The Express.
London, England, 1862-07-30 00:00:00

EV.ENINO, JULY 30, 1862.

lab intellignice. •
EQUITY COURTS.—Juix 29.
(Before the Lords AMMO'S of AppeaL)
ASPINWALL O. WINDHAM.
Mr. Willow*, Q.C., and Mr. T. H. Terrell, for the plain-
tiff, applied upon notice for an injunction restraining Mrs.
Windbags and the trustees of her marriage settlement
from parting with an immediate annuity of 8001. to
which she was entitled under the settlement, and which
was to be increased to 1,5001. in the event of Mr. Windham,
her husband, attaining 23 ; and from parting with the
purchase money of nth annuity, paid or to be paid tithe
trustees under a contract between Mrs. Windham and Mr.
Windham and his relations, for the parchese by the letter of
the annuity. Jt appeared that this contract had been finally
completed, and that 5,0001., part of the purchase money,
was in the hands of Mr. Phinesa Davis, the solicitor of Mrs.
Windham. Since the late proceedings in lunacy against
Mr. Windham, his wife had lived separate from him, and
she, having hired a house in Weetbourne-terrace, had sp-
oiled to the plaintiff, an upholsterer, to furnish it for her.
This he had mused to do, and had actually done, upon the
understanding that the price of the furniture, amounting to
3,000/., payable as to 1,5001. immediately, and as to the
remainder in three annual instalmente of 5001. each,
was to be mewed upon the above-mentioned annuity and
the proceeds thereof. The bill alleged that no part of the
price of the furniture had been paid, and that bv an agree-
ment dated in April, 1862, in the bands of Mfr. Phineas
Davis, Mrs. Windham had charged the annuity with the
amount of such price; and it prayed an injunction as above
stated.

Mr. C. T. Swanton, for Mrs. Windham, argued that the
document in question did not create • charge, and that the
plaintiff's remedy (if any) was merely that of an ordinary
tradesmen for good' sold and delivered. lie could not have
an injunction.
Mr. Jessel appeared for Mr. Windham ; and Mr. Batten
for the trustees.

Their Lordships held that upon the evidence it had been
made out that the question of chargelpr no charge would have
to be tried, and that the pinintilY was entitled to ►n interim
order for the protection of the fund to the extent of his
claim.
The motion was then directed to stand over, that the
parties might settle the least inconvenient form of order
amongst themselves, such order to be submitted for the
approval of the coati to-morrow (this day).

(Before the Master of the Rolls.)

CONPA:R.

His Honour sat for some time to-day to hear the argu-
ments as to the appointment of the official manager of the
above company, as to which the usual winding-up order wu
obtained some time ago.
Mr. Follett, Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Cole, Mr. Saggallay, Mr.
Roxburgh, Mr. Cracknell, and Mr. Swainston appeared on
the matter.

Hu Honour reeerved his decision, which, however, he
will give before the sod of the week.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JULY 29.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
HAWARDEN V. DUNLOP.

This was • question whether the court should grant •
confirmation of the probate which bad been taken out in
Scotland of the will of the late Lord Elphinstone. The object
of the application was to enable certain proceedings to be
commenced in Chancery respecting the waste of the de-
ceased.
Sir C. Creswell confirmed the probate u prayed.