The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-09 00:00:00

AW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
.ortreitm.. o. GRAHAM. OFFICIAL ABSICNIt
131 BASILSUPTCL—JUDGIFIMIT.
motion by the Attorne -Genera at the reb,
Chief Registeur is toe calling nee,
one of the offioial amigo's' of court; -to
y he should not pay the chief regiment's (unite
„moth,' 2,000/., retained by him OP account
'0 bsekniptaille interior to the Bankruptcy-
Preston SO the passing of that act the ofe..
woe paid by fees, butte the act they 1111110
• a uniform sitar, of I.NOI. • Year. At tbe
sing of the sot novena bankruptcies were
the rail question now in issue was whether
wen estitkd to their socounomed fere
" bankruptcies ; or, in other words, whether
.1 ors respect to them retrospective, or
tokruptcies subsequent to its paws,.
Goelbars had auctioned the snags of
upoo by Mr. Graham.
•Genegol, Burn& gad Mr. H. &
in support of the motion ; Sir H. Cairo',
ley for 11r. Graham.
Chancellor now gave jodgmeet, and said that
was whether Mr. Gnrahhaamm was bound to pm
tof the omit two sums of 1,6631. 71. 11d, euit
y the Bankruptcy Aot of 1849, mottos 44, the
to official earigesee was defined ea a sede
• slight alteration in 1852 was continued Up to
of the sot of 1861, by the 31st motion of which
that gametal orders should be made that fees
en by the official assigame as before, but
to the monist of the Wet registrar ; end the
were thenceforth to be paid by weds.
gads in the chief registrar's account, to be
aloe expenses as the °min should think fit,
sot to be allowed to receive thy further
whatever band their salaries, end the,
• a return of all fees received by them every
Pursuant to the act of 1861, co the =ad Felt,
order was made by the court directing the
the return of feet should be made and ou
following a letter was &dangled by the
to esoh official assignee ocintainiag the form
• retort' should be made, and en 110001111 t of the
since Olean of 1881, whether the adjudioatioas
before or after that act. By the 239th
t act it was provided that the previous acts
of acts, set forth in the schedule, should be
•ut that each re should not do away with
minis' or ties incurred before that art,
bed arisen bow bankruptcies pending at the
coming into operation of the act of 1861 as
tober of that year were to be dealt with. It
have been held that all sums earned by the
• before the act, though not paid, should be •
• ern in addition to their salaries. It wag said
regard to some of the fees which bad
ed partly before and partly after the act
• Moment should be made, and that so much se
actually earned before should be returned and
t given to the court of the fees received after
He (the Lord Chancellor) did not say whether
right or not. In fact, on inveatiestno, it ap.
at Mr. Graham hod reosived after the llth of
1862, a sum of 3241. lii. in reaped of business
os to the act, which he considered his own, sad
ed 396/. N. 5d., earned before the passing of the
ppoaiog the principle of apportionment adopted to
he had therefore to deduct 7241. Subsequent to
received 2,9501., and deducting the move 7241. a
1261. remained, of which he had paid in so mochas
e sort retained by him to 1,6601. Of this a sumo(
admitted to be an error in calculation. The
arose whether the 2,930/. was properly received,
this he received, not as official assignee, bat
done under the winding-up acte es
uidator and in butaness relating to trust-deeds. If
could have been shown as received under these
blame could attach to Mr. Graham, except that
• isconstrued the provisions of these acts. But if
1 portion of that sum had been so earned, he
me for nothaving accounted for the difference, and
ion was, whether he was to be charged 9501 in this
He (the Lord Chancellor) was of opinion that hewas.
Mr. Graham entitled to act on the sanction Oven
missionen to retain the whole of the fees in re-
. .em done in " old bankruptcies," or ought be to
•ed only on account of that actually earned
• act of 1861? He (the Lord Chancellor) was Of
that the Commiegioners in acting as if the official
bad vested righte in the emoluments derived from
.tries existing before the act of 1861, acted on
us principle sod were quite wrong. He (the
ooellor) thought he was not so entitled and after
of 1861 he could not receive a farthing for bis own
whether the business was begun before or after the
was therefore chargeable for the sum of 1,6601., the
•on between the old fees and those received after
• of the act, and was bound to pay it. There
however, two sums of 1641. sad 3191. 9s.
1
about 4831., which were portions of
°lament received by Mr. Graham since the act of
ad which were said to be petty office simnel
be was entitled to retain. In this he might be am-
but with regard to this there must be an inquiry
rit had been properly retained, and it might torn
the was correct. The question of the costs of this
would be reserved until after this inquiry,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Tenn Nisi Prins sittings at GMMina —(Before Mr.
Justice Lush and Common Juries.)
was the first day of the after term nisi prim sittings
ildhall. The list contains 210 causes, 17 of wtlich
meta. sod the remainie g 133 a new causes . A
number are marked from special juries.re

dCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
gs at Nisi Prises inNELO'en."(Etef Mr. Jail:ice
Bylas and a Common Jury.)
CALDUOTT v. 110DG1L—SLANDER.
plaintiff bad been a pork butcher at Bow, and the
dant was a greengrocer at Stepney. In February last
defendant went to the plaintiff's shop, and said
is foreman that Mrs. Hodges had bought there
of Wiiensey's rotten pork, which
shad
stolen. The slender was repeated on sere.
occesions, and the plaintiff's case was that
in consequenoe suffered special damage. ile said
having opened the shop in November. 1864, he worked
e trade until the takings were from 331. to 401. a week'
a`ter the slander the amount fell off two or three
de a week until it was less than half what it had been ;
in the end the shop was shut up.
o es deuce was called for the defendant, sod the jury
1 for the plaintiff—damages 111.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
togs at Nisi Prins at Guildhall.—(Before Lord Chief
Baron Pollock and a Special Jury.)
WARD V. IRE GAS-LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
his action, which occupied the court the greater part of
terday, and also this morning, arose out of the fire et
ille-house, in Leicester-square, on Tuesday, February %
. The plaintiff, Mr. Ward, was an easy chair maker&
o occupied the lower part of the premises. ssa
. his property insured in the Commercial Cnion
urance Company, but not to the full extent of
value, and be sought not only to recover the difference
twee° his actual lose and the amount he heal received
.m the company, but also to get back from de.
them the
"mint they had been called upon to pay him. The
%ton stated that the defendants, who supplied Ps to
• premises, so negligently conducted themselves in sad
.ut ita anagemt tat a large uantity escaped led
used them explosion enwhichh led to the destruction of the
sittifFe property.
The counsel were, for the plaintiff, Mr. Bovill, Q.C.,
Q.C., Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., Mr. Chas. Policia,
d Mr. H. T. Holland ; for the defendants, Mr. Hawkiess
C., Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Hannon.
The alleged negligence was in not closing an inlet Fife
• ter it had been disconnected with the meter
Mr. Hawkins, in opening the defence to-day, said
hould be prepared to prove that the servants ofwith
the
ompany closed the pipe in the usual manner
bung, and that a person named Bloom, who occupied
'lliard room, &mhos and kitchen, on the premises. wss,
.n to get up a ladder and take it out. It appals.
hat doling a period when it was supperDs
as beirg consumed the index on the meter show
at more than 40,000 feet had passed tbtoacb_
4., and Bloom had suggested that this might DS
attributed to the escape of gas from the defective fittisek
Bloom was not called by the plaintiff, and the expia.frl
given was that he had been obliged to gto Ciarrnalle bet
bad been telegraphed for. The learned counsel said%
set
AO
a very common thing for persona who wished to
...
dishonestl
_,,,
towards a gas company S°.
flexible indiarobber tubes in order to abg,""—
_
gas without paying for it, and observed that though hemnot in a condition to prove that Bloom had employed
a means of obtaining his gas, yet en intention to WOO
that practice would explain
the took out the band, IS
act which undoubtedly caused explosion.
[The cue was likely to last the whole day.l

COURT OF PROBATE AND D IFORCIL
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BILLISOAT r. BILLINtiAT AND THOUS.
Dr. Dean., Q.C., and Mr. Bayford, for the patitkil!
the Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks for the restwoals t:
_,.
Mr. Denman, L.C., and Dr. Tristram for the co-ra•Pow•-•
Samuel Howard Billings', sued for a dloolutioe of bill
marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery with F.4._!..7
Croft Greenway Thomas. from whom he claimed 5,0 w.
) is damages. The respondent. both pleaded not guilty
The petitioner was in the iron trade. Re a
- Elizabeth Asa Comyns Arnold in February,
and there bad been throe children, of liD°,7
, two survived. According to Dr. Deane the union O
t
for many years a most happy and affectionate one, its 001
• drawba* bet g that the petitioner was unfortunate 15
3 business. Inpfact on one occasion he had actually. be:
imprisoned for debt. The respondent, with a wtew.,.
D assisting him, took a situation as matron of a kin:lg;
tertiaryat Newcastle on-Tyne ; and she afterwards