The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-08 00:00:00

SPORTING.

COVENTHY RACEB—Tesants.
Tea CITY STAKES of 6 sou. each, and 0 added, for 3-yr.
ad& ke. It mike t 9 subs.)
Mr C. Osekerell's Congress (S. Darling, jan.) 1
Mr. O. Oteries'a Bird of Paradise ;crouch) 2
Mr. Wesley's antes (Crosby) S
Tba Milky, (Mate, nonagon, and Lucy Neal ale, ran, but ware not
placed. 11 io Son the field. Won by i tvo lengths.
HANDICA rof 10 sous. each, ti ft, and 60 added. 1S mile.
(17 subs.. 5 daeLtred.)
Mr. J. bell's Flddingring .. ... ...,......-. (Monty) I
Lord Chederneld's Lady Lurearall . (Oates)
Mr. Smith's Moater Donner. • (Sly, jun.) 3
Mr. Al. Dineen nd. John Harris (W. testes) 4
Mr. A. Campbell's filth Limit* (Si. lkonn; 5
Mariet.a, Pantionnte. and Caatott alio ten. Betting Ito 1 apt Lady
Lurenen, S to 2 opt Yiddlestring. end 3 to I apt 51uster Downes.
Won by half a length.
TUB CITAVXI4 TILL AL STAIMII(10 SOTS. each, and 40 added.
Oa' • round and • dis. (5 WO.
Mr. M. Damson'sLiPtoll walked over.
THE SELLING STAKES ol 5 sore. each, and 25 aided.
2 mike.
Mr. Worthington's Hooton (W. Cain: 2
ne 1
Mr. [Nag's Minuet tiaar. r.t'sar's Moonlight (WDen hitehouse) 3
Mt'sar'sMr. Wilienan's Megan( Tomlin) 4
Won by a length.
flielthingtOn and Cantle also ran.
THE Y um.: II lin D ICAP Ill:BDLE RACK wan won by Mr.
Herinit'A Shiptlale beating Mr. tekrett'e EC' at and 11 others
cleverly by ball a length.

Ulu fatalist=

HOUSE OF LORDS.
DRUMMOND AND ANOTHER V. THE ATTORNEY GENE-
RAL POR IRELAND AND OTHERS.—TRUST FUND FOR PRO.
TRATANT DISSINTRRS FOUNDED IN 1710 IN IRELAND.—
ARE UNITARIAN!! ENTITLED TU PARTICIPATI IN IT ?
This appeal against a decree of Su E. Sugden, when Lord
Chanceller of Ireland, has occupied the house six days. The
main points in it were stated in the report in this journal
last Friday. The arguments are now concluded. Those
for the appellants, who are unitarian ministers, were to this
effect—that the trusts in question were, as fir as they were
charitable, altogether illegal at the time (1710) when they
were Omitted , but inasmuch es the purposes of the trust,
though illegal, were of a charitable nature, and ever to be
supported, the decree of the court ought to have directed
the application of the funds to such purposes of charity as
the crown by sign manual should appoint. (Several cases
were cited in which that course was pursued.) Secondly,
that it the long enjoyment of the trust (nearly one
hundred and linty years) was a ground, as Sir B.
Sugden seemed to hold it was, for waiving the origi-
nal illegality of it, the usage during that long enjoy-
ment, and not the original Illegal intention, should be looked
to in order to determine the objects of the trusts; and, there-
fore, according to that view, anti-trinitarians or unitarians
having so hang shared in the benefits of the fund in common
with ohm. protestant dissenters, should be held still to be pro-
per objects of it. Arguments were also uied to show that
evidence was improperly received in the Court of Chancery
in Ireland to determine the signification of the words
" protestant dissenters," in order to exclude unitarians,
whereas the words " protestant dissenters " had been well
defined and received their meaning from acts of parliament,
and according to their legal well-known meaning at the
period in question (1710) these words included anti-trinita-
nans as well as trinitariane. The trust was expressly
founded to protect all protestant dissenters from the
attacks and perseentiou of the episcopalians. The argn
meats for the respoadents were to this effect ; first that the
trust was legal as a charity—that the founders of it were all
trinitarian presbyterians, strongly opposed to all impugners
of the doctrine of the trinity, and necessarily indisposed to
associate themselves with unitarians ; secondly, at for
that reason the application of the charity for the benefit of
miaisters or congregatMns bolding anti-trinitarien, or as
it is commonly called-, unitarian belief, was inconsistent with
the intention of the founders, nod also with the language
of the trust deed.—Mr. Molt having concluded his reply at
two o'clock, on the part of the appellants, the case was
adjourned for the eonauleration of the judgment.
THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF LONDON V. THE
ATIORNEY•OENERAL. JURISDICTION OP THE COURT
OP CHANCERY IN CROWN RETINUE CASFE. CON-
TEST NETWREN THE CROWN AND TAR CORPORATION
OP LONDON ILESPECTINO THE RIGHT TO TRY. SHO
anRES OP
THE Tnause.—This was en appeal agains a demurrer
t order
of the Master of the Rolls, overruling
put in by the appellants to an information. That informa-
tion was filed by her Majestr's Attorney-General for the
purpose of establishing the righi of the erown to the soil and
shores of the river Thames, between high and low water
marks, against the corporation of London, who, as conserva-
tors of the river, claimed to he entitled to them, and, in exer-
cise of that title granted for consideration licenses to several
parties, including Mr. Cubitt, Sir Thomas Turton, Mr. Park,
and others, to raise einbacluuents from the low water marks
at the Isle of Dogs, Rotherhithe, and 13atte rue. The
from
in-
formation prayed that these par tes might he restrained
going on with these embankments, which were alleged to a
be encroachments on her Majesty's prerogative, and
utrance to the navigation of the river. The cor-
poration answered this latter part ofemu th
to the rest,
e informs-
tion which alleged the nuisance, and drred
qui etion therein raised was not
upon the ground that the
matter fora c.ourt of equity out for a tours t..w. t. at
whether there was matter of equity or not, the Exchequer
was the proper court as a court of revenue. The Master of
the Rolls, upon the argument on the demurrer, held that
the crown nueht, before the abolition of the Equity
Court,Exche-
have proceeded there in respect of legal rights ;
thgae trewhole equity jurisdiction of that "court was trans-
(erred, by the act 6 Vic., c. 5, to the Court of Chancery, in
which court, therefore, the crown might now take proceed-
ings in respect of its legal claims. The appeal was against
that decision.—Mr. Bethell was in *t
their appeal when, course of on
the ease of the corporation in support o
it being four o'clock, the further hearing was adjourned to
Thursday.

EQUITY couwre.
Before the Muter of the halt,
MIT V. NIVINOHAII.—SIAT 10 ItECOVEII .A.NNIJITY.—
A
he argument in this case was resumed this morning. At
he hearing of the MIN in hlay,l the till was re
la itained
td for
r
12 months, with liberty for the p 1344.
laintiff, who cm
annuity against toe eetit,..! of the HMI. F. W. Primrose, to
bring an action at law to try the solidity ot his claim, and
the d.tentlants ‘, ere re.trained from pleadiug the Statute of
Limitations r setting up any outstanding terms so as to de-
feat the plc
Proceedings at law. The form of action
adopted by the plaintiff was ejectment, which be broug bht
against Chapman, a receiver of the property, appointed
and
y
the court, and whoa occupied a portion of the property,
against the other tenants. He recovered against Chapman,
who was a ptrty to the cause, and was, therefore, restrained
from pleading the Statute of Limitations ; but he failed
against the other tenants, who were not parties to the cause,
and therefore were not restrained from pleading the
statute, which accordingly they did plead. The cause came
on now to be heard on the equity reserved ; and • petition
was at the same time presented by the plaintiff, who com-
plained that the defendants had improperly availed them-
selves of the opportunity which the form of the action at law
had given them to defeat the plaintiff's right by procuring
the tenants, who were the nominal parties to the action, to
plead the statute of limitations. The object of the petition
wu to obtain leave to bring another action, and to put the
defendant' upon such terms as would prevent them from
again defeating the plaintiff 'a right by means of the statute,
or to get the proceedings in the cause delayed foe
r tecworee years
al-
to give the plaintiff an opportunity of getting th d
tered by_an appeal to the House of Lords.
The Muter of the Rolls maid that he bad no jurisdiction in
such a suit II this, and under the circumstances alleged, to
give the relief asked for by the petition, and he must there-
fore dismiss it with Coils. He was, in fact, asked to consider
a verdict against ono defendant as a verdict against all.
There was no principle for that. The situation of the plain-
tiff was unfortunate, but he had neglected to avail him.
self of opportunities which had occurred to set the decree
sight if it did aot give him the relief necessary to try his
right. Instead of that he had enrolled the decree. He
could now only have a decree tor payment out of the portion
of the property recovered from Chapman. He did not ap-
prove of the conduct of the defendants in the proceedings at
law, and he should therefore read the pleadings endows:l4er
the ratter before he decided whet code were to be paid by
Ow 'Lana.