The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-16 00:00:00

pointed to succeed tbern, and Mr. Crowder. mate of Altatroin has
hen appointed Acting Lieutenant of Rapid. Lime. Payne, of the
Heroine, proceeds home in the Waterwitch. This little craft, during
bee service on the coast, has captured twelve slavert,un of which were
empty and two full : total cumber of slaves captured, 1,000. She has
been ties:thy—was nine months on the meth coast, and eighteen
months on this division. The Heroine, 10, Axton, 26, Cents*, 12,
Ferret, 10, Flying rah, 12, Ranger, 6, Wanderer, 12, Styx and AM.-
bp!, steamers, are at present cruising en this coast. The Bitters, IS,
Albatross. 16, King-deer, It, and the Devastation and GTI,A7
steamers, ore in the ROM ; and the Favorite, 16, Siren, lc
10, &WOO, Philmont. 10, and Mariner, 16. of the northern dl;
ADMIRALTY, Nov. 15.—APPOINniliNT0.—Amistant Sur-
geonA W. Bier, to Blau?, C. Facto, to Acheron ; C. ti. Leder, to
Selleiale. Masters' Amistants : A. B. Martin, to Poseuples ; C.
Downward, to Ocean; C. &aenday to Terrible. Midshipmen:
Y. Odor. J. 11. Conn, and F. P. Males, to Oman. Naval Codet•
W. A. Welsh, to Cygnet; R. Wells, te ; F. Outtie, to Me-
ander. J. Opener, to be Acting Mel Forams of Works at Ports-
mouth factory. R. Ramon, to be Heed Mesta is the Apprentices
School of Portsmouth yard.

SPORTING.
TATTERSALLS.—Nowear.
NEWPORT PAGNIIL STIEPLO to 1 mrst
Riedel:ler, 7to agn The Chandler, Bto opt 81. Leger, to 1 eget
The Curate (taken to 73i,), 10 to I mpg Pioneer, 12 to 1 apt
Marengo.
DERAT.—The only bets to eur knowledge were 1,000 to
40 apt Nil Desperandum, 1,508 to 50 each sgst Cerrus and Reverie;
Yd 9,000 to 2041 apt The Sheriff.
BATE OP LORD EDWARD RCASILLI RACING STUD.—
The prices restated yesterday by Mears. Tattersall were on follows :
Shag, 800 guineas, for the Preset government; !Ringo, a foal, bro-
ther to Sting, 400 (view: Verger., 320 guinea.; Reminiscence, 340
guinea.; Creciew and Dulcet, 158 guineas melt; sad Rainbow (Late
Beomptoo,, 82 puma.,

law Ent:Mona.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Cluaorthar.

WARR O. OT A
SS,AVEST OT PERSONALTT TO TESTATOR'S seras-♦T-LAW.
—This was an appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancel-
lor of England upon the construction of a clause in the will
of Philip Slater, dated in 1808, by which he directed his
executors to purchase with his estate so much of 31. per
cent, stock as would produce an annuity of 600/. for his wife
for her life ; and after her death he directed the survivors of
the executors to pay t►e said annuity to his daughter for her
life for her separate use; and after her death to pay and dis-
tribute the principal trust monies among her children ; but
if after death there should be no children or child, of if he,
she, or they should die under the age of 24 years, then he
directed his trustees to sell out the trust fund, and pay cer-
tain legacies to persons named if they should be then
living ; and all the rest and residue of the said principal
monies he gave and bequeathed to and among his
heirs-at-law, share and share alke. The testator's
daughter, having survived his widow, died without
leaving any child, whereupon a bill was filed for the
purpose of obtaining the opinion of the court on the
question as to whom the principal moaies belonged. The
Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the testator's daughter
was the person designated by the words " his heirs-at-law,"
and that her personal representative was entitled to the
monies. The appeal against that decision was opened last
Saturday by Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Bates representing par-
ties claiming; the: monies as next of kin of the testator at
the death of his daughter.—Mr. Relt and other counsel
were heard on behalf of parties claiming as heirs-at-law of
the testator at the death of his daughter,—Mr. Cooper,
Mr. Ware, Mr. Baralgette, Mr. Younge, Mr. Glasse,
and other counsel, appeared for other parties claiming as
next of kin of the testator at his own death.—Mr. Bothell and
Mr. Hetherington were beard now in support of the Vice-
Chancellor's decree.—Mr. Humphrey replied.—Judgment
postponed.

Deese Vice. Chancellor Relight Brace.
EN PASTA SPOONER, RE PATNA. JURISDICTION
OVER PENSION OP INSOLVENT RZTIRID BANKRUPTCY
COMMISSION RR.—This was a petition presented to the Vice-
Chancellor, sitting in bankruptcy, by the assignee appointed
by the Insolvent Debtors' Court, in the insolvency of a re-
tired country commissioner of bankruptcy. The insolvent
had been commissioner at Bristol, and, under the provision
of 6 & 6 Vict., c. 172 (superseding the appointments of the
country commissioners), was entitled to compensation, which
had been fixed by the treasury at 1991. per annum. An
order had been made by the Lord Chancellor for the_ pay-
ment of this annual sum by the Accountant-General in Bank-
ruptcy. In July last, the usual vesting order had been
made by the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and, in August, the
petitioner was appointed assignee by that court. The
prayer of the present petition was, that the compensation
might be paid to the petitioner, as assignee of the insolvent.
—Mr. Bacon and Mr. W. R. Ellis, in support of the peti-
tion, submitted, that, as the compensation fund was in the
hands of the Accountant-General in Bankruptcy, his Honour
had jurisdiction over it ; and they referred to a late case of
Es parte Cantr, in re Cox," where a retired country com-
miuioner had become bankrupt, and the Court of Review had
made an order for payment of his retiring pension to his as-
signee.—Mr. Wright, who appeared for the insolvent, con-
tended that his Honour had no jurisdiction, this being ammo(
insolvency, and notof bankruptcy.—The',ViceChancellor said
that the Court of Review had undoubtedly jurisdiction over
the Accountant-General in Bankruptcy for many purposes
and in many cases, but the question was, whether that court
would have exercised its jurisdiction in such • case and for
such a purpose as this ? His Honour thought not, and that,
as he had only the same authority as the late Court of
Reriew had, he could not accede to the petition.—Mr.
Wright asked for costs, but the Vice-Chancellor declined
making any order.

Wore irlee-Cbserseloe
JONES V. THE SOUTH WESTENNWIAMWAY COMPANY.
INJUNCTION.—His Honour deliveredjudgment
in this case, the facts of which were mentioned in our nu-
pension of Friday last. His Honour said the plaintiff
was the occupier of a public-house, at the back of
which was a yard, forming part of the cartilage
and from which the only exit was through the
house. At the further end of the yard was a building
essential to the enjoyment of the premises. The defendants
had given notice, under the powen of their act, that they
intended to carry a viaduct over the yard, by means of an
arch which would pus between the outbuildings end the
house. The arch was to be at a considerable elevation above
the ground, and was to approach within seven feet of the
windows of the house. The plaintiff did not deny the
right of the company to build the viaduct in question ;
but objected that it scald not be carried over his cartilage,
unless the whole of the premises were purchased. The car-
tilage, he contended, was part of the house within the
messing of Clause 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation
Act, by which clause it is enacted that no party is to be
required to sell or convey " part only of a house, building,
or menufactory," for railway purposes, but that the railway
company, if irtook a part, should be compelled to take the
whole. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that
they were not bound to take the whole of the plaintiff's
house, bat only so much of the cartilage as they required;
and they claimed to have that question tried at law,
upon an admission by them that the yard was within thi
cartilage. The question of construction would, of course,
his Honour observed, have to be tried at law, and the only
point, therefore, left for him to consider was, how the case
was to be dealt with till the trial. The plaintiff objected
that the erection of the viaduct would obstruct the sir and

light, that the jarring of the trains would injure the liquors,
and that the result would be generally detrimental to his
trade; and he claimed therefore either to be protected
by an interim injunction, or to be paid for the
whole house, so as to be enabled to establish
a trade elsewhere. Upon the point of damage, his
Honour observed, evidence was unnecessary, for he had
satisfied his mind upon that question by a simple inspection
of the plans and model which had been produced. The
only suggestion, on the other band, made by the defendants
against the injunction was the delay which it would occa-
sion in the progress of their works. They had not put their
ease upon delay in opening the railway, nor had they shown
that any material inconvenience would arise if the construe-
lion of the arch were postponed till the question had been
decided. His Honour then directed a case to be
taken to a court of law, the terms of which, in the
event of the parties differing, were to be settled by the
master ; and that until the trial of the cue the plaintiff's
right should be protected by injunction. The defendants,
however, were to have liberty to apply to dissolve the in-
junction in case it should delay the opening of the railway,
or be attended with any other matend inconvenience.