The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-09 00:00:00

LITERATURE.

Gorth.'s Opinio,a4 on I'a 111,:d, Marih;nd. Lito-raf ure,
Nienle. and Art. TrAttshtvil ty Orro Wtsc►rTEßN.

J. W. Parker.

There can be no doubt of the worth and interest
of a publication like this, and all well wishes to our
literature will give it their mite of encouragement.
Mr. Wenckstern has extracted honey from wide
regions of Goethe's intellectual:domain, from several
sets of his correspondence, and from several records
of his talk. The objections of difficulty which apply
to the translations of poems where the author's
charm can never be transferred characteristically to
another tongue do not apply with force to transla-
tions of the expression of opinion, where the sub-
stance of the thought is the main thing required.
Translation would fail to give the charm of the de-
scriptions in the "Nouvelle Heloise;" but a very
' plain rendering would enable the English reader of a
version of ltochefoucauld's " Maxims to judge what
amount of truth is to be found in the "Selfish Phi-
losophy."
Looking, therefore, at this little book as an Eng-
lish book and a friend (as Mr. Wenckstern has made
it for hundreds), we just beg to inform our reader
that, for genial spirit and deep glance, it ranks with
our &Wu, Bac .ns, and Dr. Johnsons—having the
charm and the wisdom of the words of each of these.
Many a little saying is here which is to our age
what to the ancients were the proverbs which they
inscribed over their temples. And nothing can be
more characteristic than their practical value ; many
of them were uttered when Goethe was in mature
old age ; and when, after a lifetime, during which he
bad been—
" Deep and slow—exhausting thought,
" And hiving wisdom with each studious year."
—he sat—looking out upon the literary and philoso-
phic phenomena of his day, with both the sight and
the temper of a sage.
As Goethe was often visited by English travellers,
and admitted always the debt which his culture
owed to our country—and took, moreover, interest
in our contemporary literature—we shall select a few
fragment. of his talk about England.

It is with Shaimpairs as with the mountains of Switeer-
land. Put the Mont Blanc on a larger plain, and its
height and grandeur will overcome you. But, when you
see it in its giant home, when you journey to it over its
Eigantic neighbours the Joni/frau, the Pinsteraarhorn, the
iger, the Wetterhorn, the Gotthart, and Monte Rosa, the
Mont Blanc will still appear a giant, but it will not astonish
you to such an extent. . . . A good deal of Shahs-
peare's greatness belongs to his great and energetic time.

Law intelligence.

EQUITY COU ItTS.—Y Emma D T.
NETUIL TUE LOBO CUAECELLOIs.

TAYLOR T. TAYLOU —RIGHT OF HIIR•AT•LAW TO
LAVaLD SHARE OP HEAL ESTATE DIMICTZD TO Bt
SOLD.

Mr. Craig having finished the reply in this case,
The Lord Chancellor gave judg.neat, and amid that the
petition was presented by Jane and Mary Taylor, the grand-
daughters and heirs-at-law of William Taylor. The latter,
by hit will, dated in December, 1848, devised his real estate
to trie.tees upon trust for sale, and directed that the pro-
ceeds of such sale should form part of the residue of his
personal estate ; and he gave the residue of his personal
estate to his trusters upon trust, to get in and receive the
same, and sell and dispose of, and convert into mosey, all
such part or parts as should not consist of moneys and
securities for money, and to stand possessed of the
proceeds thereof, and of all other his residuary per-
sonal estate, and the moneys to arise from the sale of
his real estate upon trust tor his sons and daughters,
Henry, Edward, John Seymour, and Morelia, Anna, Caro-
line, ann Emily, in equal propottions, share and share alike.
Edward, one of the suns, and residuary legatee, died after
the date of the will, but in the lifetime of William Taylor,
the father, whom he left his heir. William Taylor, the
father, died on the 4th of June, 1849, leaving the plaintiffs,
Jane and Mary Taylor, his heirs-et-law. The question
now to be decided was, whether or not the plaintiffs, as
such heirs-at-law, were entitled to the share of the money
produced by the sale of the real estate, which would
hive belonged to Edward, if living ; or, whether the
rams passed as personal estate to his neat of kin.
There would have been no doubt whatever on the point
had it not been for Sir J. Leach's decision in " Phillips
v. Phillips" (1 My. and K. 649) ; for it must be remem-
bered that the question now before the court was not
what passed by the gift of " the residue," that was, what
was the meaning of certain terms used—but what was to
become of property as to which the disposition in the will
became ineffectual. Now, the rule established by the older
eases, particularly by the case of i. Ackroyd v. Smithson"
(1 B. C. C., 603)—50 remarkable for the celebrated argu-
sneat of Lord Eldon—was, that if real estate was devised in
trust to be sold and converted into money, and the produce
blended with the testator's personal estate, and the disposi-
tion of a part of such blended fund failed or could not take
effect, the heir-at-law and not the nest of kin was entitled
to the part in respect of which the disposition so failed. The
decision in " Phillips v. Phillips" was, however, opposed to
the rule established by the cases be had before referred to.
In that case there was a devise of real estate to be sold, and

s direction that the produce thereof was to form part of
the testator's personal estate. Sir John Leach there held
that a lapsed share in such produce was personal estate.
There was no distinction between that and the pre-
sent case, and therefore the case of "Phillips v. Phillips"
must be considered as now before the court, on appeal.
That being to, he (the Lord Chancellor) had no hesitation
in saying that he considered the decision of " Phillips v.
Phillips "as opposed to the authorities, and wrong. The
decision had not been followed by the various branches of
the court, before which similar questions had since arisen,
and the decision of Lord Justice Knight Bruce, when a
Vice-Chancellor, in '• Gordon v. Atkinson," and other
modern decisions, could not be supported, if " Phillips v.
Phillips " were good law. He (the Lord Chancellor) was,
therefore, of opinion that the claim of the plaintiffs was
right, and they must, therefore, have a decree in their
favour. He should direct the usual accounts, and declare
that the share of Edward in the proceeds of the real es-
tate, directed by the will of William Taylor to be sold,
passed as real and not as personal estate. With this de-
claration, the matter would be referred back to Vice-Chan-
cellor Stuart, and at whose wish it was brought before this
court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.- YESTERDAY.
&mime IN BANC:O.—BS/ORR CRIMP JC/RICR 'Elvis, Ma. Juan.
Alm Li. MR. JvenCS Carwwcu. AND MR. Joints TALROORD.

REID AND ANOTHER r. FAIRBANKS AND OTHRIS.-

Taona POIL ♦ SHIP.

This was an action Of iroverfo; n7kip, and the matter
came before the court upon a special ease. It appeared
that the plaintiffs are merchants in Glasgow, and the de-
fendants are merchants at Halifax. A person named Rus-
sell, a shipbuilder at Pictou, in Nova Scotia, had been in
the habit, in considerations( advances of goods and cash by
the plaintiff., of building ships, and consigning them to the
plaintiffs for sale. The ship in question was built in this
course of business, but before it was completed the defen-
dants got possession of it. Thereupon the present action
was brought, and the question for the consideration of the
court was whether, by certain documents, the property in
the ship had passed to the plaintiffs, so as to enable them
to maintain this action.
The court gave judgment for the plaintiffs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YESTERDAY.
BUPIRESS or THE COURT.
The court gave notice that judgment would be given
be all cases standing over, on Wednesday, the 6th of July
neut.

The court will not sit in banal on any other day after
term.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YESTERDAY.

&moss rut COO COMMXOO.BI6

IN RE HIRSCH LOUDON.—CORIOUS CASE.
This insolvent, a German Jew, applied under the Protec-
tion Act. Mr. Nichols opposed for Mr. Richard Atten-
borough, pawnbroker, Crown-street, Finsbury. Mr. Sar-
good supported.
The complaint was that the insolvent had improperly con-
tracted a debt with Mr. Attenborough, by practising • de-
ception upon him in regard to some goods he pledged at his
shop. The insolvent was described as a slipper and shoe-
maker in Duke-street, Aldgate. He bed pledged slippers
at various times at Attenborough's shop; advances on 23
pledgings, in 1851, had been made to 681. 21. lid., and when
the slippers were sold at Storr and Debenhanes, they did not
fetch so much as the advances within 301. An action
wee brought by Mr. Attenborough against the insolvent for
" money lent," claiming 301. 19s. Ild. as the balance of the
advance and interest after allowing for the proceeds of the
males by auction. The insolvent denied his liability, and
pleaded two pleas. A verdict was, however, given for the
plaintiff for the sum claimed, and th► costs had been taxed
at 411. 41. To get rid of the debt and law expenses the in-
solvent now applied under the Protection Act without going
to prison.
The manager of Attenborough's business gave evidence
to the effect that the insolvent told him he gave from 3s. Bd.
to 4i.. pair for theslippers, and further that he had a large
order. They bad more slippers pledged, which they should
be glad to get rid of for the stlol4 advanced. He was partly
induced to make the advances from the representations the
insolvent made to him.

Mr. Sargood said the advances on the slipper, were at
the rate of 20. lid. a pair. and by auction they produced
le. 41d. a pair. It was to be considered that property was
sacrificed at auctions.

The manager believed that goods fetched very good
prime at auction.
Mr. Sargood—They did not in this instance, at all events.
The learned counsel exhibited some slippers in court
as samples of the goods pledged, and thought they were
worth the price stated by the insolvent.
It appeared that the insolvent, who could speak but little
English, lived with his son in Duke-street. He said he
bought the slippers ready-made.
Mr. Nichols complained of the manner in which the debt
had been increased, and the large costs the insolvent had
incurred by pleading. It was not a case for protection.
Mr. Sargon(' contended that the insolvent had a right to
defend the action ; and as the goods were taken en pledge,
there could be no fraud.

The Chief Commissioner was of opinion that the insol-
vent was entitled to have a day named for his final order.
Protection renewed.
IN RE JOSEPH JAQUZS.
Mr. Samoa,: opposed for a creditor. There were ouly
two principal debts —the one on a replevin bond, and the
other a liability.
The court dismissed the petition. "

IN RE IiENRY FIELD.

The insolvent, a shoemaker, was opposed by two eredi-
ton, who complained that the insolvent had entered into
liabilities.
_ .

The court named no day, but vivo permission to apply is
two months for protection.

BIRMINGUIANI
YESTERDAY.
1811101 Z ML COMMIIBIOI.IIII
IN RE JOHNNY BROONIE*B BANKRUPTCY.

COURT.

This bankrupt came up this morning upon an adjourned
meeting for his last examination.
Mr. Herbert Wright for the official assignees; and Mr.
John Smith for the bankrupt.
Broome was examined at great length by Mr. Wright in
' relation to certain disclosures in the balance-sheet, and to
the small amount of information contained in that instru-
ment; for it appeared that, although the actual trade debts
amosnted to 2231. only, and the good debts due to the bank-
rupt were put down at 3,489 f., there are other claims against
his estate for many hundreds of pounds, of a somewhat
doubtful character. _

The bankrupt had been mixed up in various transactions
with Ramp, Sill, and other persons unpleasantly notorious,
and as the results of this acquaintance there were five
claims in the balance,skeet against the estate. These were
2501. on account of a judgment debt due to one Arnold,
and TU., the amount of a bill, both of which sums (the
bankrupt Paid) were liabilities incurred for !lamps' sole
benefit ; thirdly, a sum of 261. for a bill, which Broome
alleged had been fraudulently obtained for him,-801. wu
claimed by a Mr. Roberts, a solicitor in the Borough, for
professional services rendered to the bankrupt's brother ;
aad 2601., the amount of another lawyer's hill—Mr. East, of
Birmingham—also for services performed for the bankrupt's
brother, and in respect of which Broome now swore he
had never rendered himself liable in any way whatever.
In respect of the entries on the creditor side, there was •
sum of 4001., set forth as • loan, owing by a Mr. Cockerill,
of Lavender-bill, Wandsworth, and 2,0.101.—a large portion
of the residue--was alleged to be due from the executors of

a flimeeh gentleman, named Arbutluset, gtr monies riceieei
ea amount of betting transactions.
The bankrupt further said that hi wife had an income et
hots 1001. to 1401. per annum, settled long previous to tie
embarrassment of his grow, be denied that he had at.
tempted to buy off opposition to his passage through this
tout; and he also denied that he had now any interest is
the Opera Tavern, bat (be said) at one period during his pow
sessioa it was a " gold mine."
Hia Honour said that the bankrupt had gone through his

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING. JUNE 9, 853.

examination so fairly is to entitle him to the approbation of
the court; he appeared to have beets plundered of his pro-
perty by others, ard, in fact, he could only regard him in
the light of a man "more sinned against than sinning."
There might be further inquiry relative to the property
settied on the bankrupt's wife, but at present all the trans-
actions appeared to be of so bona fide a character, that the
bankrupt was entitled to pass his last examination, and to
receive his protection.

THE POLICE COURTS.
GUILDHALL. _

41exiiukr Jari.aon and loir;iiss ith were charged on
suspicion of being concerned with a reaa not in custody in
committing a burglary on the premises of Mr. Grant, a
pawnbroker, in London-wall.
The prosecutor's assistant was aroused in the night by the
Write of a door opening near the shop in which he was
sleeping, and on going into the passage he saw one of the
prisoners on the roof of the water-closet, and the other run-
ning up-stairs. He immediately of ened the street-door,
and saw three men leaving the adjoining premises, two of
whom proved to be the prisoners at the bar. The lead was
removed from the roof of the water-closet, and the window
shutters of the first-floor were pierced all over, but, being
lined with iron, the centrebit had proved useless in attempt-
ing to effect an entrance there. At the second-floor windows
they had been more Successful in getting in, and it was by
the same means they made their escape when disturbed.
None of the property on the premises had been removed ;
but a hat, belonging to Jackson, and a set of tools, were
left behind.
The prisoners, who denied the charge in toto, were then
committed to Newgate for trial.
Jane Bird, a notoriously bad character, applied at this
court for some immediate relief, and stated that she was in
great destitution. It was ascertained that she had not
been long out of prison, and that she belonged to Hanford,
to which parish she was referred. She said she was
ashamed to go home to her own parish, and none of the
London unions would take her in. She was told that
Itomford union was the proper place to apply to for relief,
and she could not therefore have any from this court.
Shortly after the woman had gone away the magistrate and
all in court were 'tattled by a loud crash among the win-
dows in the Justice-room, followed by a shower of broken
glass and mortar, and in a few minutes after,
Inspector Saunders appeared in court with the woman in
custody, and she was placed at the bar on the charge If
'breaking the window' of the court. The evidence was taken
amidst frequent interruptions from the prisoner, who said
she had done it, and would have broken every window in
the place if she had not been stopped.
Springate, the gaoler, said the prisoner had been re-
peatedly in prison for violent conduct and assaults, and
she was now wanted for a robbery she was suspected of
committing the last time she was in toe prison at Holloway.
The prisoner was exceedingly violent, and denied all
knowledge of the felony, and she was then remanded for
inquiry into the particulars of that charge.

_
BOW- STR EET.
James Hadley was charged with tendering • gilt six-
pence, and attempting to peas it off as a half-sovereign.
The case is noticeable by way of caution to tradespeople
—the practice having become a very common one. The
prisoner went into the shop of Mr. Heather, 3, Bedford-
court, and purchased an article which came to 4d. He threw
down the gilt sixpence, and waited for the change. The
prosecutor, however (having been recently cheated in the
same manner), detected the fraud, and said he should give
the prisoner into custody, upon which the latter said,
"Why, it's • sixpence, you old fool. Can't you see ?" and
pretended that he only expected 2d. change.
The prisoner adopted the same line of defence in court,
and appeared to think that as he did not ask fur, change for
the half-sovereign, the law could not touch him.
The Solicitor to the Mint was of the same opinion ; bat
prisoner being known to the police,
Mr. Henry said he should detain him for a week for
further inquiry.
William Jones was charged with stealing a terrier dog,
the property of Mr. Pearson, of Gordon-square.
The prisoner was seen to take up the dog in front of the
prosecutor's house. He was followed by the footman as far
as Seven Dials, and, after a sharp struggle, secured in cus-
tody—the dog being under his arm.
Inspector Brennan, who happened to be in court on other
business, identified the prisoner as having been previously
convicted of the same offence.
Mr. Henry committed him to hard labour for six months.
SOUTHWARK.

Ann Garvins, a good-looking female, 18 yean of age, was
charged with attempting to drown herself in the River
Thames.

James Harman, watchman and porter in the employ of
a wharfinger at Carpenter Smith's wharf, Tooley-street,
said that shortly after four o'clock on Tuesday afternoon he
was standing on the wharf, when he saw the prisoner rush
down the public stairs adjoining, and leap into the river,
which was very deep at the time. Witness jumped on board
a ship lying at the wharf, and having lowered a boat be
leaped into it, and pushed off to the female's, assistance.
After considerable difficulty he caught hold of her hair,
and kept her head above water until some persons came to
his assistance, when they got her into the boat and con-
veyed her ashen*. She was quite insensible, and by the ad-
vice of a neighbouring surgeon, he took her to St. Thomas's
Hospital, where the usual remedies were applied for some
time, and she was restored to animation._
...

Ja.mes Marline, police constable 114 M, said he received
the prisoner in charge at St. Thomas's Hospital that morn-
ing, when she expressed her regret that she bad not been
allowed to destroy herself.
Mr. A'Beckett asked her what she had to say for herself,
and she replied that she was extremely sorry for what had
occurred. Her unfortunate way of living had caused her
to attempt the rash act as she was tired of it, and did not
like to inform her parent., who were respectable people.
Mr. A'Hockett asked her whether she really wished to
reform her habits of life, and become a respectable member
of society. She replied in the affirmative.
Mr. A'Beckett said he should remand her until to-mor-
row, so that her parents might be made acquainted with
the circumstances, and that something might be done
for her.