The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-24 00:00:00

lain intelligence.
EQUITY COUILTS.—YE.TERDAT.
Nv sv ins trea eilascsai. a.
MISS TALBOT'S MARRIAGE.
Dot Ls r. Wawa/.
Mr. Ramsdell Palmer moved on the petition of Lord
Edward Fitralan Howard, M.P., Mood son of the Thiko
of Norfolk and Wire-Chamberlain to the Queen, for an order
of re Terence to the Nl:say. r to inquire as to the Atom of a
marriage between the petitioner and Mos Talbot, a ward of
court, and in ease the Master approved of such sortises
that he would then approve of a settlement. The petition
stated that the petitioner had become acquainted with the
young lady in 1847, andhad since taken every opportunity
of making himself acreptaMe to her, and that she was now
disposed to accept him if the Lord Chilocellor approved.
Mr. Role said be was instructed on behalf of the Rev.
Dr. Doyle, the te.tamentary guardian of Miss Talbot, to
coosent t the order that was asked for.
Th. Lord Chancellor made the order of reference as

prayed.
IN RE TATUM.— TA TLER T. TATIZIL.--COITS IN LI:MACY.
The petition in this matter, which was argued on the last
day of hearing lunatic petitions at the sittings at Lineo
inn before the last rem., prayed that certain mists incurred
on Is half of the lunatic, who is lately deceased, might be
moot nut of a hind in coot to the credit of the above named
eau., and to which the lunatic, if 'icing, would he entitled.
The Lord Chancellor, in citing his indolent, said he had
consisli nsi the matter and looked into the eases that were
mentioned in the argument. Upon the whole he was of
opo,i.m that he had authority to make the order for pay-
ment of the costs out of the fund. Were the lunatic alive,
his lordship would not at all hesitate to make the order,
and he did not think the liability of his estate to the costs
wa. altered he his death.
COLLETT C. I'IIENToM AND OTIItII4.—VILACTICIL—
AMEMPSIV.NT.
This was an appeal against an order of the late blaster of
the 'tolls, refusing the plaintiff's application for lease to
amend his bill. It partly was argued by numerous counsel
helm• the Koster holidays, now on the conclusion of the

argument•.
rb.• Lord Chancellor stated the facts, and 4111,1 that ac-
cording to the new general order., this being the second
&voodoo nt of the hill the plaintiff was hound to Mute the
ncton• of his pnipisied amendment. That he had done.
But then it was objected that the time had been allowed to
pp.--. To that objection it wan answered that one of the de-
nifints was abroad, and that the plaintiff', with due
dili-
or-, a. 14 not able to compel him to put in his answer,
and therefore, as the defendants were not in a position to
more to dismiss the bill until the last of the answers came,
he. brlship was of opiniow that for the same reason
the plaintif ought to have leave granted to him to amend,
and he male the order accordingly, thereby reversing the
order of the late Master of the Rolla

Daman rim Matins or Iva Ramo.
iN as (/suns.-4AXATION.
The Master of the 10111 gave judgment in this ease,
which was a petition for the tit:all...li of a solicitor's bill of
cods. Ili% Messmer disraisited the petition with costs.
Pooker BCDD.-1/Emitkitza.
This ease was heard upon demurrer to a hill filed to esta-
blish 3 lien on certai is iron loughtby.one Mr. Scales for 1,3001.,
from an iron company near Swansea. The company gave
Scales a delivery note, in which payment of the purchase
money was acknowledged, and he borrowed I,otlol. upon it
from the phtintltr. It appeared that 1,3001. was in fact nut
paid to the company, and they resisted the pi:Mites claim
to a lien for his 115 KU., and he thereupon tiled his bill to
ritatilish it. Th.• grounds of demurrer were want of equity
and multifariousness.

i.e. Vlck.-C.1.4.11.1011 KNIMIT Rare&
Ex vista,. Ilimidviiwonrix U, iiULLINGWOHTII.—•
CEIiTIVICATR.
Mr. Baron and Mr. W. It. Ellio suppnyted a petition of
appal from the refusal, by Mr. Conunieioner Ayrtun, of
e bankrupt's certificate. The bankrupt was a ship-
bode rat !1011. Ile had been bankrupt in 11433, and had
compounded with hi. creditors in In 1816 hr had bar
come iii.olvent, and in Ifl.lo had been again found bankrupt
upon the istitirm under which the refusal now appealed
against hall been pronounced. In support of the appeal it
wa. contended that the bankrupt had been, as it appeared
from the evidence, very unfortunate in business, and that
his trade wao one subject to much risk. It was also argued
that hr had not continued trading without a fair prospect
of retrieving himself.
Mr. SVialodugi and Mr. Itrishurgh, for one opposing cre-
ditor, and Mr. Selwyn, for another, relied upon the eir-
st ine.• that the ;kW. eontractill with the opposing cre-
ditor. bah Iran incurnil after the bankrupt haul iiigned,
and planyl in the homboof his solicitor, a declaration of in•
solvetey, and without communicating that fact to either of
On M.
Mr. K. nyou Parker .Ippeared for the assignees.
Mr. liaison renlicil, and the bankrupt haring been exa-
mined viva sort
The V ie...1 liancellor said that, if there were nothing more
in thy ca.. than that the petitioner hail been bankrupt in
IfiltS. hail Made a COMlP.ition with some, if snot all, of' lieu
creditors iu 11tn, had laviinic in...Arent judicially (if the
esproasion inigitt be ua•d) in Intr., and haul become bank-
rupt again in IrtiO, it would require a very strong state of
cinammtaiiers in.l.ed to entitle the petitioner to a certifi-
Crab which would do more than protect his pecoon. Ito
))))) ur UV. 01 lotoilsion thud ouch a state of eireunritanees
hail not been proved on behalf of the bankrupt in this
f.u.r. It would, in his Honour', opinion, be incorrect to
arise to the bankrupt a more favourable certificate than he
would have obtained under the old law, in a ease in which
it.. ...tate wiiilyr a second bankruptcy did not yield Iro. in
thy proud .16 am, tttttt which it armed to Is. admitted
the.. wa. 1.•. of realising under the present hank-
re4lloll to the other part. of the can.
llonoiir not agree wholly with what had
against the bankrupt, or with what had
bred arit1.14.41 On hi. behalf. The case remained in
an uusati.latiory conulition with regard to the conduct
of the liankru it during the period between his signing
the declaration .1 insolvenyy in June 1119, and hi,
bankrsifory in April la-M. The manner in which he acted
during that farina could not he Motility!. Ilia Honour
moll! with Mr. lAwim'. ntsservati tttt , that a certain degree
of indulgence wan to be allowed to a man in difficulties and
failing circumstances, and that it was not necessary to apply
biome so sat aatiol the .4111., rigid rules of judgment which
w. le prop rly applied to a man at casein hi. aireurnstaileri
end *Landing well in the world. Out the various tranme-
tlen.intow lirh the petitioner had enteryal,betwet n the time
of g the olerlaratiMl of insolvency and his bank-
irsiptey, tytiognsocil the linaito of this indulgence. Ills
thoualit that upon the whole, the demand.. of jus-
tice would he aati.fictl by delaying the certificate for three
usiintlio, making it one of the *viand class, and rtatricting
eta oprrution to prtnectiOn from arrest.
Mr. Parini a.ked for protection fur the bankrupt during
thy ma•rft*ion 61 the certificate.
Th.. iced.luncellor wan sorry that he could not at-I.mb
to the rrimiat. 11e rnuld not Here with the rights or
power of the creditors during the interval.

Boron V14,4:10 t•C‘410111 TWINES.
MUM'S r. MAXIMIL—iNJUNCTION.
Hi* honour delivered judgment upon this audio* to re-
strain the tenant lot pile in puccimion of a oansion home
and gonnail., at l'ombe, in Devonshire, from felling illlo
0.. Ire... alleged to be necruory for the ornament and
atelier of the lIILIDWSO.IIIIIW. The 'dainties were tenants
for hie in naisineler after the defendant, under the settle-
meat .4 the property. The facts of the case, as stated dur-
ing the arganwut, are detailed in our imprresion for Friday
Le.t. Ile it ...... or held that as to 200 outlying tree., nut
within the wood. near the house, there wall no ease for an
iniunetion. As to the 500 remaining trees lying in the
wood., hi. Honour was of opinion that the injunction
should he griALli.l upon term., that the plaintiffs were
to qiie ...curdy to indemnify the defendant from any hues
whob 'night arise to bin. from being prevented completing
an intended sole of the timber, and that the defendant was
to have the option of having a reterenee directed to the
Master to inquire whether any of the 500 trws or other
trees in the wo.cls could be cut without impairing the
beauty of the estate as it sto.wl at the date of the settlement.
At the n-quint of Mr. Gifford leave was given to the
defendant as mention the case to-morrow upon the 'serene
of the option given.

court' OF QUEEN'S BF-NCII-YESTERDAT.
Surmu. I. i 4111016 B.D. LOW CAA MU.. ?IR. JrlTics PAT-

demanding payment, to which the defendant replied, that
he ha received the letter, and was extremely sorry for its
contents, and stating that he had never heard of the trans-
action until the previous Thursday. Much reliance was •
placed upon this letter at the trial, on the ground that if
the note was a forgery, the defendant would at once have
mid so. But it was now contended the answer to that sup-
position was that the defendant did not wish to put his son-
in-law in the position of being indicted by Rowe for
forgery. The jury, in effect, disbelieved Mrs. Rainier, but
if the 'defendant had had the opportunity, he could have ,
confirmed her testimonv in many important parts; and an
affidavit of the Priddle alluded to was pro-
duced, stating that the settlement with her took
place in August, 1847, and that no other settle- '
ment ever did take place, which was also confirmed
by the attorney who conducted that matter, and by the ,
production of the answer to the letter written in August,'
and of which the, letter of January, 1819, is asserted to
be a eopv, sad upon which there o the post mark of
August, 1147.
Lord Campbell said if any contrivance was made use of
to surprise the defendant with the letter of January, 1849,
I should wish the matter to be investigated by another
jury, and 1 think that the not asking for the admission of
the letter in the usual way was suspicions.

Rule granted.
K. tiEtTAT WESTERN RAILWAT COblriNT.
Mr. Peacock, (1.0 ..applied to the court that this taus might
retain its place in the crown paper, but not come on for
argument in it, turn. It was a ease which had arisen out
of the refusal on the part of the Great Western Railway
Company to construct the Worcester and Wolverhampton
they contending that they were not bound to do bO.
The line was, howeser, now in the course of construction,
and the railway commissioners did not wish to press on the
motion, and this application was therefore made in accord-
ance with the wish of all parties.
The court acceded to the application.

BAIL COURT.—YEsTERDAT.
Mr. Justice Coleridge took his seat to day, and heard one
or two motions of course, after which the court adjourned.

. -
ECSIXIIIIII or as Court?.
Th sittings at NW Prise itomatence to-morrow (this

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY.
Smutty, ut D.nco.—t•swna LORD Clear Junta hum Ma. Jun-
TICS CRIMITILLL, Mr. JUSIICS WILLIAM% All+ MS. JUSTICS

TALrot
BOOTH C. CLINE ACTION AGAINST TEE JUDGE OF
THE SOL THWAEK COL NTY COVET FOK FALSE IMPKI,ON-

MILVT.
This was an action which had been brought against Mr.
Clive, the judge of the Southwark County Court, to recover
compensation in damages for false imprisonment. It ap-
peared that the present plaintiff, Mr. Booth, had been the
defendant in a plaint in the Southwark County Court, and
had been committed to prison for not paying the amount of
the debt for which he had been sued. The present plaintiff
then petitioned the Insolvent Debtors Court,and obtained
his discharge ;but the judge of the County ourt refused to
take any notice of the discharge; upon which a writ of
prohibition was obtained. Nevertheless Mr. Clive refuses!
to take any notice of the prohibition. The present action
fur false imprisonment was therefore brought. Mr. Clive
pleaded that he had received no notice of the intention of
Mr. Booth to bring the action, and upon that plea the ver-
diet was found for the defendant.
Mr. llumlrey, Q.C., now moved for a rule to show
muse why the verdict should not be entered for the plain-
tiff with 41. M. contingent damages. The ground of the
learned counsel's application was that the proceedings which
Mr. Clive had taken could not be considered as taken in
pursuance of the nut of parliament under which he acted as
County Court Judge, and therefore it was not necessary
that he should be served with any notice of the plaintiff's
intention to bring the present action.
The Court said that they would give their decision to-

morrow morning.
V. °on C. Snitu.—SthrevlON.
This was an action of seduction which had been tried
before Mr. Justice Williams at the lust assizes for the
county or Glamorgan, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff, damages 201. The plaintiff was a greengrocer and
marine store dealer, at Swansea, and the defendant a pubs-
limn, biting at the same place. It appeared that in the
month of April, 1ft.50, it was discovered that the plaintiff's
daughter was in the family way, and upon being ques-
tioned, she stated that the defendant was the father, and
that the lint intercourse took place between them on the ,
Ist of January, 1819. It appeared that on that day the !
plaintifl, his wife, and daughter, went to spend the day at
the defendant's house, and stayed there all night. About
Inc o'clock in the morning the defendant's wife wnt the!
plaintars daughter down stain to admit some one into the !
•u! ; and, as she statist, the defendant then took hold of I
her, and led her into a room, and then had connexion with
her. She did not make any outcry at all, our call for ass
sistance, neither did she mention the circumstance to any
ono until it was tliwoverssl that she was in the family way.
Mr. Evans, Q.C., now moved fur a rule to show
cause
why Owl', should not be a new trial. The learned counsel
stated that his client wrs dissatisfied with the verdict. The
evidents, of the plaintiff's daughter had received no corro-
boration, and she had stated the dates of the alleged con-
nexion hetween her and the defendant in such a manner
that it was impossible he could he the Either of the child.
Ender these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted
that he was entitled to a rule fur a new trial.
The court, however, refused the rule, observing that the
question was one entirely fur the jury.
Rule refused.
AHLET C. DALE AND A!iOIIIFAL —ACTION POE FALSE
IMMISoNMENT.
In this ease Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., now moved for a rule to
show cause why a nonsuit should not be entered or the
verdict set aside, and a new trial had. It was an action
that had been brought against the defendants for having
falsely imprisoned the plaintiff. it appeared that he had
heen mitt...toned by order of the judice of the court in
which the deli nilants hail sued him. fhe ground of the
learned counsel's application was, that the defendants were
not liable to have any action brought against them in re-
spect of the imprisonment of the plaintiff, inasmuch as
he had been imprisoned under an order of a county court
!judge.
Ihe court granted a rule nisi.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER —YEsmunAT.
Sintsto IN BANN.
RUOJEW E. LORD SERA EFOILD.—LANDLORD AN
TENANT.

Mr. Whataley, Q.C., moved by lean.; for a new trial in
this case, which was tried before. Mr. Justice Talfourd,
when a verdict was returned fur the plaintiff, with
11;61. 15.., or to enter a verdict for the defendant, or to re-
duce the itimages to 261. IS.. The action was for an cares-
sive distress. the plaintiff was tenant of a farm of the de-
tendanCs, in the roomy of Salop, and there was an agree-
meet to consume all the hay upon the premises. The
hay was sold subject tothat condition, and was to be brought
back for manure.:
The court intimated a very strong opinion that the sale
was excessive, but took time to consider.
TUTLIIIN V. JURNSON.—A BILL 01, LADING
TR.,
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., moved fora new trial on the ground
of misdirection, although he said he had no complaint of
the manner in which the case was left to the jury. The
issue was tried before Mr. Baron l'latt at the last assizes of
Liverpool, anal was found for the defendant. The grounds
of misdirection aroma nut of answers which the learned
judge had given to the jury after they had left the boa. It
was an issue under the Interpleader Act to determine
whether the plaintiff. were entitled to the pus-
SPSsiIMI of certain bales of cotton sent front Amy-
'rich to Liverpool. The plaintiff, were merchant,. at
Mobile and at New Orleans, having an agent named
Barber ut Liverpool. In the early part of last year
Barber sold to one Chadwick ZOO bales of cotton to be paid
for by drafts at 60 days. The, cotton was shipped and in
disc course arrived by the Harriet and Augusta, but the
hill. of lading anal the bills fur acceptance were sent by
min anal they arrived some few weeks before the cotton.
Chadwick aceepteal the draft anal thereupon obtained pus-
sonise of the bills of lading. In the mean time the cotton
mho' at Liverpool. Chadwick became insolvent and be-
ams bankrupt. Barber then caused inquiries to be made
with respect to what had become of the bills of lading.
and ascertained that they had been endorsed on the 4th of
Gabber by Chadwick to the present defendant. Barber
thereupon boarded the Harriet and Augusta, and claimed
the cotton in trust for his principals. The defendant also
claimed the goods, and ultimately they were consigned to
the care of the docks trustees. At the trial the learned
judge left it to the jury to say whether they believed John-
sou had suspicion of the solvency of Chadwick. The jury
then retired, and afterwards asked the judge—first, whether
if Johnson had suspected that Chadwick was insolvent, it
would be sufficient to indicate male tides: and, secondly,
whether, if Chadwick shine intended to cheat the con- 1
Apar of the goods, that would he sunicient ? To both
•{eesttau the Heeded judge milted in the negative, adding
met it would be memoy to show that Johnson toast have
loom of Obreirisit's insolvency. It you now eabonitwd
that the seism M the trial was esitelost to show that
Chedwith was in entbammed ei/Clll6llllllOlO.
The Court said thee Asia be na rah. The law ap-
=se he quite clear that if a mss take a bill of lading,
to eheat, or knowing that be was • to
sheet 1V OIRRRIIOI', the transfer of web a hill of
timid he void. But if a party onteen the aster in a
bests his spirit, and with the vim erelaiskietbelloralls•
lin of his own elem., without 111111110111 Atm
sheaths or fraudulent deprivation it 1.116.1111101.% Prt
perty, then th transfer
ue. could eft le dlatinliell. TOO
*nor most show h The nee Nimbi thmM4 be
tease/
Rule reseed assediagly.
so I