The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-16 00:00:00

SOUTH WALES CIRCUIT.

GLlllOPO.lOOlllltll &dumb!, Ju y 12, at the Town-hall, Cardiff.
CARVAKTlllMilltar—Seturdiy, July 19, at Carmarthen. P1.1‘111.0)(10.
tutu. —Fri.tay, July 2,, at Ilavertnrchrect. HAVrNPORURP, AND
TOlrt—Tne tame d and place. Ca apicatiarisari—% ednealay, July
30, at Oudigitn. 1ITMCNIVIC•111.-84tUrellly, Aug. 2. at liitcou.
Fa :Tedium-A Lunday, Aug. 7. tar arm C. USTT or rau—
Saturday, Aug. 9.

EQUITY COURTS.—SATURDAr.
Devout rat LOUD Co/NITWIT-
SMITH I. PINCONDE AND OTHENA.--COMPROMME Or AN
ACTION.—ALLLO ED FRAUD.
This appeal against a decree of the late Vice-Chancellor
of England was opened some days ago, and the nature of
it was then stated shortly in this journal. The bill was filed
by Mrs. Smith, whose husband was made a defendant, and
it stated among other things that she was the natural
daughter ot a Mr. Thomas Pineombe, formerly of Smith-
molten, Devonshire, who died in 1838, leaving three
wills dated respectively in 1832, 1831, and 1837.
Ile, by these wills, left his freehold property,
worth about 70/. a year, to trustees fur the bene-
fit of the plaintiff, then Miss Pincombe, with a re-
straint against alienation. She and the trustees, after the
teatator's death, entered into possession of the property,
acting under the will of 1837. An action of ejectment was
afterwards brought against them by William Pincontbe,
brother and heir-at-law of the testator, on the ground that
the will (of 1837) was not duly executed, one of the wit-
news being a legatee therein named. The plaintiff in the
action died before it came to be heard. His eon, Thomas
Pincoinbe, in 1811, soon alter Miss rincomhe's marriage
with Smith, brought another action of ejectment against
them and the trustees. Their attorney having taken
an opinion on the validity of the will of 1837
not being then aware of the prior wills—proposed
a compromise just as the cause was conthig on for
trial. The result was an arrangement by which T. Pin-
combs: should, on getting a release and conveyances of the
property from Mr. and Mrs. Smith and the trustees, secure
to Mrs. Smith 2.11. a year for her life and pay down 1501.
fur the costs and expenses. The parties all joined in a din-
ner on the occasion Inc the purpose of putting an end to all
bad feeling and renew their old friendship. Mr. Pin-
combe, having indulged rather freely in the after-dinner
potation, disclosed the existence of the former wills, adding
that though the will of 1837 might be liable to objection,
that of 1814 was perfectly free from any,and left the property
to Miss Pincomhe ill the same way as the will of 1837. Mr.
Pineombe, conceiving the arrangement to which he and the
parties had come was binding on all, refused a proposal
made to him to increase the annuity to Mrs. Smith; where-
upon she tiled this bill, charging that the compromise was
brought abaut by misrepresentation, and praying that it
may be set aside fur fraud, &e. The Vim-Chancellor de-
creed for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed against the
whole decree.
Mr. Bethel] and Mr. W. Terrell, for Mrs. Smith, and Mr.
M. A. Shoe, for the husband, were heard in support of the
decree.
Mr. Molt, Mr. Follett, and Mr. Karslake, for the appel-
lant, contended that there was no concealment or fraud in
the compromise; that the proposal came first from Mrs.
Smith's attorney; that he and she could not but be aware
of the previous wills which were in possession of rearse,
the trustees' attorney; that Mrs. Smith, alter her father's
death, saw them and heard them read.
Mr. Bethel, in his reply, insisted on concealment and
fraud on the part of the appellant. Mr. Pearse had ceased
to practise before the action was brought, and in transferring
his business to the attorney of Mrs. Smith, he did not men-
tion the wills of 1832 and 1.:31. Admitting that she saw
the wills alter the father's death, and handed them, with
other papers, to the attorney of the trustees, she was then a
mere girl about 18, and had uo knowledge then of the con-
tents of the papers.
Judgment was
Ex PARTE BLAKELEI, IN RI TICE NORTIIIRN COAL
Mustste CONPANI AND TOE WIN Acre
(18 18-9)--Co iItIIII:TORN—INT eitrsT AND LIARILITY
OF A SHAREROLDIK-1141W Olt Wnios TIV.T clam
This appeal against an order of the late Muster of the
Rolls was opened last Wednesday, and then we gave a short
report of the case. The arguments were now concluded.
It appeared that Captain Win. Rex Illakeley was owner of
200 shares in the above company—which was formed in
1838. Ile died in 1812, and by his will appointed the
petitioners, Edward and Elizabeth Blakeley, his executor
and executrix. The deed of settlement under which the
company was formed contained, among various other pro-
visions, some to the effect that the liability ot a livingshare-
holder was not to cease until his shares were effectually
transferred and actually accepted, and that the personal
representatives of a shareholder who should die should not
be proprietors of his shares until they had complied with
certain formalities imposed on them by the deed
of settlement. With these formalities the petition-
ers had not duly complii 0, but they paid two
calls on the shares in 1816 and 1818, and
one of them attended meetings of the company, and
did other acts. The company came to be wound up before
one of the Masters ; the petitioners claimed an exemption of
their testator's assets from all liability to contribute to the
debts of the company incurred utter his death. The Master,
however, was of opinion that they were liable, and he
placed their :names on the list ot contributories'. The
Master of the Rolls was of the sante opinion, and dismissed
the motion before him to expunge the names.
Mr. Walpole and Mr. Craig, for the petitioners, and Mr.
Willcock for another party, contended that the petitioners,
representatives of Captain Illakeley, were not liable to eon-
tribute, inasmuch as they had not complied with the pro-
visions of the deed of settlement. They referred at great
length to the complicated provisions of the decal, and also
to certain acts of parliament passed in relation to the com-
pany. Under the deed, if any profits had accrued in respect
of these shares the petitioners could not claim them, neither
should they be made liable for losses; at all events, the lie.
bility of a shareholder should be held in this us in some
banking companies to terminate with, or with the expira-
tion of three years after, the partner's death.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. R. Palmer supported the decision of
the Master, and of the Master of the Kona.
Mr. Walpole replied.
Judgment was postponed.
Another appeal (" Rubinson r. Geldars") against an order
of Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce, was then opened by Mr.
J. Parker, and at three o'clock the further hearing was
adjourned.

BLPOIX LOU. Cubwoarw VICE.CHASCFLIAM).
PRESTON e. LIVERPOOL, lANCIIESTEU, AND New-
CASTLE-UPON-TYNE RAILWAY COMPANY.— BILL FOR
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN AGREEMENT.

This was a bill for the specific performance of an agree-
ment entered into by the plaintiff, Mr. Cooper Preston,
with the above company. The agreement was to this
effect : It is agreed that on the following condition Mr.
Preston consents to the railway going through his pro-
perty :—That in case the company shall obtain their act of
incorporation the company shall pay to Mr. Preston the
sum of 1,0001. for all the land required by the company in
passing through his property, and also the aunt of 4,0001.
for residental damage to the estate and hall of Flashy."
It appeared that the railway company obtained their act of
parliament, but decided upon making the line in a different
direction from that at tint proposed, without going through
the plaintiff's land, and the company refused to take any
land under the agreement, or to pay for residental damage.
The plaintiff, therefore, filed this bill to compel the com-
pany to perform the agreement with respect to the 4,0001.
The case came on upon demurrer.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Humphrey appeared in support of
the demurrer ; and the Solicitor-Geueral and Mr. Preston
'for the plaintiff.
Lord Cronworth reserved his judgment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—SATURDAY.
Sinuses us Moloch
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. TILE LONDON DOCK OEN-
PANT.—ALLEOED FILAVDs UPON TUE REVENUE.
Sir F. Kelly resumed his argument in this case, and pro-
ceeded to call their lordships' attention to the second, fourth,
fifth, and sixth counts of the information upon which the
Crown sought to enter the verdict by the present rule. The
second and fourth counts in effect charged that the goods
seized had been unduly leakd without re-entry. The
second count was founded upon the second section of the
Regulation Act (8 & P Vic., C. 80), and the fourth on the
20th section of the same act. The first section prohibited
the unlading of goods before due entry made or war-
rant granted. The question then was, was there any evi-
dence to show that those sugars were unladed without due
entry or warrant. If there bo the whole of the cargoes
from which those sugars were collected were forfeited, for
no question could arise between two portions of the same
cargo. The 20th section prohibited the taking and delivery
out of the ship without entry and warrant. So that if
there was no due entry here where the usual CORM
was pursued, the whole contents' of the defendant's ware-
houses would be subject to forfeiture. The entire of the
accumulations were taken after the unlading of the cargoes.
If the entry and warrant was defective, not only those por-
tions of the cargoes were improperly landed, but the whole
of them. The weighing had nothing to do with the case,
for it took place after the entry and the landing, and after
the warrant. The 18th, 19th, and 20th sections of thesame
act of parliament referred to the entry of the cargo before
the landing, and consequently before abstraction could take
place. The entry described the name of the master, and
the ship in which the goods were brought. The name of the
place where they were to be warehoused, and the number
of packages, and the description of the goods, vghrobably
10,000 cargoes, bad arrived at the London while