The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-08 00:00:00

them letters mama v„
the brother 'end the @elicitor of the daendant ups.-
unified. The learned counsel submitted that the
MN
hallll froMdfs. M 01l events so far as they set forth
Mee se made made by the solicitor, were entitled
to peelastios, Re asoleollidaltions between solicitor and
edam*. His lefessare was of opinion that the letters
watvileged to •that eztent, and that the parts
were
con the emmonications from the solicitor might
be cooseded • the remainder of the letters being
produced to the inspection of the plaintiffs. The fact, how-
ever, that the in question were entitled to the pro-
tection claim , should have been sworn to by the parties
themselves; and, as the affidavits were insufllnent in that
respect, the motion was ordered to stand over, for the pur-
pose, if possible, of rentedeing the defect.
Worraa e. Witeveo--Dosteritocnou 07 1110110101 33
AND 34 01 THE New WILLS ALT, 7 WILL. IV. MID I
VIC., c. 28.—John Winter, by his will, dated in November
1833, after directing the residue of his real and pe
meta to be converted, gave one-sixth of the proceeds to his
auk John Palmer Winter, absolutely and by a codicil
doted in FiMissre, 1839, after the New Aot had come
has operation, the testator ratified and confirmed his will
in certain particulars not effecting the bequest toll,
rtnter. By the 34th section of the 'Wills Act 7 Will,
IV. and 1 Vic., e. 28, it is provided that the act shell not
extend to any will a bushed.ore the Ist of January, 1838, but
that every will repuie or revived by any codicil,
"shall, for the purposes of the act, be deemed to have been
made at the time at which the some shall have been so repub-
lished or revived ;" and the 33rd section of the same act
provides, " that where any person, being a child or other
Wine of the testator to whom any real or personal estate shall
be devised or bequeathed for any estate or interest not deter-
minable at or before the death of such person, shall die in
the lifetime of the testator leaving issue, and any such issue ,
shell be living at the time of the death of the testator ; such
devise or bequest shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if
the death of such person had happened immediately after
We death of the testator; unless a contrary intention shall
appear by the will." The testator died in 1843, having sur-
vived his son, John Palmer Winter, who died in November,
1838. As there was issue of John Palmer Winter
the op livinger a-
at
the decease of the testator, a question arose as to
don of the statute upon the one-sixth of the precede of the
real and personal estate bequeathed to J. P. Winter ; which,
but for the statute, would have lapsed. The suit was an ami-
cable suit instituted by the eldest son of John slmer
Winter, who was also the heir-at-law of the testator,P against
the widow and other children of John Palmer Winter,
and the various parties claiming as next of kin of the testa-
directly or by devolution under his will, for the pur-
pose, amongst other things, of obtaining the opinion of the
court upon the effect of the statute. The trustees had re-
fused to distribute the fund, except under the sanction of the
mart. Mr. Remaly and Mr. P. Jones for the plaintiff, and
Ur. Wilcock for the younger children of J. P. Winter, con•
Waded that the codicil, which was executed after the Ist of
January, 1838, brought the will within the operation of the
statute ; and that the effect was that the property in ques-
tion, upon the death of the testator, became part of the per-
Impel estate of J. P. Winter, and as such distributable
amongst his widow and children under the Statute of Distri-
butions. Mr. Walker and Mr. Torriano, for the widow of
J. P. Winter, and sole devisee end legatee under the will of
her husband, claimed the fund in question as having passed
by the will of the testator. Mr. Wood and Sir Walter
Riddell, for some of the next of kin of the original testator,
insisted that the will should be construed as if of the date of
the codicil ; and that as J P. Winter was then dead, and the
testator could not be supposed to intend a gift to a deceased
party, the gift was void. The fund, therefore, belonged to
the next of kin of the original testator. Mr. Kenyon Parker
and Mr. Sturton for other parties.—Judgment reserved.

Before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruoe.
REEVE O. GOODWIN.—CREDITORS' SUIT.—Mr. Hub-
back, for the plaintiff, moved that the defendant, who was
trustee and executor of the real and personal property of the
testator in the cause, might be ordered to pay into court a
sum of about 3001., admitted by his answer to be in his pos-
session, belonging to the testator's estate.—Mr. Bacon and
Mr. J. T. Humphry, for the defendant, did not object to
the payment, provided the pleadings were put in a proper
shape. This was a bill for administering the real and per-
sonal property of the testator, and the plaintiff was a credi-
tor against the real estate. The bill was not filed as it
ought to have been " on behalf of himself and all other the
creditors" of the testator.—His Honour observed that a
mortgagee or other incumbrancer on the estate of a testator
could not maintain a bill without that allegation, and di-
rected that the bill should be amended in that respect.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nun Part/It—Before Lord Denman and a special jury.
SIM'S AND WIEN V. RENDERSON.—ACTIoN ON A DE-
CREE or A COLONIAL COURT.—This action was brought to
recover the sum of 8,8631., with interest thereon, claimed as
due to the female plaintiff, the widow of the defendant's de-
ceased brother, under a decree of the Supreme Court of New-
foundlartd, The real question in the case was, whether the
defendant had been properly served with a notice of the
amended bill on which the decree that founded this action
proceeded. On this point evidence was given, to the sufil-
ciency of which, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case,
several technical objections were taken and overruled.
Mr. Godson, Q.C., and Mr. H. Hill appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; and Mr. Barstow for the defendant.
The jury, under the direction of the learned judge, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiffs for 8,8631., and 1,4731.
interest.
The common-jury causes were then taken.
ALLEY V. GAIN.—ACTIoN AGAINST A PROVISIONAL
Constirreemaft.—The plaintiff, who is a surveyor, brought
this action to recover the compensation due to him for work
and labour performed by him for the Lincolnshire and
Easeern Counties Railway Company. It appeared that the
affairs of the company bad been, in the first instance, ma-
naged by a solicitor named Beckett, to whom the defendant
had written requesting that his name might be inserted in
the list of the provisional committee, and also of the acting or
managing committee. The request was complied with to
the extent of inserting the defendant's name in the list of
the provisional committee ; and in some of the p
ear ros pectuses
that were published the defendant's name appeared in that
list. It never appeared in the list of the acting or managing
committee, and was omitted at the defendant's request from
the prospectuses that were published at a later period. After
the defendant's name had been struck out of the list, notices
of the meetings of the committee were no longer sent to him.
And, even before that time he did not appear to have inter-
not
fered actively in the affairs of the company. He had
directly employed the plaintiff, and the only evidence of an
indirect employment was the fact, that he had been a
member of the committee, under the orders of which the
work had been doue, partly before his name had appeared in
the published list, and partly after it had been omitted from
that list. These facts having been proved by Mr. Montagu
Chambers, Q.C., with whom were Mr. Ball and Mr. Edwin
James, Mr. Crowder, on the part of the defendant, sub.
mitted, on the authority of the recent case of " Wyld v.
Hopkins," that there was not any evidence to go to the
ju
Lord Denman said that he certainly would not nonsnit the
plaintiff. He had read the judgment in the case re-
ferred to, and did not think that it dictated to him
the course that had been suggested. The court might not
understand the meaning of the term provisional committee-
man as a matter of law, but it must mean something. The
jury, in their experience as men of the world, understood
very well what was thereby meant, and be would not de-
prive the plaintiff of his right to their opinion on the ques-
tion whether the defendant came within that meaning. The
case, therefore, must go the jury to determine from the evi-
dence whether the conduct of the defendant had been such
as to make him liable. Mr. Crowder then addressed the
jury, and contended, Ist, that the facts of the case were on
all-fours with those of " Wyld v. Hopkins;" and, 2nd, that as
the defendant's request had not been fully complied with by
putting his name on each of the lists, the conditions on
which only he bad given authority to use his name had not
been fulfilled. He also called witnesses to show that the
defendant's name bad been struck out of the list of
the committee very shortly after it had first appeared
therein. Mr. Chambers having replied, Lord Denman
sail that if two men put their names over the doors of a
house of business an partners, they held themselves out to
the world in that character, and took upon themselves its
liabilities. If, then, the jury found that several men put their
',ernes to a prospectus of a railway company, as members of
its provisional committee, they would determine whether
those men did not hold themselves out to the world in that I
character, and as having taken upon themselves all the
responsibilities belonging to it. He was inclined to think
that they did. If so, the jury would say whether or not
the effect was that they so conducted themselves as to justify
a person in the situation of this plaintiff in treating them as
persons on whose credit he might do work for the company.
It would then remain for them to determine whether credit
had in fact been given to the defendant. If they found that
it had, they must bear in mind that the defendant could not
be answerable for any portion of the work done before his
name was published in the prospectus of the company.—The
jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.
ROLDSWORTH V. GIBBON AND OTHEVA.—LIBEL.—This
was an action for libel brought by the plaintiff, who is a
physician at Plymouth, against the proprietors of the Ply-
mouth and Deoonport Weekly Journal. The defendants
haring pleaded a justification, the cue was adjourned bd. we
any evidence was gone into in support of the charge made
against the character of the plaintiff.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
trierrarrs.—Before Sir 1.20110 ck, C. 8., and Special Juries.
WILSON O. HOwa AND OTHERS.—PROMOTERS OP RAIL-
WAY PROJECTS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ANY OP THE
PRELMIN•RY RTEENSES FROM HEMBERS OF THE PROVI-
SIONAL CONNITTER.—The Attorney-General and another
I. toned gentleman represented the plaintiff- ; Mr. Martin,
Q.C., and Mr. Keane were counsel for the defendants..
Tlt
action wan brought by the secretary of the Canterbury ani
' Herne Bay Railway Company, to recover 12.51.. for half a
year's salary. The defendants were members of the provi•
dine' committee. The only {.tin'. wcrth mentioling arse
LpH.toe cross examinatien of ono of tae plaintiff's w.tueeoes.
trim vau.se evidence it appeared that the plaintiff and Mr.
David Keano, solicitor, wens the registered promoters et the
lin s, which was abandoned in Las month of Octaher, 1645.
The Lord Chief Baron held that a promoter et a railway
project eonld not sue any of the members of the provisional
committee for his own services, or for any of the preliminary
expenses of the company.
The Attorney-General stated that he had been counsel in
many c...ses in which promoters had recovered verdicts against
provisional committeemen to the extent of several thousands.
—The plaintiff was nonsuited, but !este was reserved to