The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-31 00:00:00

ADMIRALTY, JAN. 29.—AT POINIENTS.—Seeerid muter
W. Greet, to Hercules; Clerks : C. W. Motherwell and
J. L. Thorne, to Crocodile; Master's Assistant It. Forster,
to Star; Boatswain: B Rouse, to Prince Rrgent ;J.
Turner. confirmed to Blenheirn.—Pitosiortome.—Gun•
net : J. Ileecherwise, S. Drury, W. Week', J. Scow. W.
Sparks. advanced to first class; W. Deacon. J. Devonlize,
It J. Humphries, W. Hall, advanced to second clam.
ORDERS HATS JUST RUIN OIT TT TOE AMIRALTY
for building three steam-vessels, designed by thenommittes
of reference—vis the Resolute, 400 In rot power ; the Bar-
recants, 300 horse power ; and the Brisk, 260 horse power.
The two first.mentioned paddle-wheel propellers, and the
last prop' by screw. The Resolute is to be hunt at
Portsmouth, the Barraconta at Pembroke, and the Brisk at
Woolwich.
Tito SeNIOR Naval. LOUD'S LEVERS.—We are requested
to state, for the information of naval officers in the country,
that, during the session of parliament. officers who may wish
to see Rear-Admiral Dundas will call at the Atirnirelty on
the first and third Tuesdays in each month, at 12 o'clock.—
Hants Telegraph.
MARI NEd Mee LoTEn ATLOAT.—We understand that there
will be a considerable addition made in the forthcoming
navy estimates to thy number of marines to be employed
" afloat " for the year 1848 9.—Unieed Service Gazette.

MEDICAL.
ROYAL Cottaos or SUILOZONS.—The followonsg in gentle.
the
mita having undergone the nece-sar7 examinati for
diloma of the college, were admitted me rs at the meet-
inpg ot the Court of Examiner', on the 28th,mlx •is , Moan. J.
Jordan, Birmingham; N. Marsh, Liverpool ; H. Arm-
strong, Peckham ; H. Gorst, Rock Ferry, Cheshire ; P. Y.
Gowiand, King-street, Finsbury.square ; J. T. Jackson,
Manchester; H. Dermott, Shaftsbury-cr,scent, Pimlico;
T. J. Sayer, Kenning-hall. Norfolk; and A. Gondchild, R.
John's-wood. At thecame meeting of the court, Mr. V.
Morgan, passed hnan for naval surgeon. Tunis
gentleman had previously been admitted a member of the
college, his diploma bearing date December, 23, 1842.
--------

SPORTING.
BETTING AT MANCIIESTER—FRIDAY.
CHESTEtt CUP. —25 to 1 apt Blaze; 30 to 1 nest
Keleshe (t) ; 30 to I apt Cracow (t) ; 30 to 1 apt Jonathan
Wild (t); 40 to 1 apt Clumsy (t); 40 to 1 mad Swallow;
40 to I apt Swim Boy (t); 40 to 1 opt Lady Ilylda ; 1,000
to 20 and 1,000 to 15 agst Sally Magga ; 1,000 to 15 apt
Oleo Saddel (t).
t
DEttilY —9OO to 100 ap Surplice ; 13 to 1 opt Glen-
pnnity Jack (offers to t) ; 20 to 1
dower; 20 to 1 apt S
apt Assault ; 33 to 1 got Cervus (t) ; 40 to 1 apt Keratin
(t freely) ; 1,000 even Springy Jack apt Assault (offered).
NSIVMARKET IiANDICAP.-10 tO 1 apt Millwood (t and
afterwards offered).

tab) inttlltgence.
EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
His lordship, upon taking his scat in court on Saturday,
proceeded to give his judKr_aents in the following cues :
PENNY O. TULLNER.—WILL.--THE Viotti) " on" CON•
allit; ED TO MEAN " AND."--This was an appeal from a
decree of the Vice-Chancellor of England, and was argued
in February last, and then reported in this paper. The
questions in it arose upon the construction of the will of '
'Paver Penny, dated in 1792, by which he gave to his mother
for her life all his real and personal estates that he might be
poseevoed of at the time of his death, and upon her death he
willed that all his estates should be divided among his three
sisters or their children, in such proportio I. no his mother
should appoint by her will or deed in writing.
ercised the
The tes-
tator's mother died in 1806. without having ex
power of appointment, and the testator died in 1841, and one
of his sisters died without children in 1835. The
other two sisters who survived the testator were
his sole next of kin and co-heirs at law at the
time of his death. One of them remained unmarried, and
is pleint:ll in this suit; and the ether married and had two
children, and they and their mother are defendants. The
construction of the will contended for by. the plaintiff was
that the testator's estates were divisible into three parts ;
one for herself, the second for Mrs. Turner, her surviving
si-ter, and the third, having lapsed by the death of the other I
sister in the testator's lifetime, to be divided between them
both as coheirs and next of kin of the testator. The con-
struction
contended for by Mrs. Turner and children was that
the estates were divisible into five parts, one for plaintiff,
three for Mrs. Turner and her two children (reading the
word 'or " in the will tor "and "), and the tifth, which
lapsed, to be divided rnimig the plaintiff and three deiced-
unts. The Vice-Chancellor concurred in this latter construc-
tion,
and decreed accordingly.—The Lord Chancellor Dow,
giving his judgment on the plaintiffs appeal, stated the ma-
terial
ports of the will, and entered into an examination of I
the casts that were cited in the argument before him, parti-
cularly to " Eccard v. Brooke " (2 Cox, 233), to the opinions
of Lords Alvanley and Eldon in " Brown v.
Higgs "(4 Vet., 708; Ves., 493 ; and 8 Yes., 561) ;
to" Longninre v. Broom " 7 Ves., 128), and " Burrough v.
Philcox " (5 Myl. and C., 73), before his lordship, in 1840,
and to several other cases cited in that case. He was of
opinion, without addition to or alteration of the will in the
present ease, "or " should be read "and,' and tatthat the
children of the sister were included in the gift,u and
pon the whole (as well as we could hear his lordship), the
Vice-Chancellor's construction was right.
WRITER, Ball:IOC—WILL CONeTRUCTION.—"
—Thin was another appeal from a decree of the Vice-
Chancellor of England upon the construction of the will of
one White.—The Lord Chancellor, in giving his judg-
ment, after statMg the will and the points to which
the appeal referred, said he agreed in the construction of the
Vice-Chancellor. (The case is reported in 15 Simons, p. 17.)
WARE V. ROWILAND.—W ILL VESTINO.—Heite AT LAW.
—This also was an appeal from a decree of the Vice Chan-
cellor of England, and was argued last November.—
The Lord Chancellor now, in giving his judgment re-
ferred to several cases on the subject, beginning with
" Holloway v. Holloway" (5 Ves. 399), and was of opinion
that the Vice-Chancellor's decree must be confirmed.
CIineKETT O. CROCK ETT.—W fromONSTR
Chan-
TENANCY.—This was an appeal a decree of Viceci lltr Sir J. Wiaram, and seas argued in the beginning of
la,t Michaelmas term.—The Lord Chcellor, after stating
the will and the questions for an
hie consideration,
referred to several cases, some of which are cited in the re-
port in 1 Hare, and all collected in Mr. Chance's first
volume, p. 40, and came to the conclusion that the children
were not entitled in possession to share in the fund with their
mother ; and that the decree of the Vice-Chancellor in 1847
could not be supported, and that so much of that decree u
decided in favour of the child who attained the age of 21,
and the consequential directions, must be reversed.
His lordship, after the judgments, heard appeals and
cause petitions of no general interest.
in RE LUDLOW CHARITIEB.—IIis lordship declined to
hear the petitions in this matter until after other matters
' hod before it on the list should be heard.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
bitting. in Banco.
JACottS v. Tatti,To:4.—AnakitirtstNo MONEYLENDERS.
—This was an action tried at the last summer assizes for the
county of Surrey, to recover the sum of 1001. upon a
c a bill
ergy-
of
exchange, accep:ea by the defendant, Dr. Tarlton, l
man in Kent, and alleged to have been endorsed o
verver to the
plaintiff, Henry Jacobs, by one Gadderer. e endant
pleaded that the bill was not so endorsed to the plaintiff,
and that it was obtained by fraud. It appeared that, on the
trial, Moses Jacobs, the son of the plaintiff, proved that his
father had only been the instrument of another party, of
the name of Lawrence Levi, in allotting his name to be used
as the plaintiff in the action, Levi being the real plaintiff;
that the bill did not belong to him (Jacobs); and that he
had not the means of giving any consideration fur it, a sub-
scription having been raised a short time before to pa up
some arrears fur his teat at the synagogue. Upon this the
plaintiff's counsel proposed to call evidence in reply, which,
however, the learned judge refused to admit. Mr.
Chambers subsequently obtained a rule nisi, calling on the
defendant to show cause why the verdict should not be set
aside, and a new trial had, on the ground of surprise. In
showing cause against the rule, Sir F. Thesiger made the
fullowiug statement :—Tbe defendant having seen an adver-
tisement in the newspapers, off, ring to advance money on ,
approved pereonal security, made application to the adver-
tiser, in Buckineham-street, Strand, and was answered by a
person called Gardener, requesting an interview. This
having been granted, Gardener told the doctor that if he
would give him two bills at three months' date, one for 3001.
and another for 2001., he would get them discounted at 10
per cent. The bills were accordingly given, and after re-
' peated applications the defendant obtained a sum of 1001.
from Gardener, and subsequently, with great difficulty, got
a further amount of 671. Hating again applied for the
balance, he was induced by Gardener to give him two other
bills for the same amount, namely, 5001.; and some time after,
when he applied for the money, he was told that the bills had
beenstolen. Gardener afterwards informedthe doctor that one
of the last two bills was is the poss u evio of
This a M
surs. Came
was
,
who would give it up on receiving 251. m
accordingly paid, but the bill was not forthcoming neither
w. .s the money returned. The unfortunate defendant was
I afterwards told that the first two bills had got into the
hands of two pereons of the names of Shell and Gadderer.
It appeared that Lawrence Levy was the lessee of the
Lyceum Theatre, which he had taken in the name of Gad-
der. r, and Snell' was tie check-taker at that theatre, at a
salary of 15s. a week. The defendant having been written
to by Snell, wbo told him that he was the owner of one
of the bills, had an interview with him and Cradderer,
and was persuaded by :hem that they had given con-
sideration for the bills, and they induced him to give three
other bills for 1001. each, one of which bias, indorsed
by Snell and Gadd( rer, was the subject of the present action,
it having been said to have come into the plaintiff's bands in
due course. The defendant bad already been obliged to pay
6001. arising out of these bill transactions, and had been
sired by the parties conearned iu them to pledge his plate
for the purpose of raising more mosey, the total amount of
the sum which be had received onl 1671. out of
which lie had paid back 251., as before described, andhe had
been induced altogether to give bills to the amount of
1,0001. The learned gentleman proceeded to contend that,
in point of law, Mr. Baron l'arke was right in refusing to
receive evidence in reply, and was followed by Mr. Berjeant
Shee and Mr. Ogle.—Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr.
Petersdorff h iving been heard in support of the rule, the
court deferred its judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
LTNDVS 12. BILADWELL.—A WIFE MAY ACCEPT A BILL
OF EICUANGE AS THE AGENT OF MEE IiCABAND. —Tbis
was an action on a bill of exchange for 301., which was tried
at Guildhall before Mr. Justice Maul.. A verdict was re-
tuned for the nlaintiff; but lesie was given to move to enter
a nonsuit, on the ground that the bill, though drawn on the