The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-04 00:00:00

I abs lEntrUtrita.

LAW NOTICES.—Tan DAT.
CHANCERY, Lincoln's Inn, at 10.-1 unopposed cense petition and
18 unopposed Lunatic petitions.- Appeals : Bainbridge v. Baddeley,
port heard Stocken v. Donlon; Finileu v. Stephen.
VICE-CHANCELLOR, Lincein'a Inn, at 10.-Before Sir L. ShadwelL-
Cause petitions, the unopposed drat, and short cause, after nhicb
petitions and further directions by orders, and causes commencing
Small v. Bickford (2) part heard. Befiire Sir J. Knight Brum. -11
petitions.-Cmuses, Re.: Radcliffe v. Hewlett; Gibbs v. Waters,
(2); Treadwell v. Meng; Morgan v. Pritchard; Crommolin v. Earl
of Belfast ; Coßrreave v. Colgretive ; Henning v. Dingwall ;
Rentall v. Sides; Gregory v. Wade; lloagson v. Hodgson. -
Brlore Sir 2. Wigrald.-Causett, ite. • Ogle v. Hansard, part heard;
Levis v. TIKIIIIW; Dobkin v. Land (2) ; Bel-hank v. Harrison;
Winter v. Winter; Coates v. ILimmond ;2); Shi.ttleworth v. Bens
gough ; Champion v. Banks.
M Tbe usterof lice Rolla will attend the Judicial Committee. . .

.-..—... -.—..... --.-.-. .........
Wrwminster, at 1 100. -Middle", etmution parks.
—Williams v. Cromwell; Birklicad v. Laurence; Gay v. Wouilhaisi ;
Blundell v. Drummond; Spencer v. Harrison ; Weston v. lkirsigny ;
Gent.. CUM; Alley v. Gain. The lust eau* is So. nl on the list.
The Court will also sit in Banco. . ' " • " '

0011110 N PLILAN Wcxtmin.ter. at 4 p. 9.--Middlesex speciol Juries.
—Brown v.Sinith ; Soulter v. Barton; Shields v. Boucher. Middle-
sex common jury.—Parkes v. Strung.
Exclimicau, Westminster, at V.l.—Middlesex special tevie, is.urh.;4—Bell v.
Samuels, part heard ; Ilibberd v. Smith ; Iteilby V. S ; Cole
v. Shepherd ; Cole v. (liaplia ; Broadhurst v. nastiness; Payn v.
Prichard; Wilson v. Howe; Waddy v. Dillon; Mkt v. Ward. Ike
Court will also sit In Banco.

EQUITY COURTB.—YPmTF.RDAY.
Before the turd Chant. hoe.

MAC MAHON r. BURCHELL.—LEG At'Y SET-OTlP.—This
was au appeal from a decree of Vice-Chancellor Sir J.Wignun.
The bill was filed by William Mac Mahon and wife for two
legacies left to them respectively by Ann Mac Mahan, sister
to NVilliam. The defendants, executors of the testatrix, ad-
mitted the legacies, and admitted assets, but claimed to set
off against the legacies on one seventh part of occupation
rent of a house and premises in the island of St. Kitts, which
had been devised by Terence Mac Mahon, who diced in that
Wand in Bill, to his seven children as tenants in common.
The testatrix and William were two of these seven children.
The testatrix resided in England front 1815 to 18:10. Wil-
liam and others of the seven children administered their,
father's estate, and occupied the house and premises in St.
Kitts. 'l'nere was no eget ement as to rent between
the parties—all of them might reside there; but Wil-
liam, in a letter to one of his sisters in England,
admitted that rent was due front him to her, and the
other children in England, in respect of his occupation.
There was no evidence in the cause. The Vice-Chancellor
held that there was rent due of the plaintiff to the testatrix,
and that it might be set off by Ann's executers against his
own legacy, though not against his wife's; and his Honour
directed the Master to inquire whether any, and what, r,nt
was so due, &e.
Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Bagshawe were heard for the plain-
tiff in support of the appeal from that decree ; Sir F. omit)
kinson, Mr. Molt, and Mr. llislop Clarke, supported the
decree.
The Lord Chancellor, without hearing any reply from the
appellant's counsel, said he could not see how the decree
could be maintained. These parties were tenants of pro-
perty, and, although the appellant admitted by a letter tha
he was liable to some rent, that could not be admitted as
proof of ad, lit in this cause. There was no ca.o in which
one tenant in common was without agreement held to give
an occupation to his co-tenants. The p'aintiff might be held
accountable in a suit for administration of the assets of
Terence Mile Mahon, but he is not accountable to the estate
of at.other person. His lordship reversed the decree, with
costs, up to the bearing of the cause.

Before the

of Erg

GARROD v. MOOR.—ItZFUAAL OF A SOLICITOR TO DE-
LIVRR are Parittui.—This suit was instituted against the
defendant, a solicitor at Woodbridge, for the purpose of
compelling him to deliver up the title deeds to an estate at
Felixstowe. It appeared that Samuel (Jarred, who was the
tether of the plaintiff, had by his will devised his pr iperty
at Felixstowe to the plaintiff in fee, charged with the pay-
ment of legacies, debts, and expenses. The testator had
devised another portion of his estate to the plaintiff, and the
defendant, as trustees for the benefit of his widow and
younger children. The testator died in 1841, and the will
was proved by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The
plaintiff then entered into a contract fur sale of the Felix-
' stowe estate, and applied to the defendant for the title
I deeds which had been left in his custody. The defendant
refused to give them up, alleging that the plaintiff
was a person of dissipated habits, and had several times
been convicted of drunkenness and as•aulta, before the
magistrates at Woodbridge, that he was therefore not a pro-
per person to have the management of the property, which
was liable to the payment of debts and legacies; and that the
defendant was himself interested under the will of the plain-
tiff's father. Mr. Bethell and Mr. It. Moore appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Stuart and Mr. Metcaile for the
defendant. The Vice-Chancellor said the testator, by
devising his estate to his son, had given him a right to the
title deeds, notwithstanding the property was charged with
legacies and debts. The defendant ought to have known the
law better than to have retained the deeds, and obliged the
plaintiff to institute this suit ; he must therefore pay the
costs of the proceedings.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
eittings in HMCo.
THE QUEEN V. ARNOLD.—REOISTRATION OF A VESSEL
THE PROPERTY OF A COMPANY IN WHICH FOREIGNERS
ARE SHAREHOLDERS.—This case came before the court on
demurrer to a plea to a return to a writ of mandamus. The
object of the writ was to compel the comptroller and the col-
lector of the port of Liverpool to register and give a certificate
of the registration of a vessel, called "The Ecuador," the
property of "The Pacific Steam Navigation Company," which
is a chartered company, having its chief place of business at
Liverpool. By 8 and 9 V ict., c. 89, the secretary of a corporation
is empowered to make a declaration, corresponding to that
which is required from individuals as a condition precedent to
registration. The secretary of the company prosecuting this
writ offered to make the declaration required by the act in
respect of the Ecuador, and required the officers of the port
to register her. They refused, on the ground that some of
the shareholders of the company were not British subjects,
whereas the right to registration only existed in respect of
vessels wholly and exclusively the property of British sub-
jects. After lengthened correspondence bad proved fruitless,
this writ was moved for, and such proceedings sebrequently
had, as really raised the question above stated as the ground
on which the registration and certificate were refused.
Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., for the defendant, now contended
that by the policy of all the laws of this country, from the
Navigation Act downwards, foreigners were absolutely dis-
qualified from being owners of vessels entitled to the privi-
lege of British vessels ; that the 8 & 9 Vict., c. 89, even to
the extent of including any
.person usually resid-
ing abroad, enforced the same policy; that corpora-
tions were in respect of registration subject to the
same rules as individuals; and that as the declaration
was only a condition precedent of registration, and did not
by the express terms of the act constitute a right to registra-
tion and certificate, the defendants were justified in in-
quiring whether foreigners had an interest in the Ecuador,
and in refusing registration, if it turned out that foreigners
bad such an interest. Mr. Hill, Q. C., on behalf of the
prosecutors, combated each of these propositions, and insisted
that they were quite irreooncileable with the law that
regulates bottomry bonds. He further relied on the fact, that
though by the continued operation of the 26 Geo. 111. c. 60,
and the 27th Geo. 111., c. 19, the provisions ofettbe itils and
9th Vict., c. 89, were in force from the:year 1786.
until the East India Company ceased to trade, the registra•
•
lion of its trading vessels had never been ref 4 or delayed, on
amount of any of the numerous sales of stoWltust must have
been made to toreigners. If that were so, iitotmet -have been
because the ownership of the vessels had Mit bees in the
corporation as a corporation ; the interest 4.,^e indiriduala 4
4.• ;
-
. _

S .1:1i1\:-1