The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-06 00:00:00

DERBY.

In to 3 apt Sentt's lot (t.) 40 to 1 agst Bro. to Joincill,,(t.
10 3 John Day's lot and alt. off.)
7 I Van *lmmo 43 1 Cltrininpher (take
1000 30 Allertorrian (t.) 30 to I)
1000 —23 Citentilt (4) 1000 20 Red Ilart
11010 23 Tantivy (v) 100 20 Projectile (l)
1004 —25 MArpresst colt (1.) WOO -13 - Wrst India Planter
40— I Lunctlate (I.) 1000 13 kryz (t undatt off.)
Offers to back 11w tick) act Eleven.
TAIIPORLEY lIUNT RACKS
rARPOILLT ItUNT ISTALN al .1 rocs racb, well 20 added. Twice
round. (17 subs.)
Mr. T. T. Parker's OW Port
Mr. W. W. Wynn's 'hobo...

.(1141:) 1
2

the Sean Inn, after a very fair run, barring the water, from Brit to
last, of neariy three hour. l wan a beenttfel Ilfty minute.' run, and
at a tmaradfam Paw. Been the turiared until the deer took to the
river at Bray, ilighßrar king in view the winie distance.

Lab) intellistnet.
LAW NOTICES.—Titte DAT.
COCOA' or CILASCIIIT, Weeludamsr. at 10.—Appsale: Lord .
Wightwiek ; Canniehdal v. Carmielassi, (I) Hawke, v. Howell ;
Henning v. swinnemos.
Vica.CuAsema.omi tiersrs. Westminster. at 10.—Before Sir L.
Rhartwell—N Inc unopposed pettier. and fourteen short more.—
Bernalning petitions twenty-ris) tor,
Grace C. Webb, part
heard; Neste V. Pink, part beard. DeIItUITCTI - Xthgbam
Baktwin T. Damer.—Before 94 J. Knight Bswee.--Causre de.: Thera-
low o. Bullock, put heard ; Brighton v. North ; liver v. Crick ;
Attack' C. ; v. Page.—babee Sir J. Wimem.--
Hurd BemPt. Mbe spoke to.—Causes, Dunoonabe v. Le 1
part heard ; Isinegan v. Scholefield (2). by order Fraser v. Jones;
Leigh v. Earl ba
les
Dole v. Hamilton ; v. kleinhelts-
bairn ; Bootock T. Shaw ; Preston v. Wilson.
ROLLS COLBY, Westminster, at !o.—Causso. ke..7 CorPmeel
T.
Fowls, part heard; Rey:bell v. Bernell; PUby V. Pilby ; Robinson
o. Wall: Knight v. Stanton; Perry V. Stoddsweraft; Attorney
General v. kikedalen College, Teistel V. King's Wine; Attorney.
General v. Ludlow ; Hopkimon v. Ellis; Ottley T. Gray; STilles v.
DOIIOOII.
Batt. or Qmoss's Bown, Weitafrister, at IC—Sittings in Rood
BAIL CoOSF (Qualit's Be
Westminster, at 10.—Middleven
Common Juries—Richards T. Leyte ; Bingham T. Livingaton; Stroll
v. eftaraWy and another; Lane V. Temple; Dcaialdwiti v. Player.;
Milner v. Patey • Greenhill v. Smith • Thomas r. Hews ; Irawide V.
Elliott; Thom; and another v. Jodrell, Bart. • Cos v. Turner;
BMA.) T. Day ; Inkams v. Balktley ; Semple
COVIAT or Coo mop Pik" We/ketone", at in.—Bßak
Middlesex Special
Jury.—Wareham r. Prance and othera—Middleaex fm
Juries.
and
--Griffin and another v. Beverley and another v. Reid
other.; Jell and another T. Stewart; Martin v. Parry; Thompson v.
Gokling; Reeve v. Jordan; Parrett v. Berkeley; Same v. Nash;
Kano T. Graham; Harwar v. Brook ; Rkhanivon v. Bruce ; Pater
v. Ran ; Lapthane v. Tabberney. The Court will also sit In Banco.
Cor.T OF tiCIIIIQUICA, Weatml aaer, at 10.--Sittburs in Pence.
Giver or EICRIVIOCIL Guildhall, at to.—London Cunimon Join'.
—Birmingham Plate and Crown Glass Company v. Robin"; Richard-
son v. Qirmichael ; Chabot v. Wild; Tucker V. Barnsley • ray nv.
Clark; Downes v. Evans ; Mitchell v. Hunt; Marshall v. Niusgrove ;
Laws v. Butt.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAT.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
VANDELEUR V. BLAGROVIL-1)oc01.0 AGENCY FRAUD.
—This was an appeal from • decree of the Master of the
Rolls, and the question was, which of two innocent parties
should cuff: r the consequences of a fraud practised on both
by their common agent. It appeared that in 1827 Mrs. Bla-
grove, of Ciifton, near Bristol, granted, in consideration of
2,5001., an annuity of 500!. for her life to Mr. Robert Van-
deleur, of the county of Limerick, in Ireland. This annuity
was charged on the lady's dower and utber property. and she
was under the deed at liberty to repurchase it after two
years by giving six months' notice, or by paying the whole
sum of 2,100!. without notice. In 1830 Mrs. Blagrove was
desirous el repurchasing, and a Mr. Thomas Cooksey Yates,
a conveyancer at Bristol, who had negotiated the transaction
of the annuity between her and Mr. Vandeleur, went to him
to Limer ck, and after prevailing on him to execute deeds of
release and re-assessment of the annuity, told him ho had
not broulht the money with him, as the funds being then
very low and expected to rise, Mrs. BI igrove postponed to
sell out. I m a few days, but on his own return to England the
repurchase money would be ready. Mr. Vandeleur assented,
and, in•tead of accepting a eh( quo which Yates had given
hint, authorised that person to lay the money out for him in
other ways. had, as appearel from the correspondence,
the greatest confidence in him. He had delivered to him the
release and r, -assessment duly executed, hut no receipt was
endors,d for the money. In thecoure of time Yates made him
believe that Mrs.lilagrove still wished the annuity to continue,
and h • paid the sante to Vandeleur fur two years, while Mr.
Mar ,ve was under the impression that he had paid it off,
lann.t, in his accounts with her taken credit for the same.
He absconded some time after and died in a state of insol-
venev, when his frauds were discovered. Mr. Vandeleur then
filed his bill against Mrs. Blagruve for the repurchase money
of the 'triunity, and the Master of the Rolls held that he was
entitlr.4.—The case for Mr. Vandeleur was supported by Mr.
Bethell, Mr. Romilly, and Mr. Nevinson ; that far Mrs.
Blagrove by Mr. Tinney, Mr. J. Russell, and Mr. Tripp.—
Judgment was postponed.

Before the Master of the Rolla.
HARGRAVE v. HARGRAVE. NEW TRIAL.
met y.--The Master of the Hells gave judgment on the op-
plication male by the defendant in this cause previously to
the vacation for a new trial, for tho purpose of deciding the
quostion of the plaintiff's legitimacy, on which his right de-
pended to participate with the defenclant in certain estates
devised by one Thomas Hargrave. The former trial was
bruit before the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
when a verdict was given for the plaintiff. The defendant
complained of the verdict, on grounds of misdirection of
the judge, and of its being contrary to evidence, and he
s.leged that he would be able to procure important addi-
tional evidence at the new trial, which ho was unable to
adduce at the former. His lordship observed that in cases
f this kind there often was great difficulty, and if it were not
far the presumption of law in favour of legitimacy, it would
be almost impossible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion
The presumption was that the child of a married woman was
legitimate; it might be removed by proper evidence of the
incompetence of the husband, of his absence from the
country, or, if present, of the non-existence of sexual inter-
course. Where there was an opportunity for sexual
intercourse, no evidence could be admitted to show
that any other than the husband was the father of the
child. The presumption was even in favour of the legitimacy,
though other men might have had access to the woman. The
evidence to the contrary ought to be strong, satisfactory, and
conclusive. Evidence of the absence of sexual intercourse
might have regard to the conduct of the parties, and the cir-
cumstances in which they were placed. But such circum-
stances were of no avail against evidence of the opportunity
of sexual intercourse. They could only render the fact of
legitimacy doubtful, but could not remove the presumption
in favour of it. In this case, about the time of the birth of
the plaintiff, and previously, the husband lived in France.
But there was evidence that he had communication with his
wife. The plaintiff was born on Nov. 18, 1836; and there
was evidence that the mother had intercourse with a person
in February, 1836, whom she represented to the witnesses to
be her ha-band. But the witnesses were not personally ac-
quaiated with the husband. There was also evidence that
the father was, in March, 1836, living for a time at an hotel
with a woman whom he represented to be his wife. But
the witnesses did not know the wife personally, and the plain-
tiff was baptised as the son of John and Mary Hargrave, the
names of the husband and wife. Under the circumstances,
if he was bound to decide on the evidence as it stood, he
should decide in favour of the legitimacy. An, however,
there was some obscurity which might be cleared up, and it
was alleged that additional evidence could be procured ;
and having regard, also, to the fact that the late Chief Justice
of the Common Plena fur some time entertained doubts as
to the correctness of the verdict, he would grant a new trial
on the us,.al terms. _

IN RE CURRIE, SOLIPITOR.—TANATIOX OF BILLS OP
COSTS.—The Master of the RoUs also gave judgment in this
matter, which came before hint previously to the vacation on
the petition of Mr. Archer Burton, for the taxation of the
bills of costs of Messrs. Come and Woodgate, who had acted
as his solicitors in a variety of transactions. In 1843, Mr.
Burton brine in want of 3,0001. to meet a debt which a Mr.
Lascelles had against him, applied to the respondents for a
loan of that amount. They were unable to lend him the
money, but engaged to raise it on mortgage, and at the same
time suggested the propriety of Mr. Burton's raising suffi-
cient to pay not only the 3,000/. but also the amount of the
bill of costs which the respondents had delivered to him.
Mr. Burton declined to nose more than 3,0001., but offered
to give the respondents his acceptance for the amount of
their bills. This proposal was acceded to—the 3,0001. was
raised, and Mr. Burton gave his acceptance, at four months,
to the respondents tor the amount of their bills. Before the
acceptance became due, Mr. Burton intimated his intention
to tax the bills, and this petition was subsequently pre-
sented. The petitioner contended that the acceptance
did not amount to payment, so as to make it ne-
cessary for him to show special circumstances to en-
title him to taxation, and that if it did, there were other
charges in the bills which, with the circumstances under which
the acceptance was given, amounted to sufficient special eir-
cumstances.—His lordship thought the acceptance was
intended to be, and was payment of the bills, that there was
.10 unfairness or undue pressure in procuring the acceptance,
and that the overcharges did not of themselves amount to
sl secial circumstances. He, therefore, dismissed the petition,
but having regard to all the circumstances, without coats.

Before Tice-Chancellor Wigrom.
C'ANTRIELL V. THE BRIGHTON RA:LWAY COMvANT.—
BPI. CIVIC PERFORMANCE.—Mr. Bethel! concluded his reply
in tl tie case. which was argued partly in July last, when Mr.
Beth ell, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Goldsmith were heard for the
plain tiffs; and Sir Fitzroy Kelly for the defendant.; and
partly on Tuesday last, when Mr. Hominy, Mr. Adams, and
Mr. Wray continued the argument for the defendant+, and
Mr. 11+ 'theft opened his reply for the plaintiffs.
The I ells filed by Messrs. Patrick Campbell, John Tekell,
and Th miss Townend, on behalf of themselves and all
others t. Ye holders of loan notes of the company, who are
entitled t. s have shares issued to them in exchange for such
notes, anut to whom such shares have not been issued. The
defendant+ are the London and Brighton Railway Company,
Messrs. lb swlaod Hill, and —. Crowley, the chairman
and deputy. chairman of the company being added as p,r.
ties, for th.s purposes of discovery. The object of the
bill is to obt. tin certain shares which the comp-my were
authorised by act of parliament to create and deliver, in
return for los no of money previously borrowed by, and
secured by, t.1..e promissory notes of the company. The
question upon , he record is, whether the company did or
not, in their con tract with the lenders, definitively fix a cer-
tain period within which the option to convert their loan
into shares must 1. *1 declared. The defendant, say by their
answer that the tit le fixed was the 15th of February, 184.5,
and they have refus td to issue shares to the holders of the
notes, among whom are the plaintiffs, she did not declare
their option to take shares before that time. The plaintiffs,
on the other hand, say that no time was fixed by the con-
tract within which the, •ption was to be declared. Secondly,
that if any period was fi...ed, that period was three years, to
be computed from July, 1342, and that they, the plaintiffs,
long before that period ha? declared their option to convert
their loans into shares; and, thirdly, that if there
was a time fixed, as contended by the company,
then that the defendants were entitled to a reasonable
period from the expiration of that time, during which the
might have an opportunity of declaring their option, and
that they did declare their election to take shares within such
reasonable period.
His Hon iur said he would read the act of parliament, and
copies of the pleadings, the advertisement, and the three
resolutions, before he finally decided the ease. There were
some parts of the case, however, which i.'opsared to be free
from doubt. Assuming that a day had "lissen fixed, on or
betty., whieb the loan-note holders were to declare their
option, then time would be of the essence of the contract, and
the questions therefore which Ise had to dell& were,
first, whether a day had been fixed, and, secondly, u it

had, whether it had or not bums waived by the
defendants. With property of • ' fluctuating Nature,
the company would think it tosceimary to know their
actual situation with nkrence to parties with whom they
had contracted. It was also clear that the claims of the act
referred to mug have been intended to enable the company
to perform their contract with the loan-note holders what-
ever that contract was. The act as worded contemplated
an bow of shares to the parties from whom the money was
borrowed, and no doubt it was intended to give the com-
pany the power to issue shares according to their rontra:t
He could not doubt that the shares were allotted to the note-
holders in compliance with such contract; but upon the
question what that contract was, he would not then express
an opinion.

Before ViceXhanorlior Knight Brace.
&WIMPY AND OTHERS e. PEENTor RAILwAT Cox-
paNY.—CoNTKACTS DT RAILWATa.—The bill in this case
was filled for the purpose of compelling the specific perform-
ance of an agreement alleged to hare been entered into
between the defendants and plaintiffs, who were owners of
a colliery, f:r the carrying of coals for the plaintiffs at a cer-
tain tonnage. It appeared that the plaintiffs had, some
years ago, entered into an agreement with a company, called
the Stackpoole and Tyne Railway Company, for the carriage
of coals, at a certain tonnage, for 21 yearn. That railway
company was not constituted under any act of parliament,
but, atter the contract in question, it became absorbed in a
new company, called the Poutop Railway Company,
which was regulated by an act of parliament. The
new railway company for some time acted upon
the footing of tr.e contract, but they afterwards ex-
acted from the plaintilks larger rate of tonnage, and con-
tended that they were entitled to do so, as they had no power
under their act to enter into any agreement for 21 years.
Having received from the plaintiffs considerable sums of
money in respect of the higher tonnage, the object of the
present bill was to compel them to adhere to the former
arrangement, and to make them refund the money which
they hail so obtained.—Ml'. Russell and Mr. Teller appeared
for the plaintiffs.—Mr. Bacon and Mr. Chapman, for the
defendants, contended that this was a matter which sounded
merely in damages and ought to be sent to a court of law.
His Honour said that it was clear from the evidence in
this case, that the defendants had adopted and acted upon
the contract, and they could not now be allowed to repudiate
it. If the matter were sent to law technical difficulties
might arise which would lead to a failure of justice ; and he
thought that the justice of the case was, that the contract
should be specifically performed, and that the defendants
should refund the monies which, in t.is opinion, they bad
inequitably obtained. And bin Honour decreed accordingly.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
ROBERTS e. WILLIAMS.--.3IISCONDUCT UP A JURY.—
The Attorney-General moved for • rule to show cause why
the verdict, which, at the last assizes for the county of
Denbigh, had passed for the defendant, should not be set
aside, and a new trial hod, on the ground of misconduct in
the jury, and of misdirection. The action was brought for
an obstruction to a private right of way. and was tried by a
special jury on the last day of the assizes. The jury could
not agree to a verdict, and were locked up in the custody of
on attorney, named Horn, who volunteered to act as bailiff.
The judge, Lord Denman, then set out for the assize
town of the next county, leaving his associate to receive
the verdict. No sooner had his lordship gone than the j• rots
discovered that they were much in want of creature comforts,
and Mr. Horn sympathising with their sufferings, the whole
party adjourned to the town-hall, where, under the presi-
dency of Mr. Horn, and with the assistance of the notables
of the town, some fea.ting, approaching more or less to jolli-
fication, took place. Et entually beds were made up in the
town-hall, and there the jurors slept. Next msnting, after
having breakfasted in a substantial style, the jury arrived at
the conclusion that they could not give a verdict until his
lordship should have answered certain questions which they
had to propound. They proceeded, therefore, with the asso•
eitte and the attorney ou either side, to a public-house on the
confines of the county, called " The Loggerheads," and then
sent a notice of their wishes to the Lord Chief Justice. His
lordship left Mold, where he was, and went to the "Logger-
heads," where he found the jurors and attornics. iNo objec-
tion was taken ou either side to the festive proceedings which
had so agreeably varied the usual dulness of a jury's delibe-
rations under the custody of a bailiff, and esrrtain questions
were asked of the judge, the answers to which constituted
the misdirection complained of, and were followed by a ver-
dict for the defendant. On these grounds, he submitted that
' he was entitled to the rule.—Lord Denman said that as the
departure from thol usual course must be taken to have been
assented to by both parties, and the questions of the jury
showed that they had given careful attention to all matters
submitted to them, while they themselves exhibited no signs
of disorder when he saw them, thr rule could not be granted
on the first ground. On the question whether the second
ground sufficed for granting it, the court would take time to
consider.