The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-22 00:00:00

posed of by hie will, and therefore belonged to his next
of kin, subji et to the said legacies and annuities.
The heirat-law of the teetn.or, who is the principal respon-
dent in the first appeal, braught his (the second) appeal
against so much of the decree as declared the testator's real
estates to be subject to the payment of the legacies rid an-
nuities given by tlse will, equally with and in the same de-
gree as his personal estate, anti against the directions conse-
quential thereon. The appellants in the first appeal, and
the next of kin of the testator, and others interested in the
personal estate, were respondents in this second appeal.—
Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Bethel' (with whom was Mr. Oland-
lies) were heard for the appellants in the first appeal last
Tuesday, and for them as respondents§ in the second.—Kr.
James Park.r still Mr. E. Lloyd (with whom was Mr. Wick-
ens) were heard on 'Thursday for the hat-law, principal
respondent in the first appeal, and sole appellant in the
second.—Mr. Turner and Mr. Anderdon (with whom was
Mr. Cairns), were heard on the same day for the next of kin
of testator, and other respondents in the same interest, in
both appeal..—Mr. Parker was then heard in reply in the
second appeal : and now Mr. Bethell replied in the first.
The arguments wore of too technical • nature for a news.
paper repurt.—The Lord Chancellor, at the close of the ar-
guments, said the house should take time to look into the
numerous can a that were cited ; and so both appeals stand
over for judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nisi valve, Gennifaxt.—fletewe Lord Denman and • Special Jury.
DAWSON AND OVUM a. HAY.—RAILWAY LIABILI-
T1164.—1n this case Mr. Serjeant Shea and Mr. Lush ep-
peered for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin, Q.C., represented
the defendant. This was an action brought to recover the
sum of 4701.45. ltd., for advertisemeats inserted in various
London newspapers on account of the Shrewsbury and Lei-
cester Direct Railway Company, the defendant being a pro-
visional committeeman. It appeared that during the rail-
way mania of 1845. Mr. Turner, a solicitor, raiding at
Wolverhamron, projected the line in question, and, soon
afterwari!s, the defendant, who lived at the same place, be-
gan to take an active part in the affairs of the company, and
became a provisional committeeman ; but he never was a
member of the managing committee. In the month of Oc-
tober, Pll6, the company was provisionally registered,
and in November a managing committee was appointed,
and all the necessary steps taken fur carrying out the objects
of the promoters of this line. In March, 1546,
to
aertr, it
was tound necessary to adopt same proceedings to meet the
liabilities of the company, not more than 1001. having been
paid in the shape of deposits, owing to the railway panic
having occurred in the meantime. Accordingly, a meeting
of the patties connicted with the Shrewsbury and Leicester
Company was held at the Stork Hotel, Birmingham, at
which the defendant was present, when he seconded a rena-
-1 lution:that a deputation should wait upon the finance com-
mittee, at Finsbury.place in London, to coatr upon the
affairs of the company ; and that res elution was passed and
acted upon. Oa the day previous to the meeting taking
place at Birmingham, another had been htld in
London. mid it wan then proposed and agreed
that 73/. should be paid by each allottee of sharer, towards
deiraving the expenws which had been incurred in promot-
ing the scheme, and that each party so paying that auto
should be held harmless from any legal proceedings heine
taken Against them on account of their connexion w nth the
company. Subsequently, however, the sum to hi- given was
altered to 631., which the defendant paid, and it was then
agreed by a resolution of the meeting at which the 731. was
altered to G.l/ , that the defendant should he indemnified
by the payment that he then made. In the following Octo-
ber it was found necessary to make a further call of 93/.
towards liquidating the debts of the company. The defend-
ant, however, refused to pay this additional demand,
on the ground that when he gave the 631. it
was in full satisfaction of all the liabilities which, as a pro-
vidunal committeeman, he had incurred. The plaintiffs now
sued the di.fendant at the instiaation of the c. rawly.
i..fipeirt of the Van ills,' case, witnesses were called who proved
that the defendant had been a provisienal committeeman
of this company, and had taken an active part in its affairs.
Amongst otht es, Mr. Vardy. the London solicitor, was called,
and he stated that he had given the orders to the plaintiffs
for the work on which the present action was brought.—At
the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, Lord Denman said be
felt a great difficulty in saying that the ease ci uld go on.
The managing committee had said to the defendant that if
he would pay the sum of 63/. they would hold him free from
any further responsibility; he had paid that sum, and then
they afterwards demanded 931 more. It seemed to him (Lord
Denman) that the company had no right to do SJ; and the
plaintiffs' allowing the company to sue in their,name could not
give thc company any better right than they hail before.—Mr.
Serjeant Shee submitted that the plaintiffs bad a r ght to re-
cover for their claim irrespective of any resolution made by
the parties liable to them. Ile therefore holed, if lie was
nonsuited, that his lordship would give him leave to move to
enter the verdict for the plaintiff.—Lord Denman thought it
was a clue where permission to move might be given to the
plaintiff; but he could not do that without air. Martin's
consent.—Mr. Martin staled he would not agree to the pro-
posal of hie learned friend, and the plaintiff was accordingly
nonsuited, without leave being reserved.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
The Court wu occupied the whole of the day with a case
of `• Pilbrow v. Pilbrow's Atmospheric Railway Company."
—lt is an action brought by the inventor of an improved
atmospheric railway to recover a sum of 15,00 U/ fir the rale
of the patent.—The case was only part heard, and we the
reserve our report

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
m r•lt'S.—lfefure I Pollock, soda London Common Jury.
Dove v. Beicioes.—Calm. CON.—Mr. Humfrey, Q.C.,
Mr. Phinn, and Mr. Prentice were counsel for the plaintiff,
who was a grocer, carrying on business in Britannia-place,
Wandsworth-road. Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant
Wilkins, and Mr. Petersdoiff represented the defendant,
who was a draper, also living in the Wandsworth-road.
This was an action to recover compensation for debauching
plaiatiff's wife. Pleas, "Not guilty," and "leave and
licence." The details of the case were extremely disgusting,
and wholly unfit for publication in the columns of this journal.
The main facts, however, appeared to be that the plaintiff
was married in 1840, he being then 21 yens's of age, and his
wife, who wail a farmer's daughter, only 17. Three children
were the result of their union, and they lived happily to-
gether until 1847. when the plaintiff, who had for some pre-
vious time entertained suspicions of his wife, intercepted a
letter, on the 18th of November, addressed to her by the
defendant. It stated that it was impossible be could get
away in the early part of the evening, and made an appoint-
ment to meet her at seven o'clock at Farrance's, Trafalgar-
square. The plaintiff, accompanied by a friend, repaired,
both in disguise, to Farrance's, before the appointed hour.
They remained there for a short time only when Mrs. Dove
made her appearance, and soon afterwards the defendant was
forthcoming. Immediately after their arrival they went
away together to a house of ill-fame near Leicester square.
Thither they were pursued by the plaintiff and his friend.
On arriving at the house the plaintiff insisted upon being
allowed to go up stairs. A short time elapsed before he ac-
complished his purpose in that respect. but ultimately he
went up stairs, knocked at the door of the room in which his
wife was, and thus detected the parties. No violence ensued.
He appeased his vengeance simply by carrying off his wife's
bonnet and shawl, together with the defendant's coat and
hat.—Mr. Cockburn, for the defendant, admitted his client's
guilt, and addressed the court in mitigation of damages. He
proved that the plaintiff was an immoral, ill.conducted man,
and as such it was urged he was disentitled to anything
like substantial damages. The object of the action was
to recover compensation for the lose of the wife's moiety : it
was manifest the plaintiff could not have valued it or his
conduct would have been very different. The learned coun-
sel called a number of witnesses to prove the immorality of
which the plaintiff had been guilty since his marriage, and
was proceeding to substantiate a variety of other circum-
stances stated when he was interrupted by the learned
judge, who asked Mr. Humfrey whether he was prepared to
meet the case.—Mr. Humfrev submitted that it was ques-
tionable whether the defendint could avail himself of the
plaintiff's immoral conduct or character, even supposing all
that was imputed to him was admitted, in mitigation of
damages. —The Lord Chief Baron : Oh, as to that, I have
no doubt.—Mr. Humfrey then said be would leave the case
entirely in the hands of the jury.—Mr. Cockburn I have
several other witnesses to call.—The Chief Baron But
whi re is the use of going through such disgusting details? 1
think we have had quite enough of them.—The jury at once
returned a verdict, oue farthing damages.