The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-31 00:00:00

THE. EXPRESS; MONDAY ,EYENING;,-MAY 31, 1847.-

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

WOOEIEIIO. TOBT.—ACTION AOAINST AN ALLOTTZE OF
SUARES IN ANEITINCT RAILWAY COMPANYPOR RECOVERY
Or THE DEPOSITS rwarixore.—The following is a more
detailed report than that which appeared in this
paper on Saturday : The defendant had applied to
the provisional committee of management of the Direct
Exeter, Plymouth ar.d Devonport Railway Company for
shares in that undertaking. The committee allotted forty
shares to him, but the project failed, and ultimately was
abandoned. The plaintiffs, who composed the committee of
management, then sued the defendant for the deposit,
which in his application he had in the event
of allotment undertaken to pay, their object being
to'recover his proportion of the expenees. The Wei took place
at Exeter in the month of March, 1846 and a verdict was
given for the plaintiff, with damages 10,51. In the next term
a rubs aisl wee obtained for entering a nonsuit, or for a new
trial, or for arresting the judgment ; against which cause
was shown last term, when the court postponed its decision.
Lord Denman now said that at the trial a prospectus show-
ing the names of certain persons as a provisional committee
of directors, and of part thereof as a provisional committee of
management, aletter of application for shares from the defen-
dant, with a promise, in the event of alletmeat, to pay the
deposit on the shares allotted to him, and an answer to that
application, were relied on as proving an express contract of
the defendant with the plaintMto pay the money which they
sought to recover. It Wlll,however, shown that is the interval
between the day of the application and that of the allot-
ment, there bad been a change in the constitution of the pro-
visional committee by the retirement of certain individuals,
and the defendant argued that as the application for shares
in any railway undertaking was much swayed by the know-
ledge that certain individual, bad joined therein, he ought
to have had the option of reconsidering his application, if
between application and allotment any persons who had
been announced as parties to the undertaking had
withdrawn from it. The court was of opinion that this
argument must prevail, and that it showed the
plaintiffs, who were the set of directors allotting, not
to be substantially the same with the set of directors to
whom the application wu made. That being so, the defen-
dant was entitled to have a consult entered. Then were
other objections taken by the defendant, especially one re-
lating to the time of the allotment, that pointed at a new
trial, but as the court thought that the defendant wee entitled
to set aside the verdict for the purpose already mentioned, it
we. not necessary that the court should pronounce an opinion
on them—Rule absolute for entering a 'tomtit.
Ti, QUEEN O. THE OTERSEERS OF OLDHAM UNION.
—AN ORDER or ma POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS, SHOW-
INO, ON ITS FACE, JURISDICTION OVER ran 801.111 Cf
MAIM= CAN ONLY BE QUESTIONED ON A MOTION TO
QUASH IT WHEN RETIALNIED HT WRIT OF CIaTIORMII.
This was a rule nisi for a writ of mandateos to the overseen
of the several parishes composing the Oldham union, 110.-
fisandlosc them, in obedience to an order of the Poor-law
Comashalimme, to assemble and appoint a barrister to set as
=rev at a certain election of guardians for that
John Cobbett appeared to show cause, and was
abbot to dispute the validity of the order of the Poor-law
Comet-elOses, whea—
Lewd Dammam inquired whether such an order could be
quassia sollatwo.U7 ? A discussion on that point then
took ohm between Mr. Cobbett, In opposition to the order,
and Me. Tomlinson in support of it, at the close of which

Lord Denman mid, I ham a clear opinion that the poor-law
commasionen have fall power to do any act that relates to
the carrying the Poor-law Amendment Acts into effect, or t',
the relief the peon In this instance they have done so,
and that which they have done can not only not be ques-
tioned otherwise than directly, when removed hither by
writ of sertlerari, but is equal to an act of the legislature,
and, unless brought hen by that writ, and, until quashed
after removal hither, must be acted on and obeyed. If, on
the face of an other made by them, it appears that it relates
to a matter not within their jarisdiction, then the order must
of course fall to the ground; and the court, therefore, will
hear Mr. Cobbert, if he pleases, upon that point.
Mr. Cobhett then contended that though tU appointment of
a returning officer at an election of guardians might be con-
templated by the poor-law amendment acts, that the
assembling the overseers of several parishes to electl a return-
ing officer for en election with which overseers bad nothing
to do, was clearly an metes of jurisdiction. Mr. Tomlinson,
on the other side, was stopped y
The Court, which was of opinion that the poor-law com-
missioner. were entitled to make any order which they
might think necessary for securing the appointment of a tit
returning offbmr. They were therefore entitled to command
the overseen of a given parish in the union to assemble and
appoint a returning officer for that parish; and it made no
dttl'erenee that they had, instead of that, ordered the over-
seen of the several parishes in the union to meet and concur
in the appointment of one returning officer fur all the
parishas.—Rale absolute.

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. Janice Wightnan.
SMITH O. WErsizaAr.t., Cutax.—SzconeemAnos or A
LIVING.—Mr. Berjeant C. Jones moved for a rule calling
Co the Bishop of Peterborough and the provisional assignee
of the Insolvent Debtors Court, to show cause why a writ of
sequestration against the living of B)fleld, in Northampton-
' shire, of which the defendant was rector, should not be '
quashed. It appeared that some time since a mandamus
had been obtained, directed to the bishop, and calling on I
him to give an account of what had been done under a se-
questration of the living, which had been issued at the in-
stance of the present plaintiff. To this a return bad been
made, stating that he had received 1401. under ditferent
writs of sequestration ; but that one of them had been issued
at the instance of the provisional assignee of the Insolvent
Debtor" Court, for 15,000/., and that the bishop was unable
to art with reference to the particular writ. The defendant
Lad not gone further in any proceedings in the Insolvent
Court than filing his petition.—Rule nisi granted.
THE QUEEN O. HILL AND ANOTIREE.—CICATIPEAIIt TO
REMOVE RECOONDIANCES.—Mr. Parry moved fora writ of
certiorari to bring up the recognisance' into which one
Frederick Hill and another had entered before the ma-
eivtrate at the Lambeth Policeoffice, in order that they
might be entreated. The defendant, Frederick Hill, to
March last had been bound over on his own recognisance' to
keep the peace, after conviction of an assault on bin wife.
Another person war bound over ss surety for him. Ile had
suheequently committed another assault on one Markham,
and was bald to bail on his own recognisance' and those of
two sureties, which recognisance' had been forfeited. It
was urged that neither a magistrate nor a court of quarter
senioos could mitred recognisance', and that they must be
brought up into this court for the purpose.—Rule granted.
NW Prins.

EDWARDS V. WRITEFIELD• AND ANOTHER.—WHERE
THERE IS AN AVERMENT IN THE DECLARATION THAT A PRO-
MISSORY NOTE HAS BEEN DULY ASSIGNED TO A PERSON,
IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVE SUCH AVERMENT?—This was
an action on a promissory note for 701. 10e., made by
Stocker, one of the defendant!, and signed by him for him-
self and his partner, the other defendant ; and it was stated
in the declaration that it had been duly assigned and trans-
ferred to the plaintiff, which was denied by a plea. There
was no evidence of such assignment given. It was argued
that such en averment was not necessary, an the note was
made payable to bearer.
The learned Judge, however, wan of opinion that, as the
averment had been made, it was necessary to prove it. The
jury, however, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to
the opinion of the court above on the point of law.