the re-examination of the bank-
rupt, and in cue there were not assets that the commis-
sioners should meet gratis and await future effects, if there
should be any, for their fees. Cases happen in which there
is an antagonism between the bankrupt and his assignees,
who think imorieonment a proper punishment fur him.
This was one of such cues. There were funds provided by
some of the sets renting to bankruptcy, as the " bankruptcy
fund account," out ot which by the sth and 6th Viet., cap.
122, sections 86 and 87., it is competent for the Lard Chan-
cellor to order the travelling and other expenses of London
'mere and registrars to be paid.
'4e swigs:us, opposed the application,
-30 never committed than this bank-
. mots +ow on being examined rc-
an
mid he lelt his y f4lfl of b"ereigas

in an open drawer in his house, went from home,
and on his return the purse was gone. In each
of two examinations he told that story. There was
no reason to expect he would give a better account
if brought up to ho examined a third time. He bad a right
to come to be examined, but at his own expense, and net at
the expense of the assignees or of the assets ; and so it was
held in several cases, one reported in Montague and
McArthur, and also in Stotkdale'sAdolphus and
Ellis). The assignee' have been put to great expense be-
yond the 101, produced by the bankrupt's estate.
The Lord Chancellor said it appeared that the bankrupt
was examined and committed to prison for unsatisfactory
answering, that he was brought up afterwards and re-
examined, and recommitted. He then applied to the judges
of the Queen's Bench, and they held that he was properly
committei. He then applied by petition to this court to be
brought up again, but he did not say nor intimate that he
would give different answers as to his estate, nor is there any
reason to expect he will. Then it is asked to make an order
for payment of the expenses of bringing him up out of funds
formed under the Bankruptcy Amendment Acts ; but it did
not appear to his lordship that he ought to open these funds
fur this purpose, in a case in which he had no reason to hope
the bankrupt would give a better examination.—l'etition
refused.

Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
IN RE MORRISON.—PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS OP STOCK
TO AN INFANT RESIDING IN AMERICA.—MT. Stuart ap-
peared in support of a petition presented in this case on be-
half of an infant residing with her guardians in the United
States of America. for the payment of the dividends arising
from a sum of 483 f. stock, under the following circumstances.
It appeared that the uncle of the infant died in Cuba inter
tate, leaving his sister and the infant, hie next of kin. The
proceeds of the property were sent home to the Treasury-
office by the British consul, to the amount of about 1,0001.,
and the said sum was paid to the intestate's sister, who had
taken out administration to his estate. 4831. was the portion
to which the infant was entitled, and this sum was paid
into court for her benefit. The object of the present appli-
cation was to enable the guardians of the infant, with whom
she was now residing in America, to receive the dividends
for her maintenance. Mr. Stuart stated that there was this
difficulty in the case, that there could be no guardian ap-
pointed in this country to receive the dividends. He would,
therefore, request the court to make an order that the divi-
dends should be paid to Mr. Ward, an officer of this court,
and be paid over by him to the guardian in America.—The
order was made accordingly.
THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY T. THE
BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD RAILWAY COMPANY.—The
arguments in this case on behalf of the bill for specific per-
formance were resumed at a late period of the day, but were
not concluded at the rising of the court. The further hear
ing is postponed till Friday next.

Before Viet-Chancellor Warrarn.
WRITE O. CRISP.—INJENCTION.—His honour delivered
judgment in this ease, the argument in which was heard
early in the present term. The bill was filed by a solicitor
of Cambridge against his confidential clerk, to set aside a
deed dated in October, 1842, whereby the plaintiff had
charged his real estate with the payment of an annuity of
601. to the defendant for life, with powers of distress and
entry. The ground laid for the relief was that the plaintiff '
had directed the defendant to prepare a deed for securing the
balance of his salary; but that the defendant, instead
of adhering to his instructions, had prepared the
deed in question, which the plaintiff had executed
without reading it over, and relying upon the observance of
his instructions by the defendant. The deed had been kept
in the defendant's possession till 1847, when, upon his
leaving the plaintiff's service, be put in force the power of
distress to recover the sum of 2.501., which he alleged to be
the amount of the arrears of his salary. The present was a
motion by the defendant, on putting in his answer, denying
the equity of the plaintiff"' bill, to dissolve an injunction
which had been granted to restrain the proceedings com-
plained off.—His Honour directed that the injunction should
be continued, upon the condition of payment into court be-
fore the first day of next term, by the plaintiff, of the amount
of the defendant's claim ; and, in default of such payment,
that the injunction should stand dissolved.
PARSONS v. Mexvz.—Ltex.—This was a bill filed by the
plaintiff, as the solicitor and projector of the scheme called
The Southampton, Manchester, and Oxford Junction
Railway Company," against the members of the provisional
committee of the company for the recovery of his bill of
oast*, amounting to 8001., out of the deposits paid up by the
shareholders. The bill stated that the plaintiff, at his own
expense, had brought forward the scheme in question, and
had afterwards entered into an agreement with the defend-
ants in their character of provisional committee-men, that
the costs and expenses incurred and to be incurred by the
plaintiff about the undertaking up to the time of the
payment of the deposits should be borne by himself, and that
the members of the provisional committee should not be per-
sonally liable to him for such costs and disbursements, but
that the same should be paid out of the fund to arise from
the deposits to be paid on the shares; that the defendants
some tune afterwards dismissed the
_plaintiff from their ser-
vice, and, after paying the sum of 2501., in part discharge of
his bill of costs, had refused to pay him the remainder,
amounting to the sum claimed by the bill.—Mr. Bethel],
for the defendants, contended that the proper remedy (if any)
was by action of damages at law. The case was then directed
to stand over, by consent, upon • suggestion by the plain.
tee counsel that that course would probably result in a
compromise.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THR COURT heard two MIS front the special paper, of no
public interest, and rose at two o'clock to assist at the cere-
mony of pricking sheriff§ for the ensuing year.

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. Jostles Patteson.
IN THE MATTER OF BENJAMIN PARHAM, ESQ., JUDOS
OP THE COUNTY COURT OF WORCESTERSHIRE AND
HEREFORDSHIRE. QUO WARRANT° TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE JUDGE OP A COUNTY COURT HAS BEEN
DELT APPOINTED.—Sir F. Kelly applied for a rule in the
nature of a quo warrants, calling on Benjamin Parham,
Esq., to show cause why he exercised the office of judge of
the county courts of Worcestershire and Herefordshire.
The motion was made upon two grounds : Ist. That Mr.
Parham had been appointed, and acted as, judge of several
districts, whereas by the act of parliament there must be a
separate judge for each district, who could only act for one;
and god. That he had been appointed, and acted u
judge for certain districts in the counties of Worcester-
shire and Ilerefordshire. By the provisions of the act of
parliament the crown might, by order in council, consolidate
districts in different counties into one court, but only by
such order in council. In the present case this had not
been done, and the judge bad no authority to act. The
learned counsel then milled the attention of the court to the
Ist, 2nd, and 3rd sections of the statute 9 & 10 Vtct., o. 95.
The first section enacts that it may be lawful for her Ma-
jesty, with the advice of her privy council, to order the act
to be put in force in such counties as they should think fit,
and to extend those districts which were created by such
order, and not otherwise or elsewhere. There bad been,
accordingly, an order in council declaring ell counties to be
within the operation of the act. By the second section it
was declared that the whole or parts of counties
should be divided into districts, and that courts
should be held in such districts which might be
altered or increased. The next proceeding, there-
fore, after the order in council, under the first section,
WAS to parcel out the counties into districts. This had
been done by two orders in council, of 6th Feb., 1847, and
9th March, and, in them, Worcestershire and Herefordshire
were declared to come within the operation of the act, and
parcelled into districts—Worcestershire into 12, and Here-
fordshire into 6—so that the act had been duly pursued, so
far. The third section provides that every court holden
under the act shall have the jurisdiction of the county court
through the whole district in which it is holden, and that
there shall be a judge to each district, and that the court
may be held simultaneously in each. The provision was
express that there should be a judge for each district,
although power is given to the crown to consolidate
any two or more distncts, or to enlarge their limits. In the
present case there were twelve districts in Worcestershire
and six in Herefordshire, and one judge had been appointed
for the whole of those in Worcestershire, and two in Here-
fordshire. Several other sections, as 16th, 17th, 19th, and
56th, were so framed as els arty to show that there was to be
one judge only for each district, and wherever in the act the
judge or district was alluded to, it was in the singular
number. With regard to the second ground, the judge
acted not only in all the districts in Worcestershire, but in
two in Herefordshire, and it was clear that no district in one
county could be united with that in another without an
order in council, there being an express provision in the
second section that if it was deemed convenient to unite two
districts in two different counties it might be done by order in
council. There ought to have been an order in council,
including Ledbury and Brotnyard, the two districts in
Herefordshire, for which the judge sat in Worcestershire,
but there was no such order ; whereas, by the general order
of March, 1847, those places were included in Herefordshire.
On these grounds, therefore, the appointment was invalid.
With regard to one district in Worcestershire, that of Kid-
derminster, there was no power given to the crown to
include it in the county court for that county, because it was
one of those courts which was preserved by the 13th section,
and the appointment of the officers retained in the
lords of the manors, and it was named in the schedule. The
lord of the manor had the appointment ofthe clerk or assessor
of that court, who filled the office of judge, and by
the appointment of a general clerk of the county court and
of • judge the right of the lord of the manor had been
superseded.—Mr. Justice Patteson did not see why a clerk
of court should not be appointed for Kidderminster. Ile
wished to know if there were separate appointments for the
14 districts, or one appointment for them all 7—Sir F, Kelly
said, as far as appeared from the affidavits, there was only
one conjointly for the whole—Mr. Justice Patteson said the
9th secticn prescribed no mode of appointment. There
might be • separate appointment of the same indi-
vidual for each district, which would make a dif-
ference. He doubted whether quo warranto was the
right remedy. The judges were not appointed by the
crown, but by the Lord Chancellor. It was SR important
question, as it might apply in other instances. Ile wished
to know at whose instence the application was made.—Sir
F. Kelly said that he did not impeach the form of the ap-
pointment. It was an office for the administration of justice
which was held under powers given to the crown. The
question would involve the validity of the decisions of many
of the judges, and if there was any doubt about it it ought
to be settled. The application was made at the instance of
a gentleman who was entitled to the office of assessor or
judge of the court of Kidderminster if the act had been pro-
perly carried out, but who had been deprived of his appoint-
ment.—Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
The ~attrt was engaged during the earl, part of yesterday
with Argyylvtat• upon demurrers, involving mere technical

points. At two o'clock, the itp;ges of the Queen's Bench
and Common Pleas, together with the Lord Chancellor. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer (in his state robes), and Lord
Campbell, as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, joined
the learned barons for the purposeof nominating the sheriffs
for the ensuing year. The usual oath having been adminis-
tered, in the French language, by the Queen's Yemeni-
bratcer, the ceremony was proceeded with, and occupied the
remainder of the day. There was no feature worth noticing,
except, perhaps, a suggestion of Chief Justice Wilde, who,
upon the Earl of Portarlington baring been named to serve
for (it was understood) Dorsetahire, moved that that noble
lord should be exempted upon two grounds—tint, because he
was an Irish peer ; and secondly, that hie connexion with
Ireland was such as rendered his presence there essentially
necessary on public grounds. These reasons were not, how-
ever, deemed sufficient, and the noble lord's name was re-
tained on the lists.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Wore Mr. Commissioner Faae.
IN RE La BEAUNIE.—JUDOMENT NOT TO DEPEND ON
THE WISHES OF CREDITORS.—His Honour said the insol-
vent presented his petition to this court on the 19th of May
last, stating that he bad no property but his excepted articles,
which be valued at 121., and that he owed 1,1861. to 136
creditors. His case was heard on July 2, when, as it appear, d
on the face of his own petition, that he was aotentitled under
the act of parliament to have *day named for his final order,
I declined to name a day. Since that time I have been
harassed by solicitations from his friends, his family, and
his solicitor (Mr. Buchanan, BuinghalbstreeO. On Tues-
day last I was epplied to in open court, and then the appli-
cation was grounded on a paper purporting to he signed by
a great number of his creditors, expressing their willingness
that he should have his final order. Now I wish to state
once for all, that I do not consider that I can with propriety
even 1 wok at such a paper, nor do 1 in any case intend to do
so. The decision of this court should depend on the merits
of the petitioner's case. If he has acted honestly he is en-
titled to be protected, even if all his creditors are hostile to
him : on the other hand, if he has acted dishonestly or
inexcasably he aught not to be protected, though the great
majority of the creditors wish it. Thy majonty have no
right to bind the minority. But there is another reason
why such papers should be disregarded, that is, that if any
weight is attached to them, creditors will be subjected to every
species of improper solicitations to induce them to sign such
papers. But though I decline to look at the papers pro-
duced, I feel that every insolvent is entitled to have his case
reconsidered, if necessary, and I have therefore examined
the petition and schedule, and also the order I made on the
2nd of July, and though, after full consideration, I am of
opinion that I could not, under the circumstances of his case,
award a day for a final order, I think I ought not to have
gone farther than merely to decline naming a day for
making the final order. My order of the tad of July went
further, and interfered with the rights given to insolvents to
ask for a protecting order under the 28tla section, and I shall I
therefore direct that the last part of the order of the 2nd
July be vacated. That being done, the insolvent can
apply during my absence to any commissioner of this
court for a protecting order under the 28th section, and es
the insolvent and some of his friends seem to think that
another commissioner might take a different view of Mr.
La Beaume's case from what I have done, I shall be (s-
-teely glad if any commissioner shall he found willing to hear
and decide the case under that section. If no other COTRUO!-
aioner be applied to or willing to perform the duty, it will
be my duty to appoint a day.
IN RE CHAILLRS GILLMAN.—JuDoHENT.—The bank-
rupt applied for kis certificate. He had carried on busthess
respectably for many years, when, in November, 1845, he
was obliged to 'assign all his property to Mr. Boult and Mr.
Clarke, as trustees, to pay his debts. In March following,
that arrangement was superseded by his proposing to pay
' 7a. 6d. in the pound to all his creditors, which was accepted,
and he was restored to the management of his business. To
enable him to pay the composition, one Burls advanced him
6501. He was a creditor, and, to induce him to make the
advance, it was arranged, with the concurrence of the
trustees, that Burls should have a promissory note for
1641. Is., to make up 20s. in the pound on hie debt. After-
warde, both Sault and Clarke, relyingupon some claims which
they supposed they bad upon the bankrupt, obtain, d from him
accommodation paper, Boult obtaining two acceptances for
1001. each, and Clarke obtaining a promissory note for 9371.
In Jan., 1841, Gillman induced one Skittlethorpe to join
hits, but he was not made aware of these facts. As soon as
he was, the partnership was dissolved, and ultimately the
business was sold, Gillman's share being 4251., out of which
he had to pay 100!. to redeem a lease which Skittlethorpe
was to have, and 1201. for other purposes ; and he ultimately
received 160!. 2s. 4d. in Jan., 1847 ; and he took out a fiat
against himself. After deducting his own expenses, he
handed over to the official assignee SO!., his debts being
above 1,0001. The body of creditors was defrauded. Un-
doubtedly there have been improper acts in this case, but
still, as his conduct under this bankruptcy has been honest—
as all his answers have been full and fair ; and es his present
position is a severe punishment—l think I may make allow-
ances for the difficulties of his position ; and es I really be-
lieve that he is an honest man, oppressed by circumstances,
I will not add to his punishment, which is already great, by
withholding his certificate.—Granted accordingly.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. Boylan, Esq., Judge.
COWAN O. BUSSEY.—RIOIIT OP WITNESSES TO RE-
COVER FOR ATTENDING A COURT OP JUSTICE.—This was an
action on an I 0 U to recover the sum of 21. fie. ; the defen-
dant pleading a set off, amounting to upwards of 51. for loss
of time in attending with his daughter upon submnas as
witnesses at a trial at Guildhall, in • cause
Cole."—The learned judge, on looking at the particulars of
set off, said that being a town witness he could not recover
for loss of time. He might at the trial have refused to give
evidence unless his expenses were paid, but he cannot recover
by an action.—The defendant's solicitor contended that if he
gave evidence he had a right to recover, and the Master would
allow the sum awarded on taxing the bill. A short time since
he (the solicitor) was sued for the expenses of witnesses
whom he had subpeonaed, but the judge who tried the case
told the plaintiff that he had no right to one the attor-
ney but the party on whose behalf he had given evidence,
thus bolding out to witnesses a right to recover for their
attendance. The learned judge said there could be no doubt
that a witness could recover for his necessary expenses,
which meant country expenses, but not for loss of time.
He quoted several cases, clearly showing that "town
witnesses" could not recover for their attendance,
and that even the " conduct" money with the sub-
pans need not be tendered to ensure attendance. If there
had been a specific agreement entered into with the plaintiff
that the defendant should be paid for his loss of time, he
would have had a right to recover, but not otherwise—The
set-off was disallowed, and a verdict given for the plaintiff.

or Country comnnttsioners
Mr. Bagehaw, for t.ie
and said a grosser fraud
rapt was guilty of. As an
N. "••• his ostate, he said