The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-22 00:00:00

~.

fact, an t was tried at the last Maidstone Assizes, when a
verdict wee found for the plaintilf. The defendant being
dissatisfied with the verdict, applied far a new trial, on the
ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence.—Mr.
Turner weheard to-day in oppasiiion to the motion.—The
ease was nattoncluded.

Deere the Vitc-Chanectior of England.
STANILARD tr. WILLOTT.—INJUNCTIoN TO RESTRAIN
THE APPLICATION OP PROPERTY TRANSFERRED ET A
LUNATIC UNTIL 1116 STATE OF MIND AT THE TIRE OP
THE TEAMSTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASCERTAINED
The phintilf in this ease was a lunatic, and was represented
by Matthew lloa at, his committee. It appeared that the
plaintiff Staniland had suffered repeatedly from attacks of
apoplexy, which had brought on his present state of mind.
Shortly after his first attack he made a transfer of 8-5 shares
in the East London Water Works Compar.y to the defend-
ant, who had been in the habit of managing his affairs, and
an arrangement was made that the defendant should pay
him an annuity of 600/. per annum. The defendant claimed
an absolute interest in these shares, and sold 30 for the sum
of 6,590/. This suit was instituted for the purpene
of compelling the defendt to retransfer the whole
of the shares to the committee of the lunatic, and
to give an account of the dividends received upon them, and
an injunction was applied for to restrain the defendant from
in any manner dealing with the shares in the meantime.
The case made on behalf of the plaintiff was, that from the
state of his mind he was ignorant of the nature of the trans-
action ; that he was then so unwell, as to be unable to get
up-stairs, bat was obliged 0 sleep in a bed made up n the
ground, and that he was at the time suffering from an
attack of apoplexy, and was in a state of corns. By the
affidavit of the defendant, it appeared that the plaintiff had
called upon the defendant, and had voluntarily uttered to
transfer the shares to clerk that this was subsequently done
in the presence of the to the Water Works Company,
upon the understanding that the plaintiff was to receive
6001. per annum: that the defendant had subsevently
offered to give buck the shares, but the plaintiff would not
take them. saying that he preferred receiving the annuity,
and having no further trouble about the management of
his affairs, and stating that he thought it probable he
might have another tit, which woald render him unable to
transfer them to the defendant agnia.—Mr. J. l'arker and
Mr. Glass appeared in support of the motion for an injunc-
tion, and Mr. Reit and Mr. Selwyn aeninst it.
The Vice-Chancellor said the- question was, whether the
circumstances of the case were such as that the property
ought to he preserved until further inquiries were made re-
specting the state of mind of the plaintiff at the time the
transaction took place. it appeared that the defendant had
for some time managed the affairs of the plaintiff, who was
himself desirous of placing his money out, when he was
struck with apoplexy or epilepsy, and the result was that,
being in a weak state of holy, he went to the defendant and
said he wished to make this transfer of his shares. The
transfer was effected; and upon the plaintiff's recovery the
defendant offered to retransfer the shares, but this the
plaintiff refnicd, preferring to receive art annuity.
liis Honour thought it strange that it did net occur to the
lunatic that the best plan would be to retain the shares dur-
ing his life, and leave them to the defendant by his will. At
any rate ho considend that the lunatic evidently did not
undeistand the nature of the transaction, and it was clear
from what was stated bythc medical gentleman who attended
the lunatic that he was at the time in a state of coma, and
was very weak. He thought under these circumstances that
the injunction ought to be granted, and that a further
inquiry oaght to be prosecuted.

Before Vice-Chancellor Kneed Bniee.
Raves v. KERL.—ALLEGED OPPRESSIVE AND UNNECES-
SARY stir.—Certain property having been directed by a
testator's still to be divided in six parts, the executors had
paid hve-sixths to the several parties interested in them, and
those parties had expressed themselves satisfied m ith what
they had so received, and with the executors' 1. count'.
The remaining oue-sixth was invested by the executers in
the parcbaoe of 3601. 13s. 80. consols. Under the will, the
dividenda of one moiety of that sum belonged to a woman
for her life, and, after her &tease, the capital of that moiety
was given to her children. The present bill was tiled on
the part of these children, who were infant+, fur the purpose
of having, the accounts of the executors taken. On a for
mer occasion a motion had been made by the executors that
the bill might be taken off the file; but the Vice-Chancalur
was of opinion that that was not the proper form of mo-
tion, and that, at all events. he executors ought to put in a
full answer before they moved. The executors accordingly
put in a full answer.
Sir F. Simpkins..n now moved, on the part of the execs-
tors, that it might be referred to the Master to inquire
whether this suit was for the benefit of the infant plaintiffs.
The learned counsel commented on the oppressive
the suit. The persons entitled to five.sixths of the fund had
expressed themselves satisfied with the executors' accounts ;
yet here was a suit instituted in respect of one moiety only
of toe other sixth. A•suming the account+ to be right, that
moiety would only be 1801. 93. 4d. consols, the interest of
which was about 6/. per annum. Supposing, as was pro-
bably the case, that the executors should turn out right, who
was to pay the costs ?
His Honour : Is the next friend of the infant's a respon-
sible person ?—Sir F. Simpkinson : We doubt it. —Mr.
Wieram and Mr. Fooka appeared for the plaintiffs, and re-
pudiated all imputations on the next friend.
His Honour : You have set a very heavy. machine in
motion to scrape up a few shillines.—The plaintiffs counsel
expressed their regret at the necessity of the suit, but con-
tended that it was necessary.—Sir 1. Simpkinson : A full
answer has been put in by the executors, which has not
been excepted to.
His Honour: Refer it to the Master to inquire whether
this suit was instituted with a view to the benefit of the
infant plaintiffs, and whether it is for the benefit of the infant
plaintiffs that the suit should be prosecuted ; with liberty to
She Master to state any circumstances specially.
CLAYTON V. LORD NUGENT..—EFFECT OF INCOMPLETE
DECREE.—TRUSTEES IN A DILEMMA.—In this cause a
decree had been taken by arrangemeut to the effect that
Samuel Twvford and all other necessary parties should con-
vey the Suffolk estates (late of Sir Gilbert East, deceased)
to the use of the trustees of a term of 500 years, under a
certain settlement (which had been made by the sister and
heiress-at-law of Sir Gilbert East, in derogation of his will)
to be used by such trustees upon the trusts of the settlement.
The decree went on to declare that the trustees should
raise 10,0001. on the estates by way of mortgage; but it did
not proceed to direct that all proper parties should join in
the assignment of the property to the mortgagee. It ap-
peared that the settlement had been disputed by Henry
Hugh O'Donnell Clayton, a devisee under Sir Gilbert East's
will, and that ho had instituted proceedings to set aside the
settlement, but had agreed with the trustees to firego those
proceedings, upon having 15001. paid him. It appeared, alto,
that he was a necessary party to the mortgage, but he de-
clined to execute the mortgage deed till he had received his
15001. Ibis solicitors, however, had unconditionally approved
of the draft assignment, and some of the parties had actually
executed the engrossment. —Sir F. Simpkinson end Mr.
Caley Shadwell now moved that Mr. Henry Hugh O'Donnell
Clayton and others might be compelled to execute the assign-
ment to the mortgagee. They inelsted that though the
decree did ROL provide in words for proper parties joining in
the assignment, yet it was clearly the intention that they
should ioin.
His Honour : Every man has his price. Mr. Henry Hugh
O'Donnell Clayton's price is 1,5001. If you give him that he
will execute the deed. I do not think the decree will carry
you through without that pay ment —Sir F. Simpkinson :
There was an unconditional approval of the draft by Mr.
.—Mr. Wigram and Mr. lilalins appeared
contended that the motion must be dis-

Refuse the motion. I say nothing about

Wicram.
,ICHESTER.—EXCF.PTIONS FOR SCAN.
petition of a per•on not a party to the
file exceptions to the hill, as cantaining
A and impertinent to the question a: issue
d for a reference of the exceptions to the Mas-
pasiufze objected to, it was stated that the
-ried woman, had instituted a former suit by
her next friend, whom it went on to de-
t who hail since been held to bail for
tehange."
he petitioner, who was stated to be a
thtirch of England, submitted that the
of should he expunged front the re-
irt, as scandalous and impertinent.--
Mr. Grove, for the plaintiff, read
the clerk of the Clerkenwell Police
t it was sworn that the petitioner was
office, on the 22nd of June last, for having
fined a bill of exchange, and was on that
' for want of sureties; but that he was
As his own recognizance to answer this
temont in the bill, therefore, was strictly
levant to the matter at issue in the suit,
di was to recover from Chichester a trust '
misconduct in collusion with the petitioner,
inged. His Honour gave the peti ioner
tceptions to the bill ; but it was afterwards
- the parties that the matter complained of
expunged.

QUEEN'S BENCH.--Gmnit ALL.
•rc..—ltefore lasrd Denman and a •peeial 307.
MOOItE.-LIABILITY OF A PROVISIONAL
FOR ADVERTISEMENTS OF A PROJECIIIO
.. Cockburn, Q.C., Itlr. Watson, Q.C., and ,
appeared for the plaintiff in this case, who
a sum of 1,0141., and commission thereon,
1., for advertisements inserted by him in
of a project called " The Great Western
,b(ric Company." The plaintiff is an ad.
tf eminence, and the defendant, Major
as a member of the managing committee,
wisional committee, of that company. The
as it related to the work done and money
to feature of interest, beyond the fact that
was shown to be the rate of commis-
ordinary advertisements, while the plaintiff
- a fraction more than ten per cent. The
the liability was, however, of a some-
nature, although wholly adduced by the
sought to make the defendant Snide on the
name appearing in a prospectus of the com-
as published on the tth of September, 1845 ;
'or the il.sertion of the name, if any such
had been. was a letter from the defendant to
dated the 3d of September, which said that he
s that his name should be put on the list of
at committee, which authority :be counter-
letter written the neat day. It was objected
letter as that of the 3d of 'September was not
make the defendant a party to a prospectus
ich be had not been shown to have seen ; but
that he should leave it to the jury to say
letter did or did not imply the defendant's as-

' ,I , should, iiiin. -
Rio Honour : Every me
I O'Donnell Clayton's price
will execute the deed. I
you through without that
There was an unconchb.
- .
Clayton'n solicitors.—Mr.
! for Mr. Clayton, and coral
missed, with mate
His Honour : Refuse t
II coats.
•
Before vies
MATTHEWS V. CHICHI
DAT..—This was the pctiti
suit, for leave to file ex
: matter scandalous and jai
in the cause, and for a ref
ter. By the passage of
; )1
plaintiff, a married worse
the petitioner as her n.
scribe an " a person whc
stealing a bill of exehar
Mr. Matins, for the pe
clergyman of the Chun
matter complained of a
cords of the court, .
Mr. Rocuilly and .1e
an affidavit of the I
61 office, in which it w,
II examined at the office, o
fraudulently obtained a
l' occasion committed for
• I afterwards held on hi.
charge. The statement
true, and being iclevani
the object of whiili was
find lost by his miscon.
i! ; should not .be eepunged
leave to file the excepsis
arranged between the p
I should be expunged.
1 COURT OF QUI
RITMO°, AT NM PPTIA.—
MITCHELL F. Moos
COMMITTEEMAN FOR
RAILW4Y.-111r. Cockl
Mr. Barstow, appeared
sought to recover a sun
amounting to 1691., fot
divers newspapers of a
i Extension Atmospheri.
vertising agent of en
Moore, was sued as a
and also of the prorisio
evidence, so far as it
paid, resented no fen
1 fifteen per cent. wa
sion on ordinary
.
1)01 charged only a frac.
evidence to fix the
I .1
what conflicting nab.
plaintiff. It was song
t ground of his name a
I 4, i parry, which was publ
the authority foe the
authority there had b
il the secretary, dated tl
111 had no objection that
the provisional _cone
;• ..) manded by a letter v.
hat such a letter as
I sufficient to make t
produred, which be I
Lord Penman said, t
whether the letter
I i %
t
's
1 a
st
i'a
Ili s,
es