The Express.
London, England, 1865-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCIL

EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 2L
(Before the Lard Chaste Soc.)
mon C. LOCK.
This was an appeal from Vio•Chaneellor Stuart. The
point involved was whether • testator had eoastituted
himself • trustee of 9001. for the benefit of hie infant eon.
It 'imbued that the evidence by which it was 'ought to
estaVish a declaration consisted of statements of wirtein
witnemase who stated that on a particular day the testator,
having returned ftoni a (Gamey to his home, wan asked by
his wife or the aurae, who were the only parsons pliant,
" whether be had brought any present for the baby. On
this he said that be had already given him a pair of booty,
but that be would give another present. Be went upstairs
and brought down a piece of paper, which turned out to be
a cheque (which was not forthcoming) for 9001., and
said that he pee It to the child putting it
into Ili had— and would add more to it. Ile
then said, " I will keep this for my young eon,"
took it upstairs, sod it was found after his death with
hi other securities. The pcint wan raised in a recent
atl-ninistration snit, aid the Vioa-Chancellor, having held
that a valid declsratiou of trust had been made, the presort
appeal was brought.
Mgr. Bacon and Mr. Waller were for the appeal ; Mr.
Matins and Mr. J. Loren Bird on the other aide ; Mr.
Ray for the executor.
The Lord Chancellor said that with much regret he had
some to the conclusion that there was not in this CAIN any-
thing in the nature of a on:declara f trust. There was no
doubt that a voluntary gift,
trust, might be perfectly valid, and if any one expressly
or implidly made himself trustee for another, this coot
would enforce any declaration so made. That being the
law, it must be applied to the iota of each case as it arose,
and he was of opic;on that it did not apply in the
present case. He could not time to the oonalusion that
an absolute gift was intended to be made here. It
meld not be ptheeed from the eonversatin deposed to,
which was half)ocular, that there vas a deration of
trust. The real meaning of the ooernation probably w
and
as
that there having been previous talk between the husb
Id wife about • provialoe for this child, he maid, rather to
Ids wife than to the child, that he would appropriate the
chequit_to.that purpose in fact, what was mad Ina rather
symbolical of what was intended to be done than an actual
gift, or a declaration of trust; and this was maligned by
the fact that he intimated an intention of altering his will in
order to provide for this very.eitild. Them being neither
an &Mutate gift nor • declaration of trust, in his (the Lord
Chancellor's) opinion, the decision of the court below must
be reversed, and the appeal allowed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCIL—Nov. 21.
Sittings ia BaDoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice, and
Justices Mellor, Shoe, and Ludt.)
CHCBCHWARD V. TIM QUITIL—PITITION OP HIGHT.
After our report left yesterday the Attorney
replied on the part of the crows. He onatended that the
objeetione to the petition of right were bed, and further
he ooatended that it wee the duty of the petitioner to show
that money bad been voted by parliament with which to
pay him, but be had not dose so. The crown, however,
had shown that the money was not voted by
parliament, and there was no fund out of which to pay the
contractor. It could not be seriously contended that it was
to be implied that, if parliament would not provide the
money, be should be able to say he had earned the money
was eetitled to it. The contract as contended for on
themeather aide would be =reasonable and contrary to public

The Lord Chief Justice intimated that if this had been
a cootreat with the Post-odios, and that department had
broken it, Mr. Cluirehward would have been liable on the
quantum merest of the am.
The Attorm-Cleneral said it would be injurious to the
public, service to enter into an absolute control, and not
subject to parliamentary contra It would be impossible
to bind the crown by such a =track
The further hearing of the arguments was adjourned
until Friday. -------

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 21.
is Banco.—(Before Lotd Chief Baron Pollock, find
Barons Bramwell, Chappell, and Pigott)
BUTTON V. SOUTH IMITERII RAILWAY COUPANT.
The great "packed parcels' gonna', which has been is
litigation in the common law courts for more than Weeny
years, came once more before this court to-day in a now
shape. The plaiting is a carrier in London,
who online&
parcels from different wholseale lioness in the City. and
transmits them at a small charge to his manta throughout
the canntry for delivery. All the parcels
for a
ca is partilledcular a
tows he makes up into one age. which
packed parcel, and transmits it by railway to its deeding,-
nee. Upon with a parcel the defendants make a higher
charge than for parcels of the same class which are pot
pocked, and for packed parcels sent directly by the whole-
sale house, themselves. The plaintiff brought as action
against the defendants to recover what be alleged to be
evetcharges ; and at the trial before Mr. Baron Martin a
verdict woad for the plaintiff, a bill of exceptions nesting
tendered by the deferelante to the learned judge's direction
to the jam. Subsequeetly the cage went by appeal to the
Court of Exchequer Chamber, when judgment wag given
for. the plaintiff, Lind Chief Justice Erie being the
only diseentient. The defendants accepted the judgment
and paid the damages and costs, but they have joined with
the Croat Western Railway Company in appealing to the
House of Lords in an action brought by Mr. Sutton &eldest
that company, in which the Exchequer Chamber have given
a similar judgment. Pending this appeal a rule had been
obtained during the present term by Mr. Joseph Browne,
Q.C., on behalf of Mr. Sutton, calling upon the 800
h
Easters Railway Company
to show cause why an injunc-
tion should not be granted under the 79th section of the
Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, to restrain them
from charging him for the conveyance of his goods " other-
wise than equally with all other persons, and alter the
same rate in respect of goods of the like description under
the like cireamatancea." The question now was whether,
under that section which conferral a jurisdiction on the
common law courts, for. he purpose of assimilating their
powers for redress to those pommeled by courts of equity in
like cues, this court could grant the injunction prayed for.
Mr. Field, Q.C., and Mr. H. Shear were heard against
the ru'o; and Hr. Joseph Browne, Q.C., and Mr. Philbtick
supported it.
The Lord Chief Baron said the court was of opinion
that the rule should be discharged. He thought the court
ought to be extremely cautious in dealing with • power
gives to them in a case where there wood be no spinal
whatever from their decision. Mr. Browne had not cited a
angle case in which the court had interfered under similar
circuenstasces, and in all those be bad cited an injunction
had been referee'. Where there was no appeal from their
decision, and the matter was one of some novelty, they
ought to take care to act clearly within the limits of their
jurisdiction. It was not true that the plaintiff bad no other
remedy—he could recover back all the money belted over-
paid, and, he believed, with ieterest. If they granted this
injunction the inconvenience would be very considerable ;
io fact it would be no real advantage to the plaintiff, for if
the court were applied to for an attachment for a breach of
the injunction, they should have affidavits on mends tend-
ing to chow that the injunction bad been violated, widest
the other, affidavits stating that the company
had acted in conformity with the rules an re-
gulations they were bound to obey. They could not
decide the question upon affidavita, and he did not
think they ought to refer it to the master. They should
be boned to direct an issue to he tried by • jury, and it
was far better that the plaintiff should bring an action for
the breech of the law of which he complained, then that
the court should take that course for ascertaining whether
the law bad been violated or not. For these reason', he
thought the rule should be discharged.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, who said be was entirely of the
same opinion, observed that it would be much better to
make an application for an injunction to a watt where
there would be an appeal.
Mr. Baron Channel' likewise concurred in the judgment,
and said he thought the 79th section of the act applied to
a class of Meet entirely different from the present one.
Mr. Baron Pigott being of the same opieiori,
The court unanimously agreed in discharging the rule.
- discharge&

Rule