The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Kitting. at N iss fetus.—liefure Justice Wall3Mß.
R ITCH LE v. tin frit he plaihtifl in this caw is proprietor
of Fendsh's Hotel, Palace yard, and the toundation of the
action was an agreement dated the Ist of Jun. PilG. By
thin document it w.s agreed that a person named Newman
would liquidate the debts named in it on a certain considera-
tion. The p!etis brought forward by the defendant were, first,
non arsumidit ; second, th►t the agreement was obtained by
trend; and, thirdly, that it was illegally enter, el into to
enable Newman to sell wines and opirits without having
been duly licensed, contrary to tt e statuto.—Ater hearing
the case the jury returned a verdict (or the plaintiff of
1131. th. et on the first two pleas, but on the third they
found for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prius.--Setore the Lad Chiet baron and a
Special Jury.
Tits ATTOINET•GENIKAL tr. WALKEIL—THP. Excite
Laws Al To Boit:mt.—The court was engaged during a
great tart of yesterday with an information to recover
2,0.:i0t., penalties against a contractor, under a private net of
parliament, for draining some fen lands in Lincolnshire, OR
the ground teat he had used bricks for other purposes than
draining, which were made and marked with the word'
"drain," in order to indicate that they were to be used fur
draining purposes, cad so were to be en mptcd from the ex-
cise duty. The cast, OR the close of the erid. ace relied on
by the crown, was, that the defendant had built some cul-
verts and the parepets of a brie* (the bridge If being
admitted to be necessarily required fur draining the lands in
question) with bricks which, being marked with the word
" drain," ought to have been used only in works
" necessarily required" for draining purposes.—Mr. Willis,
for the defendant, contended that he had committed no vio-
lation of the act, eke.—The Lord Chief Baron, in summing
up the case, lett it to the jury to ray whether they thought
the work, reasonably required for the purposes of the drain-
age. "Necessarily required" did nut mean required so
th.tt they could be dispensed with, but reasonably requited.
lie said that as a matter of low, ai.d it the y thought as a
matter of fact the culverts and parapets were reasonably re-
quired they should find fur the defendant.—The jury at
once returned a verdict for the defendant.

Bittingsn Banco.
HAGUE O. DENDISON.—JOINT-STOCK BANE DIVIDENDS.
This was an action brought by a shareholder of •joint stock
bank to recover his dividends, which, it appeared, had been
retained by the bank to meet the balance on his account,
which wa overdrawn. On the part of the plaintiff it was
contendid, by Mr. nab], y, that though the deed gave the
company power t,. deal with the WWII and flans of any
pruprieton, it did aot authorise the detention of the divi-
dend, due thereon. The other side was nut called or., Mr.
Baron Parke hi log clearly of opinion that the bank had the
power which they exercised. It would be very odd, indeed,
if the deed which gave command or, r the shares, and (c-
-abled the company to sell them, should not con'er on the
company them leer remidy of stopping the dividends due to
shareholders whose accounts were us erdrawn. The rule to
enter a verdict for the plaintiff must therefore be discharged.
Rule discharged.