The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-25 00:00:00

Kam intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YrsTERDAT.

llamas 111 It /MD ..c.
Applications were made to his lordship, one by Mr. H.
Terrell and another by Mr. Melissa, to advance appeals fur
hearing. His lordship refined both, observing that the ad•
ranting of some eases to the head of the paper was gene-
rally attended with inconvenience and often with injustice
to parties in other cases, by displacing them in the order of
hearing. Ile conceived that they had a vested right in the
order in which they were set down, a right for which they
had paid, and to displace them by advancing other cases
before them, would be an thjestial to which he would not
consent without some imperious sammity.

......STAINTOM V. CHADWIiI.—EXCILTTIONII.—EVIDINCIE.
This was an appeal against an order of the late Muter of
the Rolls, allowing certain exceptions to the defendant's
serum to the printifs bill, and overruling others. The
*eel* raw in the cause was whether the plaintiff or
the dstbatdaat was entitled to certain property which for-
swift blimp& is Ws Aadrew Chadwick, who died intes-
tate' nod mlllteut Woe in 1768. He was the only ten of
Ems Cliwiwlldt, who had four brothers, James, Robert,
Tleseme, mod Benjamin. The plaintiff in his bill stated that
I the elder of the four, died without issue, and that
Mrs. Law, demghter of Robert, was the heirets-at-
law of Sir Aabsw, and that under conveyances
fray Mrs. Law V (the plaintiff) became rightly entitled
to the prspoWar la wooden, but that the defendant claiming
to be deoismied Item the said James Chadwick, the eldest
etas four has ben of Ellis Chadwick, got into possession
of the property by purchasing the interest of some under
lessees in 1842, and that in 1842 he obtained fradulently an
impute order, under Sugden's Trustee Act, for a convey-
ing* to him of the legal estate from the trustees of the in-
haltasse. The leases, both original and derivative, were
syseSsi sway years ago, and expired in 1817. The plaintiff
Elihe a declaration that he was entitled to the pro-
as issivisi title from Mrs. Law, and that the defen-
be seised to convey it to him.
The isessdant, by his answer to the bill, insisted that be
moths lair at law of Sir A. Chadwick, being descended
hew hams, the eldest of Sir Andrew's four uncles. lie
&Ad srveral of the statements in the plaintiff's bill, and
imistedtbat the ex pixie order made for the conveyance to
Yin of tbe legal estate was rightly obtained, but he refused
is mere the &icemen., which were laid before the Master
foe the 'purpose of obtaining that order, because they consti-
tuted his title deeds.
Exceptions were taken by the plaintiff to that part of the
answer, and some of them were allowed by the Master of
the Rolls.
Mr. it. Palmer and Mr. Bird were heard for the defen-
dant in support of his appeal. The Solicitor-General (with
whom is Mr. Glasse) supported the order, but had not con-
cluded his argument at the rising of the court.

llamas rim Marna or rint Sou".
NOattla r. WaIOII7.—LIANILITY Or TarSTISES.
This suit was instituted by Margaretta Norris, the wife
of the defendant William Thomu Norris, by her nest
friend, and her two infant children, nst the defendants,
John Wright, William Norris, sad Edward Jet-
ningham, fur the purpose of making against
Iting them account for cer-
tain breaches of trust. It appeared that Mrs. Norris, under
the will of her father, Mr. Havens, was entitled to One-
third of his real and personal estate, which he gave to the
defendants, John Wright and Williams Norris, as trustees
for ber separate use for lite, with remainder to her children.
And he empowered his trustees, with the consent of the
plaintiff, to invest the trust funds in real security in Eng-
laad or Wales. On the marriage of Mrs. Norris a further
um was settled in nearly similar trusts, and power was
given to the trustees who were the defendants, Wright,Wro.
Norris, and Jerninghans, to invest the trust fund thereby
settled, on securities of real estate in Great Britain or Ireland,
with the consent of the plaintiff and her husband. An ap-
plication was subsequently made, under Mr. Lynch's act,
authorising trust money to be laid out in Ireland, to the
court for a reference to the Master as to whether it would
be fur the benefit of the plaintiff and the parties interested
under her father's will in her share of his estate, to invest
4,1001., a portion of the trust fund, subject to the trusts of
the will, in real estate in Ireland, and the Muter reported
in favour of such investment, and the trustees advanced
that sum, together with • further sum of 1001., on certain
real estate in Ireland. It appeared that the consent of the
plaintiff was not expressly obtained in writing, as required
by the will, to the investment, and the property having
afterwards become extremely depreciated in value, the secu-
rity proved hands:lent. The trustees of the settlement also
adviunted, with the consent of the plaintiff and her hus-
band, a sum of 1,9081., part of the funds subject to the
trusts of the settlement, in a freehold estate belong-
ing to a Mr. Ogle, in Northumberland, which
had some time previously been valued at 80,0001.,
but which was subject to two prior charges, 'mount-
ing to about 60,0001. ; the 1,9081. forming part of, a
larger sum of 8,0001- advanced by other parties on the above
security. This security also proved insufficient. And the
object of the present suit was to make the trustees replace
the sums advanced on the above securities on the ground,
as to the Irish security, not only that it was an improper
investment, but that the consent of the plaintiff in writing I
had not been obtained, as was required by the testator's
will; and as to the other security, that it was improvident
in the trustees to advance the money on an estate on which
there were two prior charges of such large amount.
Mr. It. l'abner and Mr. Iligg were for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Walpole, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Cooke, and Mr. Riddell, for
the defendants.

The Master of the ltolls was of opinion that, under the
circumstances, the trustees had been guilty of a breach of
trust, and he ordered the defendants Wright and Wm. Nor-
ris to purchase so much stuck as might have been pun
chased with the 5,0001. at the time it was advanced on the
Irish security, with the dividends from that time, they
taking credit fur any sum received by Mrs. Norris for inte-
rest; and he made a like iletree as to the 1,8084 against the
trustees of the settlement. It ageared that the trustees
hail advanced certain portions the trust funds to the
plaintiff and her husband ; and as to there, they were de-
clared to be entitled to be indemnified out of the interestsof
these parties in the trust funds.

But Las Vs

Kntota Dacca.

F LITMUS 71:;:il7A111111116. AN U 71FU-1-LS. RAILWAT

- -
Mr. Follett and Mr. Selwyn, on behalf of the plaintiff,
who was a devisee under the will of the late Mr. Fletcher,
of Clifton, in Lancashire, moved for an injunction to re-
strain the defendants Irons taking pan of the devised land
for the purposes of an extension of the Clifton branch of
their railway. liy the loath section of the act of parliament.
empowering the defendants to make the extension railway
in question, it was enacted that the company should, sad
they were thereby required to construct and complete ready
for traffic, in all respects, the extension railway within two
years from the passing of the act. This period hail expired
in the present month.
The Vice-Chancellor desired to hear on what grounds the
defendants claimed to take the land after the expiration of
the prescribed time.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Osborne, for the defendant*, read
affidavits relating to certain contracts entered into with the
company, which, as they contended, precluded the plaintiff
from taking the objection as to time; and they argued that
as the company m ght be able to complete their railway by
agreement, or under an extension of their powers, or other-
wise, the injunction ought not to be granted.
The Vice-Chancellor said that, according to the terms of
the act, the defendants had not now, under its provisions,
any right to take the plaintiff's land amnion his will. Aud
his Honour did not accede to the argument that
what had taken place with the company had pre-
cluded the plaintiff from relying on this objection.
The question was then solely as to the balance of the incon-
venience arising from granting the injunction or refusing
it. Now the disadvantage which the company might be
under from the expiration of the time limited by the act,
would not be affected by the injunction, except so far as It
might delay the construction of the railway. Therefore, if
the plaintiff would undertake, on behalf of himself and his
co-trustees, to place the company in the same position, as to
the jury preeess, as they were in at present, if the court
should so direct, awl would undertake to prosecute the suit
with diligauce, his honour thought the injunction ought
to be grunted.
The plaintiff's counsel agreed to give the proposed
undertaking, and an injunction was granted, restraining
the defendants from taking the land mentioned in the bill,
and from proceeding with the inquiry before the jury.