The Express.
London, England, 1862-06-18 00:00:00

Kabi intelligence.

EQUITY 001JRTS.—Jurrs VT.
(Before Vice-Cliancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
SOUCICADLT r. WIDMER.— WEIIBIIIII If. DOOCICACILT. —TIM

COLLIIN DAWN.
In the coarse of the hearing the Vice-Chancellor said it
was much to be regretted that an arrangement could not
be come to between the parties, as nothing but loss could
result from the continuance of this litigation. A long con-
ference took place between the legal advisers on each side
and their respective clients upon this intimation, and it was
stated that terms were arranged, with the exception of •
question u to whet was to be done in reference to the Wl'
vices of two ladies whom:tad at the Adelphi. On this rook
the compromise split, and the hearing of the case was con-
tinued.
The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, said he would
first deal with the crow Dill, as the disposal of that would
clear the way for his judgment on the second point. By this
bill Mr. Webster sought to prevent Mr. Boucicault from
taking Drury-lane Theatre, or performing there. Now, to
sustain such • contention, there must be some agreement
between the parties putting a restraint upon Mr.
Boncicault's engaging himself otherwise than at the
Adelphi Theatre, and th‘t agreement we. sought
to be made out from the terms of the con-
tract with respect to the Adelphi partoership. In
this his honour was of opinion Mr. Webster failed. The
contract was • cootract for a partnership merely; there was
nothing to prevent the partners from engaging
is other and
conflicting bnainer. On the contrary, in the stipulations
with regard to the psymeut of 11. per night for the right of
performance of pious belonging to the repertoire of each
partner, it was expressly provided that such payment
would only give • right of performance on the nights to
which the payments extended. The motion in " Webster
v. Boncicault " must therefore be refused. Then with
respect to the motion on the original bill. If that motion
had depended solely upon the construction of the agreement
that Mr. Boucicault was to have the entire control of
" the stage and its departments," there was very much
to be said in favour of the construction which
that gentleman put upon the agreement, and his
Honour would have taken time for considering what the
true construction of that document ought to be. Bat in
cues of this kind, where the court had to interfere upon
an isolated term of • partnership—a partnership not pro-
posed to be dissolved by the court—it was the duty of the
judge to consider all the surrouudiog circumstances, and to
interfere only where such interference would be of avail
in the due continuance of the concern. Now, consi-
dering the circumstances here, and the position in
which, having regard to the leasing of Drury-lane,
Mr. Boucicault would be pieced by giving the
relief asked on his motion, It did not seem • case to inter-
fere in this suit coy more than in the other. It was right
to Mr. Boucicault to say that in no cue had he shown the
slightest intention or desire to act unfairly or improperly,
and his letters ware written in a fair and candid spirit. Still,
having regard to sllthe facts, his honour thought that in ac-
cordance with the rules of this court he must, as he bad in-
timated, refuse this motion also. His honour had the
satisfaction of feeling that in doing, as of course he in-
tended, justice between these geutlemen, hews*, in refusing
to interfere on either side, doing the beat for both of them.
Costa in each motion would be oasts in the cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Jinn 17.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lewd Chief Justice Cockburn.
and Justiom Wightman, Crompton, and Blackburn.)
lIXYARTZ WILLIAM JOHN FLYNT. —THE KMDLEBI6I CORO-

Mr. Lush, Q.C., moved on behalf of Mr. W. J. Payne
fora rule calliog upon the justices of Middlesex to show
cases why a mandamus should not issue commanding them
to assign to the applicant one of the districts of the county
to him, as coroner for that portion known as the liberty or
franchise of the Duchy of Lancaster. In consequence of
Mr. Wakley's death the county had been divided into dis-
tricts under the Coroners Act. and Mr. Payee had applied
to the justices to anise one of the districts to him, but
' they had declined, and both parties had come before
the court in this form to have their lordships' deciaion. In
1857 Mr. Payne was appointed by letters patent under the
Duchy of Lancaster coroner for the franchise or liberty
belonging to the duchy situate in Middlesex. The district
contributed equally with the other part of the county ta the
county rate, and the perquisites and fees of the coroner
were paid out of the county rate, and the magistrates had
converted the fees into a salary under the provisions of the
recent act. Mr. Payne had always been recognised as a
county coroner, and he had been returned as such by the
magistrates. The question turned upon the construction of
the 27th sec. of the 7th and Bth Vie., chap. 92. After hear-
ing the arguments of the learned counsel,
The Court said the magistrates had no power to assign a
district as asked for by the applicant, and the rule must be
reload
Bide refused.

THI NIGHT-HOUSES IX TUX NATILUILLT.

Mr. Field said there were two cases in the crown paper rela-
tive to Useduties of the metropolitan police in the Haymarket
which it was desirable should be taken out of their turn,
on account of their public importance and urgency. They
involve the question whether the police were justified in
interfering with certain nighthouses in the Haymarket and
lAiesster-equate. They were appeals from the convictions
of magistrates, and until they were decided the further
action of the perish authorities was paralysed.
The Lord Chief Justice said be supposed the matter bad
referenoe to the subject of a deputation to the Home Sears.
tart', which was reported in the newspapers, to which
he replied that the existing law must be shown to be
powerless before he could promise to ask the legislature to
interfere.
Mr. Field said it had, and these were the awes the Home
Secretary referred to when he said this matter was under
the oossideratiou of the law courts.
Mr. Justice Crompton said it appeared to be the CAM of
some parsons being in these houses for the purposes of re-
freshments, and others were not. It did not affect in the
slightest degree any principle of law, but depended on the
particular facts in each particular case.
Mr. Justice Wightman—You want to know, Mr. Field,
whether particular facts bring particular cases within the
meaning of the act of parliament?
Mr. Field—Yes. A great many cases depended upon
the decision of the court, and there were others that could
sot be disposed of until their lordships had decided these
particular came. In the majority of the cases the theta were
admitted to be the same.
Mr. Justice Wightmen said the point mentioned in the
newspapers was, whether persons assembled in these houses
bone fide for refreshments or for improper purposes. That
must depend on the facts in each particular case.
Mr. Field said it was necessary to have these oases de-
cided, because in every case that was brought before the
magistrate the parties appealed naiad the eolith:Mon.
The Lord Chief Justice said the court would assent to the
application and hear the cases during the after term beam
sittings.
This wee the last day of term. The
at psi Athos
after term oommence this day (Weelseeday) at Westattneher.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAR—Jong 17.
&Way in bJustllDCo.—ißefore Lord Chief Justice Erls, sad
ices William, Willis, and Bytes.)
SANDI/t8 o, DIIIMIDOL-7111 7011:81126' SOCIITY.
• This awe came before the court under the folioed's( a.
eneestances. The pleiatid was the widow al Jobe Sweden.

a member of the Foresters' Society belonging to the south-
western diatrict, who had subscribed to the Widows' and
Orphans' Fund connected with the society. He was a sea-
fano; man, and in 1859 his subscription' fell sixteen weeks
jobs smear ; but in November, 1859, he paid the at=
end soon afterwards be died. One of the riles '
that any person who has been so in arrow should " out
of compliance anti suspended from all benefit" until eight
weeks after he had paid up. The widow claimed upon the
fund, but was answered that under the circumstances she
had no claim, and thereupon she asked for the appointment
of arbitrators, hut this request was not complied with,
upon the ground that the secretary thought that there was
no question to be decided by arbitrators. She then sued
is the County Court at Southampton, but the so-
ciety obtained a prohibition staying further
.proceedings
ape* the ground that the comity court had no jurisdiction.
Upon this an application was made to their lordships for a
rule to set aside the writ of prohibition, because the 63rd
section of the Friendly Societies Act enacted that if no
arbitrator had been appointed to bear and determine any
dispute, en application might be made to the county court
of the district. The question now was whether the rule to'
set aside the prohibition should be made absolute.
Mr. Buller appeared to show cause against the rule, and
Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Ffooks to support the rule.
The court made the rule to set aside the prohibition
absolute. _

DAVIS V. THZ NATIONAL LOA" AND DIBCOUNT COMPANY-

DEPOSITOR OR BRAREEIOLDER.
The plaintiff in this case, a lady residing at Bath, had
placed 1,7561. in the bands of the defendants' company, and
she sued the company and recovered a verdict before the
flemedary of London, on account of the money which she
claimed to be due to her.
Hr. Bement now moved for a rule for a new trial, and
raised various questions, the principal one Laing whether
the plaintiff was a mere depositor or whether she was the
holder of investment stock, and as such a shareholder. The
learned counsel stated that various transactions bad taken
plate in reference to the mosey, in which the plaintiff was
always treated as the owner of investment stock, and
whenever a portion of the money was applied for it was re-
(erred to not as a mere repayment but as a selling out of
stock.
Mr. Justice Byles—This lady intended when abe parted
with her money to be a creditor, and now you seek to make
her a debtor.
The Lord Chief Justice, after some further diactuaiom said
that there was notbisg whatever in any of the points.
Rule refused.

ILZMINDY V. BROOK AND WIFE.
The Lord Chief Justice said it would be impossible to go
on with this case until Michaelmas term, for the court would
not again be full until then ; and it was not a mss to be
disposed of by a less number of judges.