The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-14 00:00:00

tato tradligatte.
EQUITY COURTS-17cerganar.
Before the Master of the Botts.
WIALLIT T. 81MVIBLD.— INJUNCTION TO IT.STSAIX
Till T•ChT1110 • Jrnomnerr.—Tbe plaintiff sad the de-
hadeat, Lewis, had some pecntaiary transactions with Lord
Suffield, owl Lewis brought an mace against Lord Suffield.
Including in his demasd, b as areancement with the plain-
tiff, the amount Cl a nets for 1,0001., which thn
plaintiff held tram Lord Suiffeld, aod a farther Ma ot 2001.
admitted by the Plan to Lewis tor the memo, of being
kit to Lsrd Suifiad. On the Is May. 1%7. • •11••• i, w"
obtaised and judgment for 3,0001. mama up at the s.it of
"Lewis v. Lord Suffield," asd tba 14'b of the same
morgh, Lewis executed a decimation of meet to the eff.et
that he was a truces as t 1,20 N. of the 3,0001. fur the
plaintiff, and he stipulated that ho would not amigo
or charge the judgment debt or allow it to he ea. ,
sated, or satisfaction to be enters] up until the
plaintiff was paid his 1,2001. in full and interest,
and he further undertook to pay a prmortionate part of any
stoney he might remiss on account of the debt to the plain.
tiff. In January, 18.18, Lord Suffield applied to the Court
of Exchequer for a rule to vacate the judgment, and in
April arranges est was eme to for entering up astir
adoa as
he jodgment, upon payment of 7801. to Lewis,
and Lord Suffield undertook to indemnify Lewis from any
skim as the part of the plaintiff. The mastqamise was,
that the plaintiff, considering he would ho b 7
this arrangement, he
Me bili to restrain the completiodn
of
It,
teed to prevent the pleintiff iTOTO allowing the judgment
Mbe vacated.—The limier of the Rolls ranted an injune-
don for them parrots, and Mesas Wrightg and Itallett
aow moved to di,solve it Mean. Turner cad Grove op-
posed the motion.—His lordship observed on the circum-
stances of the we and the manner in which they had been
brosqht before the court, and he cintinned the injunction
so tar es was necessary to p Lewis from doing any-
thing contrary to the declaration of won executed by him,
sad dies:Wed it so far ea related to Lard Saffield.

Before the Mewataacellor of fahtsad.
fl►CNDtaa r. Secirs—APPLICATION assraCTING THO
ATTOINTIIIINT or • M•SAGEbt Oe • VISTILLIBBY.—It
appeared in this ease that Mr. Hodges, the ell
-kno
an wn
tiller, who died in October, 1543, by his will le aaattlty
of 1.0001. to his wife so Wog as she should remain un-
married; but in eras of her sowed marriage sin waste
receive only the sum of 3701. p r "10110112, which had been
originally settled upon named I 8
whoBlo, Mrs. Hodges
married a genUeoien named Saute,had lone • clerk in
the distilery for 19 peen, at a salary of 2001. rer annum,
but immediately upon the a cond marriage the wife of the
testator rased hie salary to 5001. A suit was instituted,
under wHeh a reference WA directed to the master, to Met-
trio whether it was fit that Mr. Scott should be the manager
of the distillery, and what would In a proper salary tor kJ..
Mr. Scott was then appointed the manager at the salary he
had been receiving. A different suit was now instituted by
the trustees of the maniac* settlement of one of the sons
Of Mr. Hedges. The boll charged collusion and fraud
sad it pewit an ',junction to restrain Mr. Scott from inter-
fering in the busier*. It was contended in opposition that
the question had already been decided in the homer cane of
" Hodges y. Hodses," and that there wasno evidence to gab-
'turista the allegations in this bill.—The VitraChancellor
said he did sot see that any of the charges respecting col-
lude& or fraud Were supported. Mr. Scott had been ap-
pointed manager and receiver of the property by the express
order of the court in the cattle of " Hodges v. Hodges." It
rave sot alleged that the order in that suit had been ob-
tained b; fraud, but it was now asked that the order so
made should be put en end to by means of an injunction in
this cause, and the court was asked to make • distinct decree
&novo upon all the mitten coatained in the former suit.
His Honour onaidered that there was no rotted whatever
far the application, and it would be • most cruel thing if be
Men to cuantenance such a snit. He should, therefore, at
ewe dismiss the bill with coats.
ILA 0110•11 O. HANCOCIL--COWSTIKTVION OP • WILL.
tOO RiIIOTS.—A question was raised in this
erase upon the will of Joan Moore, who gave his ere.-hold
and copyhold property to trustees in trust to receive and
apply the nuts and profits to the support of his wife
Harriett and of kis Forwent or future grandchildren during
the life of his wife, and at her decease, upon trust to convey
the property unto is.,d totem less of all his present and future
errearachildren as they should respectively strain the age of
twenty- five years, to hold the same as tenants is common.
This bill was filed by the readchiliren for the purpose el
establishing their right to the property so left by the will.
The nueel om.•enrued non. demurrer. and it was con-
tended That deodorise wee void' for remoteness.—The Vice
Obanceiler aid the testator clearly intended those gym&
children to Isle who shi.uld attain twenty-five. Now it was
evident that some of the grandchildren born in the life time
elf tte sib might not attain twenty-five until mere then
twenty-oae years alter her death, which would be too re-
ason • limitation. lie should, therefore, allow the
demurrer.

*sloe Vier•ChrinUor Klemm.
STAIFILANDIP WILLOTt.--Bu.i. TO SIT AIM A TALAT.
TILL or Sto"L ETSCITTID 11011.1110 111.211111111 1:41)1T0
Ise
LclacTrHla if sour delivered judgment in tnis ease,
whi.sa was beard is Jane Lot The suit was instituted by
thillealkirtiro of Mellor Staniland, a lunatic, for the purpose
Of setting aside a transfer of SS shares in the East London
Waterworks Carapany, which the lunatic had made to the
defenalaat beim his lunacy. The ease made by the plaintiff
was, that at the tiro` of ea.:caving the transfer, Maier
Renaud was in a state of debility, arising out ot a severe
attack of spowlegy, and unable t exercise a proper diecre.
Hos lathe transaction. It was also contended by the plaintiff
that even if %h. main were competent at the time to make •
valid traneisr, Jihad been intended by him as a domstio mortis
awl ; and that, m death had not ensued, the plabidff was
entitled to meal the transfer. The defendant, by kis
answer, &demisterd that the trarafer wen executed by the
major shortly iifter the attack in question, hut stated that he
load then recovered surticimitly to understand ths nature of
the transaction; that the transfer was made at the express
desire et the major, to sham the defendant was alleged to
be related. It was also stated, that after the major had re.
covered from kis Slams red before his lunacy, the defendant
had offered to ?Crawler the shares in question, but that
posedt had been raved by the major, b
0801 d pro-
and screed taks an annuity for life of from
the decadent in lien of such ',Munster. It appeared also
from the evidence, that parr to the transaction sought to be int-
reeked, Major Staniland hsel executed his will, by which the
whole of his property on,ooot at the date of the will) was
left to the defendant and his brother, and the brother of the
testator, in equal portions—His Honour, after reading and
corn centime upon she evidence in the cause, said he was un-
ahle to make • decree in the Waintiffis favour. The trai.sfer
was clearly good in law ; and although a person of ordinary
delicacy might be ezpeered to have consulted a medical man
before scarptiog a gilt of this nature, yet, upon considerstion
of all the circurss, sums of the ces-, the relative position of
thheabries before and at ti
the date of the on, the
of the major in the mansvment oftransac his property,
sad his conduct after resioveriag from his illness
with reference to the transfer in question, he
thought no Oise had been made for impeaching in
equity a transfer clearly van I In law. The only
question was whether the p`aintiff, having fail,l to
establish his ease by his bill, would desire an opp-rtunity of
doings° by suns of proceedings at I ear I—Mr. Wood, on
behalf of the plaintiff, declined to proceed at law—where-
upon his Honour made a decree that, the plaintiff declining
to proceed at law, and the defendant by his answer submit-
tiog to pay the annuity of 6301., • reference should be taken
to the master to secure such annuity.

COURT OP QUEENS RBNClL—Taninear.
Ban Ce.„
PASTA COBSITT.—IiABILLS 4,03111:11.—Mt1i. Cobbett
moved foe a writ of ba•cas corpus to bring her husband up
before 'this court, with • view to his being di-charged from
custody or returned to the debtors' tile of tit: Quern's
Prison, from which ho had b. en removed, as she distended,
without w •rrant or authority, to the criminal side of the
prisms. The grounds upon which she moved were. first,
that his removal from the debtors' side of the prison was •
breach of custom ; 'Sadl, that he had been pee at large twice
upon writs of habeas corypus before the Lord Chanor and
the Master of the Rol s ; gad lastly, that he had never re-
f •sed to file a schedule of his property when directed to do so
hy the Innlvent Court.—The court said they would consider
the points, end state their decision on Thursday.
PALMY e. Bsaal AND ANOTHIS.--Timersgs I
N A
Csarm..—This was an action of trespass for breaking and
mitring a chapel and taking the plaintiff's goods sod
chattels. There were several pleas of not possessed, Bees tog
the temps, and stating that the ground of the chapel hut
been demised to a person of the name of Wilton, who bad
again demised it, for a term of years, to the defendants.
There was then a replication petting out at considerable length
• trust deed, showing tbat the plaintiff was appointed the
preacher at the chapel in quesfion (a dissenting place of
worship in Ito oman-street, Clerkenwell). and had a right
to the possession. It appeared, (ram the facts of its. case,
that thee plaintiff was appointed by the deed in qua ation
the reular preacher at the chapel, and the detendads
were the trustees. The plaintiff having been ac-
cused of some immorality, his conduct was brought
before the congregation by two-thirds of whom he
was admitted of the charge. A party, however, was
created against him, and he thought it better to resign,
upon which his friends presented him with a testimonial of
their esteem. The plaintiff subsequently
_preached, as a
temporary supply, but was not re-elected. The defendants
kept possession of the chapel, platting two persons there,
who resided night and day on the premises for a mouth
before the iltb February last, when the nem of mein
arose. On that day, which was • Sewny, the plaintiff de-
nted a man to attend the service, and &Anwar& remain in
the chapel to keep possession for kin. Be eseordiagly did so,
but in the folloerieg day was ejected by foree. singe
was then brought for getting the pislatire Malan oet of
posssssiee, and for seizing and taking possession of some
certain brass-rings, and other articles in the dispel, vihieh,
it was ailed, bad been given to the plaintiff by the emaigre-
tiff
yahoo. he jury found a verdict for the plain, with
damages. Mr. Crowder subsequently obtained a rale forli a
new trial ea the ground that no action of trespass would e,
the articles Paid to belong to the p'aintiff being affixed to the
Freehold. sad the chapel being estualiy in the mansion of
the defendants, and not of the pleiatif: consequently there
amid have been no " and mitering his close"—
Mr. B. Janes, having showed fans menet the rule, Mr.
Crowder was heard in support of it, eat tree about to be fol-
lowed by
nes Mr.
motsh the
be court mated they wen
of opi that the most made absolute.

BAIL COURT.—TIM T•
ems. r 1111,. Mast hawks
TsaQv v. isairnioven AAP OTIUISL—Bmt POP
TANNT.-112. fifiileMeM amA, es Writ Joseph
Tswollsisk. Thom IVlssasmik liseisieek for role
ftir arse idig_ ihs st dr tows et Swami
Amin MHO& Sims Si is s *op of ilesi whisk