The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-24 00:00:00

MILITARY.

Orders have been received 14 the depot of the
67th rcgiment, stationed in the Isle of Wight, to hold them-
selves in readiness to proceed on the let of January, to Do-
ver, to relieve the Ist battalion of Rifles, ordered to the
Cape of Good Hope. The depot of the 67th comprises 12
officers, 410 rank and file, with about 100 women and chil-
dren.

---•
On Monday a detachment of 120 men of the 48th
regiment, at Portsmouth, commenced a three weeks'
course of instruction in the great gun exercise, on the ram-
parts, and under the tuition of the Royal Artillery. We
understand that this instruction is to be given to the troops
of the line in other garrison towns.

iittt• Intelligence.
EQUITY COURTS.—YESTEZDaTs
Bonus one M•STES Se ITS sw.aa.
Ferro r. Swaser AND TNT ANNATTO BAT MINING
ASSOCIATION.
This canes had stood over ia elan that the parties might
come to an arnagemeat. but se they led set bees *
effect one, the company net agree*: le the terns reposed
by Mr. Palmer,
Mr. Ramsdell Palmer moved for an injunction to softens
the defendant Swabey from executing the deed of settle-
ment of this Annette Bay Mining Asvociation in forget of
2,000 shares, or fr on registering himself as a shareholder
in respect thereof, and from selling or transferring the
same, and from commencing or prosecuting any proceedings
at law against the plaintiff, and from reuraininr the com-
pany from permitting such execution and registration by
the defendant Swabey or any purchaser of such shares.
Mr. Wilcock was heard against the injunction on behalf
of the defendant Swabty, who, he said, NO refused to de-
liver these shares to the plaintiff hitherto because the Tho-
mas Field mine had turned out to be worthless and was
abandoned, and the value of the shares was in respect of
other mines which the association had become pos-
sessed of.
Ms. Loyd, on behalf of the company, also addressed the
court, objecting to the injunction from registering the
shareholders on the pond of the inconvenience which
would result from the injunction to the company, inasmuch
as it would cover all shares floating in the market which
might not yet be registered.
The Muter of the Rolls said he should grant an injunc-
tion against the defendant Swabey from selling or trans-
(erring these shares, and against the company from regis-
tering them, which he did on the principle that the pro-
perty should be protected until the cause could be disposed
of. lie should only grant the injunction on the condition
of payment of the ant. which Swabey had advanced to the
plaintiff into court, the order for injunction being made at
once, and the plaintiff being allowed till the last day of
neat term to pay the money.
Mr. Wilcock undertook not to proceed with the action
brought by Swayer against the plaintiff ; but if the money
were not paid by the laU day in term, he to have liberty to
apply to the court.
The blaster of the Rolls—Yes.

BasooaO. VIZ EARL OF OZPOILD.
This was a bill, by the trustees of terns' of years, for
raising moneys to pay off very heavy incumbrances upon
the settled estate of the Earl of Oxford, filed against the
earl and the other persons otherwise interested in those
estates. It appeared that shortly after the present earl,
then Lord Harley, attained his age of 21 the family estates
were vested in trustees for a term of years, of whom the
plaintiffs arc the now two survivors, upon trusts for raising
certain moneys to the extent of 133,0001., partly in pay-
ment of the debts of the then Earl of Oxford, and partly
to raise portions for the daughters of the then earl, and sub-
ject thereto to the use of the then Earl of Oxford for his
life without impeachment of waste, and after his decease
to the use of the present Earl of Oxford for his life
without impeachment of waste (but subject to the
power thereinafter limited to fell timber), and in
the same indenture wee contained a proviso authorising
the trustees (but after the then earl's decease not without
the consent of the present earl in writing) to tell timber.
During the life of the late earl the trustees had felled
timber to a very large extent, and the trustees had also,
with the consent of the present earl, continued to fell tim-
ber. lie had, 'weever, recently been ails ised that it was
competent for him to withhold his consent, and himself
exercise the right of cutting timber. Under these circum-
stances the surficing trustees instituted the present suit,
for the purpose of obtaining a declaration of right and for
restraining the earl from cutting timber.
The cause now came on for hearing on demurrer filed
by the defendants against the plaintiffs bill for want o
equity, ea which the court decided against the demurrer,
upon technical grounds.
A motion was then made for an injunction by the Soli-
citor-General, Mr. Hassell, and Mr. Toiler, who submitted
that this came, not only within the principle, but almost
within the wry decision of the court in " lickewich v.
Marker" (3 Moen. and Ci., 311).
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Martineau, for the Hon. Miss Bicker-
steth and Lady Langdale, two of the defendants, supported
the motion.
Mr. Bacon, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Cole, for the Earl et
Oxford, insisted on the right of the earl not only to refuse
his consent to the plaintiffs' cutting timber, but to cut it
for himself, he b.iug tenant for life, without impeachment
of waste.
The Vice-Chancellor said that this was a question merely
on the construction of the instrument the scheme of which
he thought was to relieve the inheritance from debt by
me- ins of the timber. lie considered the estate for life of
the earl without impeachment of waste was with a qualifi-
cation that he should not cut tho timber for his own benefit
whilst any money was due upon the incumbrances. His
Honour therAhre granted the injunction.

throat Ifics-Casocuarnaresee.
Pe as THE CUX/1146110SERS OP THE EAST STONEKOCSS
WATLEWOIMS.
This was a petition by the commissioners asking the
court to compel two solicitors, who had been jointly re-
tained by them to conduct the proceedings in parliament
necessary to obtain their act, to deliver a joint bill, and
praying that such bill when delivered might be referred to
taxation. It appeared that the two solicitors had been un-
able to agree about their bill, one of them claiming to be
entitled to charge for work done by him which was not in-
cluded in the general contract, and they. had consequently
delivered separate bills, the one amounting to 1,269 f. and
the other to 1,0671.; and one of the solicitors hail com-
menced an action against the commissioners.
Mr. heaven appeared for the commissioners.
Mr. Rogers and Mr. J. If. Palmer, for the two solicitors,
contended that this was a matter in which the court had
no jurisdiction. The terms upon which the court directed
the delivery and taxation of a solicitors bill were, upon an
undertaking being given to pay what was found to be due,
but the commissioners had no power to give any such un-
dertaking. Neither could the court restrain the solicitors
from prosecuting their legal remedy.
The Vice.Cbancellor made an order for the delivery of
the joint bill, directed such bill to be taxed, and stayed the
action, but without costs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YEsTF.BDAY.
Baron TUE call, CONAINGSOSIR.
IN TilE MNITIK Or EBENEZER EDWAILD COLLINS.
This insolver.t, who applied under the Protection Act,
was opposed by Mr. Ilardinge Giffard, on the part of a
creditor named Rogers, and supported by Mr. Nichols.
It appeared that the insolvent had contracted his debts
in the name of " Edward Collins," having dropped the
first christian name for a number of years. Raving been
baptised as Ebenezer Edward Collins, he had petitioned
therein, as it was his real name, The question was, whether
the omission that he had traded as "Edward Collins," was
fatal to the petition.
The Chief Commissioner said he should not dismiss the
petition (or the omission. The insolvent must amend his
description, and state that he bad been generally kaown
by the name of Edward Collins.
The ease was adjourned until after the Christmas recess.
Bass Ma. coinsisUcoraa
IN an Lumen's COLLINS.
The question in this case was a peculiar one. It was
whether a breach of trust had been committed by the insol-
vent against a party who opposed. lie was joint trustee
with another, and by the consent of The complainant, 6dol.
stock was sold out to lend to the inso.vent. All parties
went to the bank. The other trustee received the money,
and had not advanced it to the insolvent, as be objected to
the security offered. The other trustee was now out of the
way, and had not paid the money. The question was whe-
ther the insolvent was guilty of a breach of trust, so as to
be liable to &judgment trim this court.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said he would consider the
point, and the case was adjourned until after the Christmas