The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-24 00:00:00

LOYAL BANL OF AIII-

Sir Fitzroy Kelly this eosins recessed and concluded
his argument on the pared the defendants in this case, who
are sharehqlden of the Royal Bank of Australia.
Mr. Prentice appeared for Mr. Sutherland, one of the
directors, And Mr. Connell, another director, appeared in
person, but as this was a special ease on which only one
counsel on each side is heard they did not address the

Mr. Cowling then replied on the part of the plaintiff, and
The court took time to consider its decision.

BAIL COURT.-Yurnit DAT.
'MIPS AT till ►YCL—WaII 111. MTN. OVONTTOR AND •
CANNON /TM

V. 111ML2TVILL

Mr. Edwin Jamas and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the
aad Mr. &sigma Sims and Mr. Lush for Um ds-
feadaat.

Tbis was an action to recover the amount of a bill of ex-
change of the 22nd of May, 1852, for 921., drawn by the
defendant, and accepted by one Fell, and endorsed by the
&tentlest to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he
bad only endorsed it to enable the plaintiff to obtain the
money from Fe.l under his bankruptcy.
It appeared that the plaintiff is • 'unmakes, carrying on
busies., in the Btraad, and the defuedsuat is an attorney,
having chambers adjoining the Temple, and eating as the
attorney for the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff's
statement, the defendaat called upon kiaa in June, 1842,
and asked him to discount this bill, and be gave him 801.,
and subsequently 101. On the day it became due the
plaintiff asked the defendant to present the bill for him,
and in the evening he said he had presented it, bat it was
not paid; but he added, " It is all right, old fellow, I will
get you the money. Fell has plenty. of peperq in Ire
land." Some time after he told the plaintiff that they could
get the money directly if they struck a docket against Fell,
and the plaintiff gave the defendant 101. to take the requisite
proceedings. On the 11th of November the defendant pre-
pared a petition to the Bankruptcy Court against Fell on
this bill, and the affidavit in support of it made by the
plaintiff was prepared by the defendant, and Fell was
made a bankrupt. The plaintiff appeared before the Bank-
ruptcy Court and swore that be had advanced 901. on the
bill. Beckley was appointed trade assignee. The defen-
dant owed the plaintiff 1691 13.. for goods supplied to him,
consisting of guns, pistols, sta., whisk tkedekadant said he
wanted for some friends who were going to Ltd* but they
mast be charged to him, and he would be answerable; and
the plaintiff entered them at the time in his books. In-
voices were sent with the goods. On the Bth of November
the plaintiff gave the defendant • promissory note for
281. 10e. for hi. someamodation. When it was due the
plaintiff was obliged to take up the mete, and he gave the
defendant anelher note for 331. and an acceptance for
321. 10s. The plaintiff afterwards gave the defendant 331.
to take up UM and renewed the acceptance for
321. 10.. The doAmdant always said he was short of
money, beams a wait which he had with the Sun Fire-
oats was net emeindeL After the bill as a renewal was
given, the *Mil was sued apes the erigisal bill for
which the Maw msr gpiess_. He bid be fa the anstant
habit of imam the dielbadeat mosey, sad sometimes so
mall a sum m di
The plaintiff we mesa-mamined at great He
had been a heminspt ie is eamemmesse et a
vessythe. Cent aaaw:t his bile we,
se dividend bed been He bad given
whisk when said, be midi reduce
A great may geoid = mew put relative le meet
e accounts, with the Wow of &swim that moseys
had net beta advanced to the deftdant, but were pay-
outs., made to him by the phial( Ow moseys whisk had
been eivamed to him. The plaialiC however denied that
mesh was the Noe, and swore that the messy. had beim hat
by him to the dehadant.
Oa the part of the defendant it wee said that the state-
ment of the plaintiff was untrue ; that the defendant had
been in the habit of lending the plaintiff mosey, and, as
regarded this bill, that the defendant had endorsed it merely
that the mosey might be obtained from Fell ; sad, as re-
garded all the other bills, they were given expressly foe
the ateammodation of the plaintiff. The as was, in truth
empieldp matradictory, as was the evidence given by the
two perils. It was further argued that, until the defend-
ant had delivered his bill of costs sad bad primed for
payment, the plaintiff had made any claim against
the defeadaat. The only question was as to watch party
the jury gave credit.
The trial, which hes lasted for three days, was further.
adjournedtio-day, at the conclusion of SILL James's reply.

COURT OF COMMON PLRAB.—YanzaDAy.
ernulai or wica—mrogue sta. JtITI ran; za. mines

DOMAIN. An 11. MOMS TAIJOCIIID:
CAIINAN ♦ND OTAIVAS V. POWLIVIL-OONTRAC

IN XOLLAND.

The plaintiffs in this ease wore assigner of Mr. Hatch-
ings, an extensive esuileester he earth wake, dm, end the
seed to recover the emeset of psis mid end MY
and work and labors disk sal mann preelEM, sad the
pleas were payment sell new MAW. The am was
tried before Mr. June Creswell aiher dem age at Hand-
ball, and this verdict was he oho ter 4,111 W. 12e.
The matter, however, new OM MASI OW Sleet lips a
minas fee a sew Mel ea the peon et nallhestim.
Mr. Qmint Y semieg. Min le the emit Mat Ihe motion
arose wet et Me taliewhis eheemehmee : Mr. ineekings in
the messing/ the per En eared kb a embed with
the Netherbale Lead Indian Oempw, le do eertaie
work in Hollord. einimideg part et Me /Men. He
preseeded to emenhe the wen.leit be get kW Enmities,
and It was that his nein and& be woad up
tutelar a deed of 1 sod rib= bo Wm°
beekrept. wee r. Hsteldep
should stet ost etas sentreet 11:11=Aellseriands Company,
mil an agreement he that purpose was entered iota with
the defendant. This agreement was dated the 91st May,
1853, and it recited the tentmed with the Netherlands Com.
pony, and the detandant epee& monist other things,
that he would pusher, such part of the ma-
terials and plant spa and about the works
as belonged to Ha as his separate property,
the amount to be paid Se le Me fair value thereof ; and if
the parties should differ, the amount to be settled by arbi-
tration in manner thereinafter provided; and that Fowler
should pay the amount within two mouths after the same
should be fixed and determined as aforesaid. The action
was brought to recover the amount of the value of
the materials and plant mentioned in this (clause.
At the trial the plaintiffs proved that on the 28th
of March, 1853, the parties to the agreement met to-
gether, and slimed the following mensonuadtun :
" Asreed between Mr. Henry Fowler and myself,
4,3091. 125." The plaintiffs at first attempted to claim under
this memorandum as a separate contract, but his lordship
held that what took place in March wee mere preliminary
matter to the agreement in May. The defendant then con-
tended that the plaintiffs mast show either that the amount
of claim had been settled between the parties, or by arbi-
tration, and that two months from the time of settlinsent
had eloped before the action was brought; but his lordship
held that the memorandum signed is March was a suit.
cient settlement of the amount to satisfy the dame in the
agreement signed in May. It was now contended that the
learned judge was wrong in the view which he had taken
of the matter, and that the parties, when they signed the
agreement in May, did not iutend to be bound by the memo-
rendes signed in Much.
Hale granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YESTERDAY.
■Ol 111 ZAIIIIO.-111010118 TIM =MP ZAIIIIII. MIL SAWS f ADA;

£k OLD 1. MUM.

Thu% cue, which we noticed yesterday, was arranged
should stand OM until ant term

PARROT AND DX. O. HOPILINS.—PILIONA.L INJUILY.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for certain injuries which the plaintiff's wife had sustained
in consequence of a collision between the Star steamer,
belonging to the Geneva Steam Navigation Company, on
her way up from R imsgste, and a brig called the Rose
Castle, near Tilbury Fort. The cause wee filed before Mr.
Baron Martin in the City, when the jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff,, damages GOf. Mr. James sebeequently
ebtained a rule fur a new trial, oa the ground t►at the ver.
dist was inconsistent, the jury having stated that there was
sot a sufficient look out on board the steamer, but that the
'Brain of toe time Csallo also deserved blame.
Mr. Watson now showed ca use, and contended that the jury
having found that both vessels were at fault, a passenger on
board the steamer who had Ptistainel injury might peek
compensation from the owner, of either of them, and the
q section between the owners of the two vessels was alto-
gether another matter. That point had bean settled in the
case of " Thorogood v. Bryant," S Q B.
Mr. liswkins was about to address the court in support
of the rule, when
?ha Chief Baron said that Mr. Baron Martin was quite
satisfied with the verdict, and the court hail certainly not
had the rnieconduct of both the captains of the vessels suffi-
ciently brought under its consideration when it granted the
rule. The distinction tikes by Mr. Watson was very clear,
and the rule must be discharged.
Mr. Hawkins said there were twenty similar actions
against the company.
Hale discharged.
SITIII/011 lIIDDLIMIL AT MIN

ri 111.10,1 rAJTUI

. beiidee a.
API COMMON JI:111101. ;oil aim iitieh he collected on his presages at night,
HALL V. ORVEN.—" SWANS'S." SS abominable eteneh, dung and manure were
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Lash appeared as counsel for =up egainat neighbours' houses, and when a p.g died
the plaintiff', and Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Browns fur the it was limn es She heap with the offal. In addiiiou he
defendant. narriell •• • be... boiling business, to the prejudice of the
This was ea action to recover a penalty of 1001. front the keel* it the neighbourhood ; and under these dream-
defendant. as the proprietor of " Brass's," or the Bread aunt; all that WU required was that the nuisance should

be abated. They were willing to adopt the suggestion of
his friend, and leave the court to determine want abate-
ment there should be.
The Assistant-Judge said after he had visited the place
himself it might be necessary tor him t 3 consult somo
sciestine person as to what should be done.
This was agreed to, sad the defendant having pleaded
guilty, sad entered into a reeognisanoe,
The Assistant-fudge informed him that he should visit
the place himself, and if he found that the basins's could
not he carried on except with prejudice to the health of the
neighbourhood, it must be given up altogether, but the
court would see whether by any alumna this necessity
might not be obviated.