The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-13 00:00:00

-------------"-------
PROMOTION6.—By the death of Sir Robert Laurie. Sir 1
Henry lieathoote becomes admiral of the white ; and
Admiral Sir Sir Charles Adam, K.C.8., become, admiral of the
blue; Sir William Parker, Bert., G.C.8., the commander-
in-thief in the Mediterranean, becomes vice-admiral of the
red; Vice-Amiral W. H. B. Tremlett becomes vice-admiral
of the whited and Rev-Admiral the lion. Frederick Wm.
Aylmer, C.D., obtains his promotion to the rank of vice-
admiral ; independently of what Sir James Gordon may de-
termine with respect to keeping or relinquishing his appoint-
ment Rear-Admiral Lysaght becomes rear-admiral of the
red. By the deaths of Sir Robert Laurie and Rear-Admiral
Stoddart, Rear-Admirals Robert Elliot and Cuthbert
Featherstone Daly, C. 8., become rear•admirals of th white,
and Captains Barrington Reynolds, C.B. (1812), and the
lion. Geo. Alfred Crofton (1812), obtain their promotion
to the rank of rearedmirel. Captain W. Fanallawe Martin
(1824), commanding the Prince Regent, 90, at Portsmouth,
and the lion. R. S. Dundu, C.D. (1824), succeed to the
half-pay list of 14s. Gil. per diem; and Captains C. Graham,
C.B. (1830). and G. B.Mazwell (1830), succeed to the half-
pay. list of 12s. Gd. per diem. By the above promotions, the
senior vice. admiral will be Sir A. Drummond, Kt.,
the senior rear-admiral, It. Thomas; and the senior captain,
V. F. Hatton (1812).
A captain's good-service pension, held by Captain Rey-
nolds, reverts to the patronage of Lord Auckland, end the
appointment of paid naval aide-de-camp to the Queen, held
by Captain Crofton. Captain Sir G. A. Westphal, Kt., will
now come into the list of the first sic paid aides-de-camp, and
the new appointment will be honorary.

SPORTING.
BETTING AT MANCHESTER.—TUESDAY.
LIVIRPOOL STISIWI.II CHAIOO to 6 agst Cavendish
(t); 100 to 6 agst Pioll6llf (t); 100 to 5 agst \Wolverhamp-
ton (t).
Daunt' —ll to 1 agst Surplice ; 12 to 1 agst Glendower ;
25
pt Assault; to 1 P
aget Beverlas ; 35 to 1 age&
et Springy Jack (off tot)
20 to 1 a
25 to
.1 agst Stinger ;30to 1

;ate inttlitgentr.
EQUITY COURTS.'
Before the Lord Mimenor.
Ire AN Drca SOMBRE.—Mr. Calvert said there were two
titions in this matter, one on behalf of the committee of
tpehe person, the other from the committee of the estate, and
they were both unopposed. The first had three ob-
cts—fiest, with respect to a monument which Mr.
Dyne Sombre had some years since proposed to erect
for the Seguin Sombre (his mother), and for the
making of which he contracted with an artist in
Italy for 4,0001., of which a sum of 3,000/. was already
paid. The monument was finished, and it was intended to 1
transport it to India. The petition prayed that the 1,0001.
yet remaining due to the artist might be allowed out of the
estate, and also the expenses attending the conveying of the
monument to this country and thence to India. and of erect-
ing there. cub' M•Been would undertake to *envoy it for
'2.9.111d. per cu foot, which proposal the friends of Mr. Dyce
Sombre deemed better to accept than another proposal for a
gross sum of 31U. To Mr. Deen's proposal the committee
of the estate Lamented. The second object of the petition
was to obtain payment of a balance of 601. per week
which bad been allowed for the maintenance of the lunatic,
' but for which no formal order was ever made• and
therefore the committee of the estate could not assent,to the
payment now required without an order of the court. The
third object of the petition was to obtain an order for pay
intent out of the estate of the costa of the committees of the
person and the estate in opposing the petition, which was
presented in the name of Dyes Sombre
der. in 1846, and upon
which his lordship did not make any or There re-
alised yet a petition on behalf of Mr.,Dyce Sombre for the
oda incurred in his behalf in supporting that petition of 1846,
bat which would, whenever it should be brought on, be
opposed by the committees of the estate and of the person.
The other unopposed petition presented by the committee of
the estate, and assented to by the committee of the person,
stated that the Master had reported in favour of an
to incre •
ladyase
of an annuity formerly granted by Mr. Dice Sombre
in India, and it prayed an order to confirm that report.—The
Lord Chancellor assented to the prayers of both those peti-
tions.—Mr. J. H. Palmer said there was another petition on
behalf of Mr. Coppock, which would come on among the op-
posed petitions on a future day.
His lordship heard and disposed of a long list of unopposed
lunatic petitions, after which the arguments of counsel in
en appeal motion, which was opened on Tuesday, in the
cause of ' Maitland v. Deckhouse," were continued up to
near three o'clock. They will take another day or more
before they are concluded
............

Before the Master or the Bolls.
TSAIIIILLT T. I.ll:Doarr.—Col'raiONT.—This was an ap-
plication by the defendant, Mr. Budgett, to disaolve an in-
junction which the plaintiff had obtained in January, 1847,
Then
in the defendant from publishi a worcalled
London Medical Directory for 1946,ng " which, it was
alleged by the plaintiff, contained a great quantity of im-
portant matter pirated from a work pub 1947.lished by him
Temple, called
' The London Medical Directory for " Menirs.
and Ileathfield were heard for the defendant in support of
the motion to dissolve.

Before VioeXhaneellor Knight Bruce.
El FART{ THOROTOY, ILI MIDLAND RAILWAY COM-
PANY.—COSTB Or PAYMENT OUT Or COURT I:NDER MID-
LAND RAILWAT ACT .—Landi had been taken by the Mid-
land ltailway Company which were limited tO a tenant for
life, with remainder in tail, and the money had been paid
into court under the Railway Act. The tenants for life and
in tail bad barred the entail in the money, and now sought
to have it paid out el court. The only question was as t
the costa, the Midland Company's act not including among
the costs made payable by the company the costs h oit
makf app
lo-
cation to have the money paid out of court, thoug
Re company liable to pay the costs of reinvestment.—ldr.
Renshaw appeared for the petitioners and Mr. Speed for the
company.—The Vice-Chancellor said there could hardly he
a doubt hut that the omission in the act f
orm ake the eosts
payable by the company was accidental, that, properly,
the company ought to pay them. The petitioners would
have acted justifiably in waiting until a purchase presented
itself for re-investment before they applied to the court,
by which course thi company would be subjected to much
greater eipense than that which they now objected to pay.
As, however, the petitioners hrd made the present applica-
tion, his Honour feared that the act gave the court no juris-
diction to order the payment of the costs by the company,
and his Honour had in another case, " Ex paste Moly
similar de-
neun"
(2 Collier, 275), felt himself obliged to give a

BILLING V. INEBB.—REVERAL OP ?CARRIED WOMAN TO
ACRNOWLELOE CONVEYANCE, LINDER FINEN AND RECO-
TERI es Acr.—This was a creditor's suit, in which the testa-
tor's real estate had been ordered to be sold for payment of
his debts, with the usual directions that all proper parties
should joia in the conveyance. Sales had ad
dil taken
place under the direction of the court ; and the heiry -at-law,
who was a married woman, had executed a conveyance.
When, how ever, she was required to acknowledge
deed, under the Fines and Recoveries Act, she declined
making the necessary acknowledgment, that she freely and ,
voluntarily consented to the deed. The purchaser now pre- I
sented a petition, under Sir E. Sugden's act (on the ground I
that the married woman was a trustee who eefueed to con-
vey), praying that some one might be appointed to convey
in her place.—Mr. Henniker supported the petition ; Mr.
Russell and Mr. Chandless appeared for the plaintiffs ; and
Mr. Wigram and Mr. Randall, for the defendants (the heir-
ess-at-lavr and her husband), said that the wife felt that she
could not conscientiously make the required acknowledgment.
—The Vice-Chancellor raid it was impossible to understand
what object there could be in the heiress at-law refusing to
acknowledge the deed, since her omitting to do so could not
benefit herself or any one else ; but could only occlusion fruit-
less trouble and expense. However, since it was so, there
must be a reference to the Master, to inquire whether the
deed, which had been prepared, was a proper one; and if
not, to approve of a proper conveyance, and the rest of the
petition must stand over.
Before rice-Chancellor Wiener.
ROBERTSON V. SOUTHOATIL—ALLEOED FRAED,—IIi.
Honour delivered judgment in this case, which was argued
in December last. The plaintiff had been admitted recently
as a partner in the firm of Messrs. Southgate, book auc-
tioneers, formerly of Fleet-street. The bill alleged ac of
misapplication of the assets of the new firm in p iymcnt of
the debts of the old firm, and prayed relief accordingly. The
statements in the bill were denied by the answer of the de-
fendant William Webb Southgate, an I the question was—
whether the plaitiff's case was or was not made out and sup.
ported by the yidence.—His Honour decided in the nega-
tive and dismissed the bill, lent without prejudice to the
plaintiffs right to file a new bill.

BAIL COURT.
sittings at Niel 9dus, before Mr. Justice Coleridge.
RICIt A IWO V. MOORE.—BILL TKANMACTION.—This was
an action against an attorney' and
to recover an attorney's
bill. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Wordsworth ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Hom solicitore defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a in Warwick-
street, Restent-street, to whom the defendant applied in
October, 1846. to bring an action against a solicitor of the
name of Angell, in whose service be had lately been, for the
sum of 181. 195., and 10 guineas on a promissory note.
The cause was tried before Lord Denman
vats the sit-
tings after Hilary Term, 1847, when a ict was
found for the Prase
defendant for only part, of
his claim, 171. 145., he not being able to establish bis right
to recover the amount of the promissory note. The plaintiff
was about to sign judgment with a view to obtain his costs,
when defendant waited upon Mr. Angell and propoeed to
take 231. in full discharge of debt and costs. The plaintiff,
under these circumstances, brought the present action to
recover his bill of costs, which amounted to 484. 88.4 d., from
defendant. Rather a singular defence was set up--namely,
that the promissory note for ten guineas on which the de-
fendant had sued Angell was not held by him, but was ac-
tually at the time when the action was commenced
in the possession of one Charles Curlewis, who was
the bona tide holder, and that the plaintiff and de-
fendant agreed together to include the note in the de-
mand, merely for the purpose of 'welling the plaintiff's
costs. The " work and labour," therefore, performed by
the plaintiff being in pursuance of such agreement, be was
not entitled to recover.—To prove the defendant's case Mr.
Curlewis was called, who stated that he first discounted the
note and subsequently took it up himself, and then handed
it over to his solicitor (Mr. Brown) to sue Mr. Ange
can 11. Th
fur-
e
defendant, however, was unable to carry
his casy
her, owing to the absence of Mr. Angell, who was mlled on
kis subpceria.Uis Lordship expressed his opinion that there
was no evidence inconsistent with the innocence of the
plaintiff, and directed a verdict for the amount claimed.—
Verdict accordingly.