The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-13 00:00:00

tab Intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS—Savcanay.
Before the Lard Chancellor.
STILES O. GUT.—WILL, —DPFAULT OP ACTING EAR-
CUTOIL —LIABILITY OF CO-EXICIITOEB.—This appeal from
an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England occupied the
court the greater part of Friday and all Saturday. The case
was this: A testator named Turkey gave all his property,
real and personal, to Anthony Guy and two other persons,
named Turkey (all of whom he appointed his executors),
upon art sin trust., and he directed them, as soon as conve-
niently might be atter his death, to get in such parts thereof
as consisted of book debts and securities for money not ap-
proved by them. The will contained a clause irdemnffying
the trustees against the ten of each other. All the three
proved the will, but the management of the trusts was left
to Ouy, who was a solicitor in great credit, and had been
often entrusted by the testator with large sums, which the
testator used to allow to remain in his hands at interest. The
balance in his hands at the teetatoes death exceeded 10,0001.,
for which the testator held his promissory notes and account-
, able receipts. The Tucker. the co-trustees, never teok any
steps to enforce paymeeit of this sum from Guy, and he, a
few years after the testator's death, became bankrupt. Some
time before that the parties beneficialll interested in the tea.
tator's estate filed a bill in the Equity Exchequer
against the three trustees and executors. And the chief gan-
tlets raised in the progress of the suit was whether, under the
circumstances, Guy's co trustees were answerable for the
losses sustained by the plaintiffs by the inability of Guy to
pay the 10,0001. The cause was hand in 1532, by Lord
Lyndhurst, then chief heron of the Court of Exchequer on
the equity side, and after pointing to certain evidence of
acquiescence on the part of some of the plaintiffs in consent-
ing to leave the money et& in Guy's hande, his lordship
directed various inquiries before the master of that caller,
declaring at the same time that the co-trustees had by
proving the will become liable to make god the loss occa-
sioned by the bankruptcy are) default of Guy, except in so
far as it should be bend that such de'ault was the result of
the acquiescence of plaintiffs. The Master in his report
stated that there was such acquiescence. Exceptions were
t taken by the plaintiffs to the report, and they (after the
equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer se,s transferred
to the Court of Chancery) came to he &mud by the Vice-
Chancellor of England, who disallowed the exceptions. The
appeal was against that deciron. Mr. Stuart, Mr. J. Parker,
and Mr. Heathfield were t earl for the appellants. Mr.
Betbell, Mr. Rill, and Mr. Pitman for the respondents ; Mr.
Lloyd, Sir Walter Riddell, and other counsel, appeared for
other parties —The Lot said it was a case which
required time to consider his judgment.;

Before the rlee-Chtutcegor of England.
BEAR/FP V. SOVLBY.—VOLI NTAILY SLTTLIIIIIIIT VOID
AGAINST CREDITOAS.—II appeared in this eau that ao in-
strument of assignment, detect the 7th of December, 1842,
' was made between John Milner, a married man, sine. de-
ceased, and Bliss Quiltos, which recited that the said John
Milner andElizaQuilton had for several years past cohabited
together, and the said Eliza Quilton had had four children
during such cohabitation, who were then living, and that the
said John Milner had determined to discontiase such co-
habitation, and was desirous of making a provision for the
future maintenance of the said Eliza Quilton and her children
and for that purpose had agreed to secure unto her the say-
meat of the annual sum of 250/. during his life, and to assign
to her two several policies of at enrollee effected by him as a
provision for the said Eliza Quillen and her children in case
she should survive him. The deed of amignment then
contained a settlement of the policies according to the in•
teation exprees:d in the recital upon Eliza Quilton and her
children. Upon the death of John Milner this suit, which
was a creditor s suit, WAS instituted for the purpose of hay
int the aforesaid deed of assigoment declared void on the
ground that it was a voluntary settlement made by the testa-
tor at a time when he was largely indebted. The bill
charged that at the time such assignment was executed the
testator was insolvent or embarrwred, or wu indebted to di-
vers persons in considerable sums of money, and that the
same was executed by him without any pircuoiary or other
good or valuabir consideratioe, and it wu there-
fore void as against the creditors of the testator,
who were entitled to have the said _ assurances

appplied towards the satsfaitioa cd their debts.—The
Vios-Chancellor said he thought the representations in
the bill were quite sufficient to chow that the testator was
indebted at the time of making the voluntary settlement ; it
was stated that he was embarrassed and insolvent. The
opinion of Lord Hardwicke in the case of " Townsend v.
Windham" (2 Ves. Sen. 10) was very decided, be had said "he
knew of no ease where a man, indebted at the time, made a
voluntary conveyance to a chilit without consideration and
died indebted, but that it should be coasidered part of his
estate for the benefit of his creditors." Ills Honour thought
there was no doubt upon the present case ; id fact, it was
much worse for the defendant, the =fortunate woman, than
he had at first imagined, for in the same voluineof Vesey, in a
case of " Priest v. Parrot," Lord Hardwicke refused to
oountentrice the provision for a woman who had been living
with a married man. This case stuck his Honour more forci-
bly, as it appeared that in the BtbVolliille of Lord Campbell's
" Lives of the Chancellors," he had sele,:ted it as • prominent
case, for the purpose of showing what WAR the turn of Lord
Ilardwieke's mind as to his deeinons. The decree must be
that the settlement was void es against creditors, and the
money in the hands of the ezecutors to be assets for the pay-
ment of the testator's debts.

IN RI CROCEMON.—APPLICATION FOR THE DISCHARGII
OP • PRISONER COSISIITTRD FOR CONTESIPT.—An applica-
tion was made in this we by Mr. Ilsc,n, for the discharge
of a prisoner who had been committed for contempt, in not
paying a sum of money under an order of the court. It ap-
peared that the prisoner had become • baukrupt, ant all
penons interested in the suit bad proved their debts against
his cstute.—The Vice-Chancellor se.d I e could not make the
order unless the next friend in the suit would appear and
mount.

Before Vioe.Chaucellor Knight Bruce.
CRIDLARD O. LORD DI MAULEY.—PRACTICE.—The bill
in this cue had been amendeu under a special order, but
nit within the fourteen days prescribed by the orders of
1845, Mr. Walpole, on u former day, moved that the
amendments might be struck out on this account, citing a
case heard before the Master of the 12,11 s on the day pre-
viously as an authority to that eff,ct.—Mr. Forster, for the
plaintiff, contended that the rourtt.en days did not apply
whore spiels] leave was given be the court to amend but
his Honour thought he ought to decide according to the cue
cited, giving, however, the plaintiff leave to move to amend,
or to have the amendments restor,d. Mr. Forster now
moved accordingly, and lifter hearing counsel for the de-
fendants, the Vie-Chance:Mr directed the amendments to
remain, and the costs to be costa in the cause.

Before Vlce-Cliancellor Wimara.
BAYER V. BATLDON.—EGUITE OF CHILDREN TO A.
armament' OUT OP A FUND IN COURT, STANDING TO
TRY ACCorliT OP THEIR MOTHER, A DECRAMID DEFEN-
DINT.—This was a suit to administer the estate of Richard
Bayldon, who had died intestalc. J..ce Ackley and her hus-
band were made parties to the bis in respect of her interest
as one of the next of kin of the intestate. After appearance,
but before answer, Jane Addev died, leaving her husband
and an only child surviving, and the suit was then revived
against her husband, who had takea out administration to
her estate. After this the sums of 3341. 2i. 2d., and 32/.178.6d.,
which the Master reported to be the share of the intestate's
estate to which Jane Addey would, if living, have been en-
titled, were, by order of the court, c 'ivied to the account of
" the share of the deemed defendant, Jane Addey." The
husband now presented • petition for payment to himself of
these MM, and the question was, whether he was entitled to
them as representative of his deceased wife, or whether the
child, in right other deceased mother, had any and what right
to a settlement. Mr. Leach, iv support of the petitiou,
contended that the equity of the wife and of the child
through her to a settlement, was an equity entirely personal
to the wife, to be enforced or not, at her option; and that
upon the death of the wife, without exercising such option,
th' I.gal right of the husband mot prevail. " Lloyd e.
Williams" (1 Maddock, 404). "De la Garde o. Lempriere"
(6 Besvan. 347).—Mr. Bird, on behalf of the child, contended
that the wife's equity attsched to the property on the filing
of the bill, and that upon her death, without having waived
such equity, it continued for the benefit of the daughter.—
His Honour reserved his judgment upon the question, and
observed that as the fact of there being only one child of the
marriage was verified only by affidavit, it would be necessary,
should his opinion be against the right to a settlement, to
direct an inquiry as to the number of children before giving
final judgment upon the point.

BAIL COURT—SATtaDAIt.
&Wags In.Bmmo.—Before Mt. JuAke Palms.
Breit EdB Or THE COURT.—ME Justice Plateooll stated
that as the sittings at Nisi Prius would terminate on Satur-
day, he should proceed with the " Enlarged Rule Paper" on
Monday next, after hearing motions for rules nisi. In
answer to Mr. Pashley, who asked In what manner the pa-
per would be taken, his lordship said the whole paper would
be gone through, and that therefore all the parties in the di( •
ferent cases must be prepared.

~li~e~ PAIRS.

MYERS v. COIREAD BILLS or EXCHANGE —This
was an action by the endorser of a bill of ex-
change for one hundred and one pounds against the
acceptor. The defence was Oct the defendant had re-
ceived no consideration for the bill ; that he had deposited it
with the firm of Messrs. Challis and Phillips f...r the pur-
pose of hiving it discounted, and that they had passed it to
the plaintiff after it had been dishonoured. It appeared
that defendant bad been in the habit of allowing a lugs
halance to remain in 1.18 banjo of Messrs. Challis and
Phillips, who had formerly carried on the business of tailors
in Cornhill, and who in some degr.:e acted as the de-
fendant's bankers. In the year 18t5 defendant, being ill
want of money, induced Phillips to draw a bill upon him in
the name of the firm for 101/., which he accepted, and
which was made payable at toe house of Mr. Challis,
broker. Phillips subsequently took the bill to Messrs. Oyer-
bury and Dixon, to get it ditcou nt,d. These gentlemen refused
the accommodation, and further. Messrs. Challis and Phillips
being indebted to them in a large amsunt, kept the bill in
their possession. Defendant, it was stated, was not informed
that the biil remained unpaid, and, therefore, not providing
for it, in consequence it was dishonoured. Shortly
alter, Messrs. Challis and Philips dissolved partnership,
enured into n deed of composition w ith *heir creditors and
separated upon no amicable teems. Fcr the plaintiff i, t was
contended that clearly from the docks of Messrs. Challis and
Phillips the bill had been duly catered to the credit of the
defendant, and that, consequently, there was no ground for
the defence. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, at
the lame time expressing their opinion that the bill had been
given by the defendant for the purpose of being discounted.

COURT OF COMMON FLEAS.—SATURDI,T.
Sittings in Beam.
HOwDIN V. OTANDISH.—LIABiIair OF EIBERIPIII.—Mr.
Justice Coltman delivered the judgment of the court in this
cue. It was an action against the high sheriff of Lancashire,
tried at the Liverpool Spring Aerizes of last year, when a
verdict was found for the plaintiff for lOW. damages. The
declaration stated that ono Keller was indebted to the plain-
tiff ; that a writ of espies under the I & 2 Viet., o. 110, was
granted against Keller at the suit of plaintiff and delivered
to the defendant, within whore bailiwick Keller was and
might have been taken ; and that defendant wrongfuhy re-
turned that Keller could not nor might have been taken.
The pleas were-1. Not Reilly ;2. That Keller could not
nor might have been taken. At the trial it appeared that
the;plaintiff accompanied Lawton, the sheriff's officer in whose
hands the writ was, to the " POW s i'las.iquea" at Liverpool,
for the purpose cf pointing out Keller, and that by the sensa-
tion of plaintiff his arrest was not attempted during the per-
formance, and that pointing out by mistake thewrong person
at the close of the performance Keller altogether escaped;
and further, that there was • kn awn preconcerted plan on
the part of the company to prevent the arrest, had it been at-
tempted during the performance, which would have ren-
dered the endeavour useless. A role for a new trial bad
since been obtained and argued. The first querion was
whether the presence of the execution creditor and his sanc-
tioning the course taken was an 'sense to the sheriff avail-
able on the present pleadings. Now the duty which re-
sulted from the delivery of the writ to the sheriff was to
arrest Keller absolutely and net u; on request, and if a re-
quest were alleged on the declaration it was idle and super-
fluous matter. In conformite with this rule the defence
contended for was not available upon the issue raised, though
it might have been otherwise upon a plea of leave and license,
or upon some other form ol plea statirg the special circus-
genets. Next it was objected to the summing up of the judge
that he had laid down the duty of the sheriff too widely. TM
court thought otherwise. The principle of law as applicable
to the present case was that the sheriff was bound to provide
such * force as would enable him to effect the capture in
alai,. of any resistance which he might have resson to expect.
Re might raise the posse comi•atue. It had been observed
the 'lurid was bound to this duty because of the danger of
fraud, and also of the disgrace of the King's writs remaining
unexecuted. It was true in the eau of moene process the
return of a rescue was • good return after capture effected.
Treat was out of indulgence to th* sheriff, because he could
not always have the posse coml.:etas with Lim ; hut nth
indulgence ought net to be exter. led. The only ether To-
staining ground was that the erre:let was against tke evi-
dence; but the judge who presided was not diseatisfusd.
As to all the grounds, therefore, the rule would be dis-
charged.

BZIINZE, EXECUTOR, V.WARD.—DrIT 011,,BAZZANGls alt
AIEA NEAR TO ♦ PUBLIC FOOTwkT.—abis wu an labs
tried at he sittings at Wtedninater, after Trinity Term, lt*
year, when a verdict was found for plaintiff, damages 30014
and in w h.ch the plaintiff, the %mamma Ana executor of lon