The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-10 00:00:00

Eitiv *litelitgence.
EQUITY COURTS.--SnuRDAT.
Suomi me 1 muu Armco or Arrest..
Tort V. STRVIINSON.--GRAHAM V. RIBBVIS.
The Court was ueeupied throughout the day in hearing
the argument for the plaintiffs, and part of that fur the de-
fenclauu in these suit.. The appeal is againat decree
made by Vice-Chancellor Wigram, pronounced in March
1818. It appeared that a contract for sale of certain
copyhold lands at Owston in Lincolnshire, was made by
one Thomas Harris in 1811. 'The agreement was that the pur-
chase money should be paid in May following, and the Purcha-
ser was let into possession immediately on the ex, cation of the
contract. The purchase money was never paid, but the
purchaser and those claiming under him continued in pos-
session. In 1844 the assignees of Harris, the vendor, who
had become bankrupt in 1812, filed the original hill in these
Baits, claiming a lien on the estate for the purchase money
and interest from the day fixed for the completion of the
contract. The court below held that the right of the vendor
to recover the purchase money as a lien or charge upon the
land was barred by the 40th section of the statute for the
limitation of actions relating to real estate, 3 & 4 Will.
IV., c. 27.
Mr. Lee and Mr. Olasse appeared for the plaintiffs in
support of the appeal; and Mr. Teed, Mr. Kenyon Parker,
Mr. Bacon, Mr. Willeock, Mr. Follett, Mr. Rogers, Mr.
Goadeve, Mr. Faber, Mr. Smythe, and Mr. Loan for the
several defendants in support of the Vice-Chanci Hoes de-
cree. The argument was stated as likely to continue
several days.

thrirsas IN Ireostiee-tea. atoms runt Loan EasscrLoa.
STAINTON V. CIIADWICK.—RIOUT TO DlsCOVEltir OF
EVIDENCE AS TO RIGHT TO ESTATE.-4 UOOmitNT.
The Lord Chancellor gave judgment in this case. Tho
case came up on appeal from tin order of the Master of the
Rolls. Sir Andrew Chadwick, who died intestate in the
year 1768, was equitably entitled to a certain real estate,
and the main question was who was his heir-at-law. The
plaintiff claimed as heir of Mrs. Law, a cousin to Sir An-
drew Chadwick. On the part of the defendant it was in-
sisted that Mrs. Law was not the heir, but one James
Chadwick, and that the defendant was his descendant, and
in that character entitled to the estate. Petitions were pre-
sented to the court under Sir Edward Sugden'e acts, and on
a reference to the Master it was reported that no other
heirs of Sir Andrew could be discovered, and tha: the de-
fendant was his heir-at-law, and an order passed that a
conveyance of the legal estate should be made, which was
accordingly done. The bill alleged that the evidenceon which
this proceeding was founded was false, and that the order was
obtained by fraud and imposition on the court. It therefore
prayed that a decree should be made that the plaintiff was
the equitable owner of the property, and that the defen-
dant eras trustee only for him, Sic. Thu matter material
to the present question lay in the interrogatories with re-
spect to the evidence on which the defendant's right was
supported, which he refused to answer, as nut being bound
to oiselose his title to the plaintiff. There were several
exceptions, which had been distersed of. They related
to pure matters of pleading. Tho hill stated the seising of
Sir Andrew Chadwick in the estate in ,lunation—that he
died intestate MlNS—that Mrs. Law win Ins heir at law, and
entitled to poaseseim of his estate—and that the defen-
dent, in 1840, presented two petition., the proceedings in
referenee to which were ex party, and that through fraud
and imposition the defendant obtained his posit:on as
legal owner of the estate. Two distinct equities, titer fore,
were attempted to be raised—in the first place, that the
plaintiff was entitled to the estate under Mrs. Law, as the
rightful heir-at-law of Sir Andrew Clisal..vick, and that the
defendant was seized of the said estate, as trustee for the
plaintiff; and neat, that the defendant became such
trustee by fraud and imposition on the court. Thu
defendant In his answer asserted his own title as heir at
law, denying that made by Mrs. Law. It was admitted
that she had received the reins of the estate, but only in
the capacity of trustee ; and the defendant denied that the
evidence on which his right was supported was either fates
or fraudulent. The question, therefore, was as to the plain-
tiff's right to discovery of the means by which, as was al-
leged, the imposition was made on the court. On the de-
feuilant's part it was contended that the plaintiff had no
equity to the discovery. To the objection urged it was
answered, not by denial of the general principle in equity,
but by the nssertion of qualifications, which brought the
ease as an exception.
Ilia lordship said it appeared to him that the plaintiff
had removed the defendant's objections to the dieeovely
prayed for, inasmuch as it was necessary to discover the
truth of an allegation denied by the defendant. The case
was one in which he thought the plaintiff was entitled to
the discovery, notwithstanding that it might be attended
with the consequences which the defendant alleged would
be the result. The appeal must, therefore, bo dismissed
with cost+, the defendant being allowed six weeks to
answer.
Ex FARE HALL me an NORTH OF ENGLAND Jot:er-
ne= BANKING CoMPANT.—COST' OF PROCIEDINOd
CEDE& THE WINGING-CF AUT.—CUSPS Of SUCCESSFUL
ArrEAL ALLOWED.
Mr. Hall was trustee for a married lady who had shares
in the North of England Juiut-steak Banking Company.
In proceedings under the Winding-up Act the official ma-
nager put him on the list of contributors. The Master or-
dered that he should continue on the list. lie appealed to
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, who limited ins liability,
hut ordered him to pay costs. Mr. Hall appealed, and
Lord Cottenham reversed the order and directed that his
name should be struck oat of the list of contributors. Qn
that occasion (Nov. 8) leave was reserved to try the mutter
at law ; bat this wa-, not done, Rift on the 31st of July lint
the judeuemt was made absolute with costs.
Mr. Bacon (with hint Me. 'Prim) now applied toren order
far M. Hall to pay Itie costs in the appeal:, coutending that
according to the practice of the court he was liable, and
that the liability of the official manager was con:lned to that
part of the appeal in which he had failed.
Mr. Melina (with him Mr. 11. Prendergast) submitted
that according to the settled practice of the court Mr. Hall
was entitled to the costs before the Master, as a matter of
course, and was also entitled to those incurr A- before
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce. Under the ordinary rules
of court as to coats, he would not get them for the appeal;
but under the Winding-up Act these rules had not been
adhered to. Tho 104th section of the amended act (11 Si 12
Viet., o. 44) provided that the casts of all proceedings be-
fore the court "should be in the discretion of the court."
The Lnrd Chancellor observed that it had been urged by
Mr. Mathis that, as far as his experience went, the Vice-
Chancellor gave cats; this was controverted on the other
side.
Mr. Baron said he was under an impression to that affect,
but would not pledge himself on the point.
His lordship said, assuming that the practice an., general,
he should be inclined to follow it. Not being quite certain
whether it had existed as a general rule or not, he would
express his opinion on the supposition that the rule was
general. lie should say generally that according to tho
rule of this court and of the House of Lords, parties suc-
cessfully appealing against a judgment were not entitled
to costs. He could not help saying that it was a very hard
rule, and at times has amounted to a purchase of jestice.
The ground on which the rule was established was this—
that the opposite party, in a successful yippee], was not in
fault for the erroneous judgment, and that both should bo
content to bear their proportion of the costs consequent.
When a new law passed, they ought to be well satisfied
that the rule proposed to be imported was one is accord-
ance with justice.
Mr. Bacon—The 119th section of the act expressly re-
ferred to the general practice of the Court of Chancery.
The Lord Chancellor—lt was necessary to refer to some
general rule as a standard, and a reference was generally
made to the practice of the courts. If these rules were in-
tended to be absolutely observed as the standard, this
would be the interpretation of the 119th section ;
but the 101 th section seemed to suppose a devia-
tion, by. leaving coats in the discretion of the court.
Recognising distinctly the rule not to give costs where an
appeal is successful in reversing a judgment—remembering
at the same time that in all the courts of law it is different,
as in the case of a writ 11 error, it seemed to hiin that the
question as to the power of the courts to give costs wes a
4
power which this act nded to confer. lie recurred to
what ho had alrea reed, that if the Vice-Chancellor
had been in the p f giving or withholding costs, he
should pause before coming to a different couclusion. But
it had not been established that there was any general rule
an the subject. The 10Ith section gave the Master a dis-
cretion as to the matter of costs in all proceedings before
him. That showed that the coats depended on the judicial
view of the propriety of distributing contributions and th it
the court had power over the costs in the Master's office.
The 104th section seemed to give a complete discretion as
to the costa of the entire proceedings before the court, and
he did not see why a person concerned in the proceedings
under this act should be in a different situation from that
of one called into any ordinary court to defend himself.
Hs was of opinion that it was in the power of this court to
give costs before the Master; and, therefore, that Mr. Hall
was entitled to the costs of defending himself in the Master's
office. 'With respect to the appeal, he considered Mr. Hall
was entitled to make the application for costs, and that he
ought to have them. His lordship concluded by observing
that he thought the statute had invested him with power to
that Met, and he did not think it necessary to make any
alteration of the order already made for payment of costs.
Mr. Malin applied fur the costs of this application.
Mr. Bacon opposed the application on the ground that
this was a new decision, and the introduction fur the first
time of a new and very important principle.
The Lord Chancellor—Suppose this had been discussed
when the order was made, the fund would have paid the
costs. Why not pay them now ?
The motion of Mr. Bacon was accordingly refused with
costs.
HAMILTON V. RANKIN.
Mr. Hall and Mr. J. Russell were heard at great length
in continuation of the arguments in this appeal case, which
was partly heard on another occasion.

Barns Vica-Cusscatuns Teases.
THE KIDDERMINSTER GRAMMAR-SCROOL.
Tits ATTORNEY-GENEMAL V. THE BISIIOP or WOItCIVITBZ.
The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this case, and
stated that it was an information which had been filed re-
lating to the school at Kidderminster, which prayed that
the whole of the proceeds of the charity funds should be
applied to the free scholars, and that the master of the
school should be restrained from taking boarders, cud that
children of dissenters should bo admitted to the school,
I and all children who could read should be admitted inde-
pendent of age, and that it should be referred to tho
Master to settle a scheme. No trace could be discovered of ch,
the writing by which the school was originally founder,
Ind inquisition' in the reigns of Elisabeth ond Chula