The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-01 00:00:00

WINCHESTEII.

This contest was yesterday brought to a conclusion. The
score was as follows at the conclusion of the match, by which
it is shown that Winchester won by one wicket :
Miaow.

F. Monkey, EN., b Mow —7
c Bennett, b Fiennes lO
A. Curtels, Esq., b Stoneham* 0 b Wearies
O. Cr coley. Tftq .0 Groat, b Fuller 30 c Grant, b Fiennes 4
C. Leigh, FM, b Fuller
ern E. C. We* b Fuller
I'. Butter. Esq., not out
J. t ,baoo, EN., b Fuller 1 0 Fuller
Hun. D. Campbell, c Grant, b 9tcoe-
bouse
P. Faeroe, EN , b Stonetwure I c Bennett, Is Fuller
W. Marrillter, Rai , c Bennett, Is
Stonehowe - ........ ...''o e IMAM, b Faller 0
T. S. Meroer, Faq., b Fuller —3
not out.
82, Ib 3

E. Lipesombe, Emi., e Campbell, b __
Cartels
lion. W. Flamm, 0 Cartels ... ...... 0 • Mercer, b Campbell
E. Tranllaa, Esq., b Cartels
G. Emmett, Esq•, pi Hanley, b Car-
tels
Esq., • —' • Car-

O.l'7lller, - ~ e illaghm, b.
trio
P. Prat* Em., a Has. Leigh, b
Campbell .
E. Grant, Lot.. b Cartels
T. Po 'e, Eeq., e'Clibion, b Cartels 9 b Cartels
A. Mbar, b Campbell 0 not out
A. short, Erg., sot oat
J. ettoneboule, Esq., b CUrtelf . .... 6
Lb,2; vr,4; nb,l

SEcEsstoN.—The Rev. W. Hutchinson, of the
parish of Endellion, near Wadebridge, Cornwall, in the
diocese of Exeter, has relinquished the protestant for the
faith of Rome. This young clergvman was for some time
curate of one of the newly-formed districts in the borough
of Devonport, where he obtained some notoriety, and the
notice of the bishop, for his adherence to the peculiar prac-
tice. of a certain party in the church. His proceedings,
however, displeasing the incumbent, the Rev. T. C. Childs,
he was removed to the parish church of Stoke Damerel, and
subsequently presented to the living of Endellion, by the
Bishop of Exeter, where he was soon left by his congrega-
tion, which has latterly consisted of about four or five pet,
sons only.-3,forginy Paper.

Lain fittelligence.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-YFSTERDAY.
DERIVELV,I.R DIVORCE BILL.

The house being formed at 3 o'clock, the Lord Chancellor
asked the agent for this bill whether he had any limbo.
evidence or explanations to give to tl.e hcuse in reference to
the points to which their lordships drew the attentieu of
counsel on Tuesday last (see the Daily News of Wednes-
day) ?
The agent replied that he had not.
The Lord Chancellor then, addressing the house, said
that the difficulties which were suggested by their loril,hips
to the petitioner's counsel on a former day seemed not to be
understood—certainly no attempt was made to remove them.
No explanation was afforded to their lordships of the cause
of the separation in 1846, nor why the husband had left his
home on the eve of the wife's Departure, and allowed the
baron—the party charged now with adultery—to conduct
her to her new residence. The husband, after the
separation, went abroad; and it appeared that for
some years he omitted to look after his wife, al-
though it was urged on their lonlships that dur-
ing all that limo he entertained no suspicion of her
fidelity. lie, however, appeared to have abandoned all
cure of leer, affording her no means of maintenance,
except two sums of five pounds each ; and these
sums were, as it appeared in the evidence, trans-
, mined to her through the hands of this baron. These
circumstances required to he cleared up, because, being
now without explanation, it appeared that the petitioner
abandoned his wife, and left her to find such livelihood as
she could, to the disgrace of both of them ; and it did so
happen that she went to live in adultery with another
person, named by the witnesses on a former day. lle
(Lord Truro) was really sorry for the sake of the peti-
tioner, but he could not advise their lordships that this gen-
tleman was shown to be entitled to the relief which be
sought by this bill. Their lordships had a delicate duty to
perjures in these eases; for although they were bound to
afford relief where a party was entitled, they were at the
same time, as guardians of public moralkin some respects.
bound to see that a petitioner for this sort of relief was nut
in any way the author of his own mi.-fortune. The circum-
stances of this ease were such, that, on a careful considera-
tion of the evidence, he could not advise their lordships to
read the hill a second time; and he there fore moved that it
be read a second time tkat day six months.
The motion was put and agreed to.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
Bertha rue. Lean missertioa.
THE ATTORNEY-GENEtI. is (ox AND OTHERS.—TiIt
DUKE OF ToRICS CREDITORS.
The above is the title of an appeal heard in the House of
Lords in 1815, and for disposing of which Lord Cotten-
ham sent his written judgment last August, to Lord Lang-
dale,
who read it to the house, but without adding any ob-
servation of his own, he not having been present at the
hearing of the appeal. The parties to this appeal—namely,
the Lords of the Treasury, in whose favour the judgment
was given—the creditors of the late Duke of York awl his
executors—both these parties having in filet the same
interest as against the Treasury—have had several meetings
with the officers of the House of Lordi, for the purpose of
drawing up the judgment of the house, but they have not
been able to agree. An application was made by the exe-
cutors and creditors to have the appeal re-heard, but the
house refused that application, as being contrary to the
practice of the house to vary a judgment pronounced by
the house. It was, however, suggested by the Lord Chan-
cellor in the appeal committee, that some application to
rectify the error, if there was any, might be made in Chart-
, eery.
Mt. Tlethell (with whom was Mr. Gifrartl) now, on be-
half of the duke's creditors, after adverting to the ribose
circumstances, stated that the suit in which this tedious
litigation occurred was instituted in 1827, just after the
duke's death, by Greenwood and Cox, creditors of the duke,
filing a bill against Taylor and others, the duke's executors,
for the purpose of foreclosing a mortgage on York-house,
now Sutherland-house, St. James b. The crown being also
a creditor for large advances made by the Lords of the
Treasory for completing the building of the house, and
having also mortgages thereon for 00,0001., lucerne a party
to the suit. Exceptions taken by the crown to the Master's
report, under a decree of reference, were allowed by the
Vice-Chancellor of England in 184.5. (Sec 14 Simons,
p. 404, where the nature of the claims of tile crown and of
the other creditors is stated.) The plaintiff. also, Green-
wood and Cox, and the executors took exceptions, sepa-
rately, to the Master's report ; but by arrangement between
the parties—as it was alleged - only one set of these exceptions
was filed, both excepting parties having the same objections to
the report. They succeeded before the Vice-Chancellor in
getting these exceptions allowed, and from that order al-
lowing them the Attorney-General for the crown—that is,
for the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury—appealed to
the House of Lords. The appeal was argued so long ago
that Lord Cottenham, in writing his judgment last year,
must have forgotten the facts, because, although the exe-
cutors and the creditors of the duke were heard by their
counsel in the house, his lordship said that the creditors
could not be heard to urge their case on an appeal;
whereas the fact was, that there was no distinction be-
tween the creditors and the executors, as the latter were
hound to apply the estate in payment of the debts. Tlw
only remedy now left was to obtain Mom this court an order
to put on the file of this court the exceptions that were
takeu by the creditors, and in effect allowed by the late
Vice-Chancellor, and that being done, to obtain an order to
supply the defect in the record sent to the House of Lords.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. J. Parker, and Mr. James,
for the crown, or Lords of the Treasury, opposed the applica-
tion, and referred at length to passages in Lord Cotten-
ham's written judgment on the appeal, to show that he did
not forget the position of the parties. The claims of the dill's!.
rent parties stood thus : Greenwood and Cox had a mortgage
on York House for 30,0001. in 1823 . Coutts and Co. had
another mortgage on it fur 30,0001. The Duke re-
quiring more money to finish York HOW, applied to the
Lords of the Treasury representing to them that Green-
woos!' and Cox were to take a lien for 10,00011. of the
30,0001. upon the Duke's: plate (which was at Coutta and
Co.'s, and was worth 20,000 f.) The result of the negotia-
tion was that the Lords of the Treasury advanced the mu-
ney to the Duke, and became sole mortgagees, as they
thought, of the house and gardens, &c., for 60,0001. by taking
assignments of the mortgages to Courts and Greenwood and
Co. These latter were also general creditors of the Duke
and claimed besides a special lien on the plate. The exe-
cutors also claimed the plate, and so did the Lords of the
Treasury, who were special creditors on the plate as well
as the house for a much larger sum than the house sold fur.
This was the state of facts, and Lord Cottenham's judgment
was perfectly applicable to it.
The Lord Chancellor read the whole of Lord Cottenhant's
MSS. judgment, and said it appeared to him to be appli-
cable to the circumstances of the case, and he fully con-
curred in it. The discussion which had taken place before
the appeal committee made hint conversant with all the
facts of the can, and seeing that the judgment disposed of
the whole ease, he was under the necessity of refusing the
present application, which he did with costs.

Baroas VI

KNIGHT Biwa..

RE LONDON AND V BIUNIINNHAIL EXTENSION AND
NORTHAMPTON, DAVENTRY, LEAMING7O:4, AND WAR-
WICK RAILWAY COMPANY.-GAY'S CARE.-WINDING-VP
ALTO.-CALLII.

Mr. NV. I'. 8. Daniel and Mr. Cale moved, by way of
appeal from the decision of the Master, whereby he ordered
a call of It. 134. per share to be paid by the contributories
included in class one (in which the appellant was included),
on the 22nd of August next. Class I consisted ef 484 con-
tributories, who had executed the subscription contract in
respect of 18,175 shares. The call was made fur the eau-
pose of paying off debts of the company amounting to
2,7311. 16s. id., which hadbeea found by the Master to be due
in respect of the bills of parliamentary agents and solicitors,
the secretary's salary, advertisements, and expenses of wit-
' nesses before the standing orders committee, and also the
expenses of winding up the affairs of the company, amount-
ing to 1,9501., the whole sum required being 4,6811. His. 4d.
In support of the appeal it was insisted that the members
of the committee of management had received much more
than sufficient to pay all the expenses fur which the call was
made, and that they ought fully to account for
their receipts and payments before any further de-
mand could be made upon the shareholders, who had
already paid more than their rateable share towards the
expenses. It was also insisted that there was no evidence
that the demands in respect of which the cull was made were
binding on the subscribers at large, or were made in respect
of contracts entered into in the manner prescribed by the
subscription contract. " Ite Carrick" (15 Jurist, 645) was
cited.
Mr. Cooper, Mr. Malin, and Mr. Swift, for the official
manager, referred to" Ex parte Preece," and " Ex parte Prit-
chard." decided by his Honour, and contended that under
the Winding-up Acts a call might he made at once, leaving
the relative liabilities of the different contributories for
subsequent adjustment, and that it wouldbe unjust towards
the creditors who had forborne to Enforce their demands,
upon the faith of having them discharged under the pro-
visions of the acts, to compel them to wait until all the
questions of relative liability between the shareholders were
adjusted.
l'he Vice-Chancellor said that the cases mentioned
during the argument as having been decided by him might
or might not have been correctly decided ; but whether
correctly or incorrectly decided, they did not appear to him
to govern the present case, and they seemed to him scarcely
to affect it. He must assume that thin question was raised
before the Master upon his intention being made known of
making a call upon the contributories, being a question be-
tween the contributories who tormcd the managing com-
mittee and those who did not form the managing committee,
whether, by reason of the great sums they had re-
ceived from the shareholders at large, and which
they had not accounted for, they were liable in the
first instance to the call, or hable, at least, in a
much greater degree. Now, a case might be coneeived
in which there might be so urgent a necessity as to render
it not unfit, for a time at least, to disregard and post-'
pone such a question, and to make the call at once.
Assuming, however, that there might be such a case ren-
dering that temporary injustice unavoidable, the question
still remained whether this was such a case, and it seemed to
his Honour that there were in the master's office the means
of entering into that question and of deciding it, to a great
extent at least, if not wholly, between the managing corn-
I mittee and the shareholders,. The managing committee
might have been required to tliiiilit an account of
the sums which they had received in the course
of their management, and then something approach-
ing to a notion might have been formed, not only
upon the question whether there was to be an equality of
contribution between the managing committee and the
general shareholders, but also as to the amount of the cull.
His Honour thought that between the two inconveniences,
or the two hazards (if there were two), it would have beta

safer and better to attempt at least to investigate that quest
tion before making the call, the call having been made
without entering into the question or hearing arguments,
and without calling for evidence. With deference to the
Master, his Honour thought that in this particular case it
would be better to adopt thatcourse. The Master, it appeared,
considered that the decision in "Es parte Pritchard" pre-
' eluded him, but his Honour had not intended to preclude
the Master from adopting such a course. The order for a
call must be discharged without prejudice, in order that the
I matter might he gone into before the Master as to this ques-
tion with the managing committee. The who!c order must
be discharged; it could not he qualified, and the costs must
come out of the estate. It might he suggested to the Master
I that his Honour thought it would be desirable to hear this
case again as to the managing committee. If the Master
should find that he could not;do it, he would proceed accord-
ingly. As to the costs of the application before the Master,
which it was stated he had refused to Mr. Gay, his Honour
! said if he had jurisdiction to give the costs, he should direct
them to be paid out of the estate.

BUM:VE:O4. OF THE COVRT.

The Vice-Chancellor said he should hear the remaining
motions on Monday next, tho 4th August.

I'ItEitOGATIVE COURT.—YESTERD tV.
11/PORE. SIT: 11. J. Fern.
CIA:ARSON r. TF.AOUF..
This was a business of proving, in solemn form of law,
the last will and testament. and also a codicil, dated respec-
tively the 2ith January, ISIS, and the 1.4 Noveml•r,
of Mrs. ri.m.th DowilitCli, late of Newington. The ergo-
meets were closed this morning, but from the nature of
some of the charges involved in the case. we reserve OUT
notice until the judgment.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YESTERDAT.
Buns. Ma. F01011.10,..il Fuss.
IN RE II01.T1101!ME.
no bankrupt, C. Ilelthouse, was described as a sugar
broker, sugar dealer, and wine merchant, of Great Tower-
street. This was the meeting for the last examination. The
balance-sheet, prepared by Mr. Thomas, of Gresham-greet,
extended from the Ist of January, 1819, to the 26th of
April last. The following arc the principal items :—To
creditor., 7,189/. ; do., secured, 1,50fi1. ; liabilities, 1,1154 ;
profits 8251. By good debtors, 3551. ; property, :112/.; du.
held by creditors, 2601.; trade expenses, 6551, ; interest,
779!. ; personal expenses, 6431. ; lass en vale of sugar,
993!.; do.. on realisation of property, 21W. ; sundry losses,
614!. ; deficiency its lot Jan., 1849, 4,065/.
Mr. Lawrence supported the bankrupt; Mr. Matthews
opposed for the assignees. Mr. Bagley opposed for Messrs.
Travers, grocers, of St. Swithist's-lane.
Mr. Canaan, the official assignee, stated, in answer to the
court, that the assets had been well realised. The total
amount of the purchases was 36,6001., upon which there
was a lost of 3 per cent., or 1,200/. Those purchases en-
tended over a period of 27 months.
The bankrupt being examined, admitted the above facts,
and added that he made the purchases upon two months
credit. The greater part of his mercantile transactions,
witness said, were entered in his books. Admitted that he
bought, in the three mouths next preceding his bankruptcy,
of three merchants, sugar to the ratite of 2,800/., and that
at the time of the bankruptcy there was not more than two
hundred weight of sugar. It was not his habit to have
sugar on his premises. Had no warehouse. When the
balance-sheet commenced, in January, 1849, there was a
deficiency of 4,0'91. In March, 18.51, bought four bags ot
Mauritius sugar. Th.! bankrupt was questioned on tins
head. Bought the sugar from MOWN. TrlverS and Co.,
and sold it to Brucksner and Cu. The original entry in the
book stated the amount bought, but the remainder of the
entry, vie., the value, and to whom disposed of, &c., was
made subsequently to the sale. It Was not, however, show n
that the entry was in :my manner frauoulent, or made with
the intention of deceiving. Acted partly as nu rebind and
partly as brok.as Bought, on the I Ith ot:M arch, sugar from
ltlessrs. Travrrs, at Wis. lid., and sold a 36a. per cwt., en
the 13th, and tic's allowed discount. The goods were sold
to Meters. Bruckner. The discount witness allowed was
5 per cent. per annum. Lost, on the average, 3 per cent.
by his marcantila transactions.
The main charge now urged against the bankrupt was
imperfect ban! -I:Aping ; and it was attempted to be shown
that the bankrupt had kept his books imperfectly, and with
the view to dscaive his creditors, thus bringing the bankrupt
within the penal provisions of the Consolidition Att.
llk Hon( •:r iILI red think there hail been the slightest
attempt at eancealtnant since the bankrupt came into the
court. The clause was a highly penal one, involving nu
absolute refusal of' protection from arrest, and must there-
fore 1w construed strictly. The bankrupt, though not conn-
ing strictly within the language of this ss (lion, might still
he liable to punishment at the certificate meeting, when
every part of his coaduct must be considered.
Mr. 13.ssley contended that, independently of the 2.51;t11
(Action. the bankrupt had nut made such a disclosure as to
entitle him to p loi; but, under the third clause of that
section, he had clearly contracted debts by fraud.
Ilia amour said the trade and the public were much in-
debted to Messrs. Travers for having come forward and ex-
troaed the eowlact pursued by this bankrupt. But the
application for reliant of protection was premature. It was
!handed oa the 9th clause of the 256th seethe'', which lett
I no discretion to the court if any of the offences therein
specified bud been committed. It was therefore necessary
carefully to couaislcr the words of the clause, which were,
in tact, contraili(!tory, the terms " wilfully" and " imper-
fectiv, carelessly. or negligently," being applied to the
same act. Tlw latter words had probably crept in lead-
vertently ; ha must hold that the acme must be " wilful."
Ile did not think such was the case in this instance. There
was Critil•Sl!y no intention en the part of the bankrupt to
conceal the Aide of his affairs, as he had disclosed every-
thing with the most perfect candour; and his books, when
examined by an accountant, gave an easy clue to Isis trans-
actions. But it was said he had contracted debts by fraud,
and was thus broil:tilt within the penal section. The court
(lid not think that this man', mode of dealing amounted to
such a fraud as was here coutemplated. lle did nut say the
bankrupt's conduct was free from blame; but that would
be a consideration at the certicatspmeeting. In all such
eases it was better to allow a bankrupt to pass his Manilla.
tion, where 1w Mel spoken the truth. Ile believed this
man had done so, that his accounts( were true, and that he
fully shadow...l hit affairs. Ile would, therefore, pass his
last examination.
The certificate meeting was fixed for the 22nd of August.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YESTERDA Y.

Datortx La Cmiriamonota Pwit.urs.
IN Tilt MATTEIt lo: Tile itEV.EDWAItneIIARLT.4 Samtru.

This insolvent, who had held a curacy near Chelmsford, was
opposed by. Mr. Woo!lett or several tradesmen, resident at
Chelmsford, and supported by Mr. Nichols.
The case occupied several hours. The point raised was,
that the insolvent tad incurred debts without reamniable
expectations of payment. lie had been vice-principal ot
Grosvecor College. at Bath, and he was subsequently
curate in Essex. Ilin relatives had paid his former debts,
and he now owed about 6001. In addition to his income as
a curate, which was about 1001. a-year, be took pupils; and
iu his last place he was sold up by an execution. It cane
out in the course of the case that he had incurred 3,000!. ot
debts at Cambridge, and he said he went to the universay
when ho was 16; the debts had been paid.
Mr. Commissioner l'hillips expressed his abhorrence at
the manner in which credit was given to boys who were at
the universities. Ile had done all he could, in connexion
with his brethren the other commissioner., to repress th,•
system.
The d, bta on the schedule were investigated and counsel
addressed the court.
. . . . .

Mr. tominvononer Phillips wasof opinion, that the point
of contracting debts without reasonable means of payment
was got rid of. Ile, however, considering the amount of
debts, and the experience he had, by his relative paying
the former account, tholght it wit., a case fur a remand,
under the discretionary clause. There was a kind relative
who had assisted the insolvent, and as the case would be
adjourn.' to serve a creditor omitted, application had better
be made to the individual, as it would probably obviate tiie
necessity of an adverse judgment.
The case was adjourned.