The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-02 00:00:00

tam Enidltgencr.

LAW NOTICIB.—Tars
CIIANCIAT, Lincoln'. Inn. at 10.—Aweaki. Attorney-General
v.
Masters, &c., of the Ctity of Bristol ; Trail V. ; v. Chanter ;
Mermabon v. Rumba (2) ; Attorney-General v. Mayor, bx., ul New
cantle-upon-Tyne.
Vies-itiesacetunt, Lincoln's Inn, at 10.—Before Mr L.Shedwell.—
Causes, tre. : Terry Wacker, part board; Ileath v. Chadwick;
Thellursein v. Lord BendlAlwm; Tibbs v. Si brook; Simpson v.
Dolt; Garnet v. Moor; smote v. Pielford (2) ; Peacock v. Kernet ;
Motriwn v. tVatkius ,• Wright v. Bestowal ; (ireenway v. Buchanan
Walton v. Morrill.Before Sir J. Knight Ileum—Bankrupt Petitions
(Court of Review) : ex parte Walton in re Clarke; eX Orcenetork re
Greenstock ; rx Gomme re ltray ; ea Silvester re Deacon ; ex Law re
Kennedy; ex Worthington re Rklgway ; ex Jenny re Gmantinth ; cx
C'heetnam re Clacetham ;ex Perry re Perry ;ex Boy to Briyd.--.
Equity CtisUries, : C.A1111.4 T. Giles; Newenham v. berton, by
order ; Ellington v. Beckham ; v. Wesley ; Taylor v. Situp.
non (Merrill v. Binmere ; Adlam v. Barham (2) ; Dodson y.
'Settee ; Tarte v. Phillips ; Bilton v. Trewhaela ; Atkinson
v. Clover ; Pennyfother v. Pennvfather. Before Sir J. Wl-
gram.—Preston v. Wilson, for judgment!. Pennington v. Buckley, to be
spoken to.—Causes, v. Pritchard, part hoard; Ogle
v.
llansard, part heard; Leiria v. Thomas; Dobson T. Land (2)
Bash:Avon v. Harrison ;Winter v. Winter; Coates v. liammwd ;
Sbuttleworth v. Bengough.
The Masterof the Rolls will attend the Judicial Committee.
(Icers's Innen, Westminster, at lu.—Middlesex common jurist.
—Tingley T. Dates; Melton v. M•Murray; Martin.. Sharp ; Bescat
V. Gray; Bird V. Defonvielle ; Williams Cromwell ; Smith
v. 11111
and another; Birkhead v. Lawrence ; Gay v. tiVoodkiem ; Cooper v.
Russell, undefended. The last defended cause is No. 19 on the printed
list. The Court will also nit in Banco.
COillioN Pews, Westminster, at t p. 9.—hliddleaex special juries.
—Wareham v. Prance, part head; O'Connell v. 0 Connor.; Lee V.
Nicholson. Middlesex common juries.—Thompsonv. Btoeken;
Parkes v. Strong; Whitbread.. fiarrlptOn.
EXCHIQVIUL, Wertminster, at lo.—Middlesex common juriee.—
Keer v. Dobson; ?Akins v. Wilson; Piddock v. Fitegerakt ; Crock-
ford v. Lord fleidetoce ; Geraghty v. Bernard; Chapman v. Pcmelord
Charlton v. Windle; Renshaw v. 'lathy ; Clark v. Thomas; Intedistra
v. Fielder; Leman v. Layton ; Reay v. hiller. The Lot Cal= at No.
91 on the printed int. The Court will also sit in Banco.

EQUITY COURTB.—YESTEADAY.
Before tee lord Chance/lor.
IN RE Dyes SOMNSE.--IN DUNACY.—Ths hearing of
the petition in this matter, which was allowed to stand over
during last term, in hopes that the parties to it might come
to some satisfactory arrangement, was flied for next Friday.
Cucek v. CREMEs..—PILAcTILS—ATTACHMENT—IRRI-
OULASITY.—This was a motion by way of appeal from an
order of the Vice-Chancellor. Ihe bill was filed on the
first of April last, and the defendant, not being able to put
in his answer on the Ist of June, was about to apply to the
master for further time for answering. The plaintiff agrecd
to give a month. The masters' clerk in drawing the order,
dated it the 4th of June, and gave the month from that day.
which would expire on the 2nd of July. The pla'n
applied for and obtained an order for an attachment, far
want of an answer on the 30th of June, the month which he
had agreed to give, having expired on the 28th of June
An application to discharge the order for attachment was
refused by the Vice.Chancelkr, with costs.
Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Daniel for the appeal motion, said
the defendants had not obtained the order for time till the
11th of June, and then notice of the time granted was given
to the plaintiff, and he never made an objection to the order
until he came to apply for the attachment.—Mr. Holt and
Mr. Kinglake opposed the motion, and contended that the
plaintiff was justified in issuing the attachment after the ex-
piration of the month, from the Ist of June, according to
the agreement of both parties.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that after the plain-
tiff's acquiescence in the order which was obtained, he acted
with bad faith in issuing the attachment ; and it ought to
be discharged on the ground of irregularity. The plaintiff's
proper course would have been to apply to discharge the
order for time.—Order for attachment discharged.

Before the Master of the golla.
BLEIMINAOPP O. BLENI,I:OSO7P. I'ILODUCTION 07
P•PERB.-I)ItIVILEGE.—Mr. Turner, with whom wits Mr.
••••••••••1 swk th• nart of Mrs. BlenkinsouP, the plaintiff. ,