The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-15 00:00:00

contended that the clause in question bad been virtually
repealed. At the time that the Commissioners' Act passed
there were two water companies in /Mitt:nee in Liverpool,
the Harrington Water Company and the Liverpool Water
Company, and the clause in question was inserted as a pro-
viso to preserve them from competition with the commis-
sioners. Subsequently, howeve:, the corpor.ition pur-
chased these water-works, and en ant was passed in which
they were required to supply the dwelling-houses in Liver-
pool with water, and the act incorporated the Water Clauses
Act of 1847, which contained another provision to the same
effect. . . . .

--fie further hearing of the cue wu stopped by the rising
of the court.

BIPOIS6 S JAMPOI PARIFIL
ROSE:CBI:601i V. ALLEVNZ.

In this came an was few days since,
upon the ex parte application of theplaintiff, on the ground
that the defendants had absconded to avoid the conse-
qwnees of a conviction for a conspiracy.
Mr. Cairns now appe..red for the plaintiff, and stated that
the defendants had consented to the dissolution of partner-
ship and to all that was prayed by the bill, and had
executed a deed for that purpose, and had acted very
honourably in the tran.action, and he applied for leave to
take the bill and all the proceedings off the files of the
court.

Mr. Roger, for the defendants, consented, and expressed
the hope and belief of the Eh tend.ints that they would be
able, at tome future tate, to vindicate their characters
in respect of the trAwietions fur which they had been con-
victed.

The order was =de accorclity.Tly.
Rs THE DIRECT EXETER, PLY3ICTII, AND DEVONPORT
RAILWAY COMPANY HIPARTE WOOLMI AND OTHERS.

This was the petition of Messrs. Wooliner, John Eyre
Kiagdon, and Samuel Seger Bastard. It stated that in the
montn of June, 1819, Lieut.-Colonel Ellis presented a peti-
tien, in which he set firth that in August, 1843, an associa-
tion was formed for the purpose of making the above rail-
way ; the due provisional registration of the association ; the
applicatiou for shares in the company; mid the allotment of
shares; that no deed of settlement had been executed; andthat the undertaking had been uhandoneti, but that some of
the allotees paid a sum of 2s. or 3s. in rr.pect of each share
&dotted to them, and that the provisional committee in-
curred in the ferolation of the company many liabilities
which the committee were unable to meet, and that Colonel
Ellis was oneof the provisional committee. The present peti-
tiou also stated that an order had be .ams.:J. on the petition of
Lieut.-Cul. Ellis on June 8, 1819, for winding-up the com-
pany. The petitioners then stated, that previous to Colonel
Ellis's petition the present petitioners had advanced be-
tween them, to meet the liabilities of the conipeny,l,72ol.,
and they alleged that tine whole of the debts of the company
did not exceed 1,000/., ineluding a sum of 730/. due to the
Exeter bank. The petition naked that the winding-up
order might Ira discharged, or that all proceedings there-
under might be stayed. In opposition to this petition the
official manager tiled an affidavit, showing that on the 31st,
of December' 1813, the liabilities of the company amounted
to 0,2691. fa. 3d., and ti,at the greater part of these debts
had been paid, but that at the date of the order there was a I
balance of 1,722,. 2a. 2d. due from the company, anis hu
also astinuttel that the legal expenses of his proceedings as
official manager amounted to 2,00 d/. or thereabouts, more
than one half of which hail been incurred by ap-
peals of parties in respect of their liabilities.
He also stated, that he had ascertained that between
the 31st of December, 1313, and the date of the order for
winding up the company at least 3,000/. had beets spent in
tireceedinge at law, and that but for the unaacertained state
of the law„;respecting such transactions the whole affairs of
the company would have been fully and floral wound up at
a moderate expense. lle also stated that the 3ZMICI of the
three petitioners were placed by :Ile Master upon the list of
contributories, where lacy still stood ; that the petitioners
had acquiesced in the order, and that many of the legal
proceedings in winding up the company ha,i been taken at
their instance. The official manager also stated that ho
had incurred very heavy expenses as official manager, and
that with the special leave of the Master he had raised a
sum of 3001. on the Si clarity of the company, sail that he
bad received no assets of the company. Ile alleged that ho
was an officer of the court, and submitted himself to its
protection.
Mr. lloxburgh for the official manager, Mr. Malinfor
Lieutenant-o,l°nel Ellis, and Me. Daniel and Mr. Kers-
lake fur contributories, submitted that the court should make
uo order on this petition. " &step's case" ;( 2 Mace. and
(~176); and a' House of Lords lteports 837; ("Carmicael's
ease ;" " Upfill's cue," 2 House of fiords Iteperte, b 93;)
" Cottle's case," in the House of Lords ; " Re Forest of
Dean and Chepstow Railway Company," reported in the
Law 'Pores for July last; " Barber stage" IL C., 594;)
" Britt:this case ; ' a case, the report of an action against.
Lord Lontlesborough, in the Law Tiaws of 13th of Non
last, were cited. The arguments were purely of a technics
character. _ .

The ice-Chancellor said he was bound by the aniliot
ties ; the present petiiimers knew of the winding-up, and
appeared to acquiesce in it, nod they were entitled to its
benefits (if any there were), and lutist be bound by its
liabilities; it was shown that the liabilities of the company
were very few, but that a vast amount of costs had been
incurred, and if there were grounds on which the present
petitionen co Ad resist those costs, the present proceediag
:44 not the way to do ,u. There must be no order except
to dismiss the petition with costa.

Baron, Vocs.Crmtenum.!,la R. Kr•oratiy.

JONES .17. A N TZLE V-11.17N.C-E- -(7 THE DEATH

OP A SIIEDUER9 KILLED lII' TILE KAEFIIIIL
In this ease a sum of money amounting to about 1151. had
been left by • testator for the benefit of a person named
Henry Essex. At the time of the distribution of the fund
Henry Essex was at the Cape of (loud Hope, and his share
IMP consequently transferred to his separate account. A
petition was awe presented by the representatives of Henry
Essex, stating that he was killed by the K.attirs at the Cape,
and asking for piyment of the money.
By the affidavit of Alfred Essex' the brother of Henry,
Essex, it was stated that he hint been at the Cape of Good
Hope with his brother, in the year 1846, and that he was
obliged to fly from Philip-town to Eland, near the Kat
river, in conseirience of the Kaffir outbreak, that his
brother was at this time employed as a herdsman at Fort
Beaufort district, about thirty miles from Eland, that in
July, 1846, the deponent went to Fort Bnuturt, where
be met an old ship:nate, who told him that on the
previous night a patrol had come from Beaufort with in-
formation that the Kaffirs had made an Irruption into the
neighbaurhood, and had swept away 1,300 sheep. That
two herdsmen who were in the held with the sheep were
supposed to hare been murdered by the Kafiri; and that
one of the herdsmen was named lly. Essex. The deponent
then stated that he had not been able to visit the spot,
owing to the disturbed state of the country, but he had
made particular inquiries, and had ascertaaleil that his
brother was the herdsman so killed, and that he was seen
running down towards • bush when two shots were fired
at hint, and his body was afterwards found lying by a
sma:l psoi of water. As further evidence in support of the
death of Hy. Essex, the Graham's Town Journal of July,
1816, was produced, in which the capture of the sheep by
the Katfirs was detailed; and it was also stated that oue of
the herdsmen, named Hy. Essex, was found to have been
killed.

The \ ice-Chaneclior eowidcred the esideice of the death
of 11. y. Esse: sufficient, and made the orderlur payment to
his rcpnseatatives.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
LIVERPOOL—SArunat Y.
(lows CoLar.—Bh,,ug Ma. I;•aos
ExTiLiOaDINARY AkJAY OF I'LLJuur.

John Hartley was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.
A policeman named Proctor, statiooed in a rural district
near iliackbarn, alleged that on the evening of Saturday,
the ith of December, two beer-shop keepers, respectively
named 11.utley and Whewell, had kept their houses open
alter the hour appointed by the magi.trates, 2nd he gave
information to hu sergeant accordiugly. The becrshop
keepers were taken before the mazistruns, and on the com-
plaint comma before the bench, the defendants declared
that they had paid l'roctor Gd. each on the next day
(Sunday) for a summons and servin,r, with the exam-,
understanding that they were to hear no more of the matter.
To some extent this statement was corroborated by other
witnesses then brought forward, and the defendants were
acquitted, while the policeman, Proctor, was of course in-
stantly suspended ty his superiors until he had cleared
himself of 50 formidable an accusation.
Upon an inquiry taking place before the Constabulary
Committee, consisting of the attire magistracy of that
division of the county, Proctor brought torward witnesses
to rebut the allegations made by Hartley and Whewell be-
fore the magistrate, and the latter thereupon ordered
indictments ter perjury to be preferred against both Hartley
and Whewell.

To-nay, cvrtsialy, the policeman's cue seemed fully made
out by several witnesses of unimpeached character, whose
testimony, if true, rendered it wholly impossible that he
could have bees bribed, as stated, or that, in fact, he had
held any conversation with either Whewell or Hartley on
the subject of tic informations against them.
But, then, numerous witnesses were called on the other
side, who deputed to particular and special circumstances,
Lally opposed to the other evidence, with such a slight
amount of discrepancy as did not at all invalidate their
general testimony, and which no cross-examination could
shake.
After occupying upwards of nine hours, Mr. Baron Parke
declared that the case (which was itselt a prosecution for
perjury) afforded the greatest mass of absolute and delibe•
rata wilful perjury that he had ever met in the whole course
of his experienee. Addressing the jury, the learned judge
said, that under any circumstances they must acquit the
priseaer, the law being, that in a case of alleged perjury
they must take oath against oath, and decide according to
the balance ct the testimony. Bat in this CM!, it WAS
wholly impossible to gather, with anything like certainty,
which side spoke the truth, all parties seemed to be engaged
Ina conspiracy to misrepresent facts; and he, therefore,
thought the batter coarse would be to acquit the defendant.
The jury mortised their entire concurrence in the obser-
vations which had fallen from his lordship, and returned a
verdict aceoreingly.
'The case against Whewell was similarly decided, and the
matter theretsre stands exactly where it did.

-
As ENCT:LICAL LETTER FROM THE POPE has been
published in the Irish papers. It is addressed to " all pa-
triarchs, archbishops, and bishops of the catholic world ;"
but, from the general tone and tenour of the document it is
evident that while penning it the state of the Homan catho-
lic church in these kingdoms was uppermost in the mind of
the sovereign pontiff. It announces a new jubilee for the
benefit of alarm beams.