The Express.
London, England, 1848-08-12 00:00:00

NAVAL

ADMIRALTY APPOINTIdP.NTA, Ato. 11.—Lieutenant E.
P. Fudge, to Iteynard.—Aeting-Alarter A. Ralliger, to Myra,
Second Mader: IL B. Golder, Ocean.—alidehipman M. W. B.
Eilnardw, Eurydice.--Maaters%Areialante t E. P. G. Browne, Victory ;
W. Granville, nail Joint; T. 'farina, at. Vincent.

MEDICAL.

HALL.—Names of gentlemen .ho pained
their examination In the science and practice of medicine, and re-
ceived certificates to practiae, on Thum-ay, Aug. 10, luta Keen,
Parham, Suffolk; L Armsironv, liczbarn, Northumberland; W.
C. Lake, Teigemouth, Demo; F. flopirith, Tunbridge Welk ; J. 0.
Fletci.cr, Manchester.

and that, in 1633, he was by patent raised to the dignity of
Earl of Southesk,with limitations to him aid his heirs male ;
that the said David had four sons, the first of whom died
in his father's lifetime, without issue ; and the second, James
Carregie, auteeeded, on the death of his father. in 1658, to the
said dignities, and died in 1669, after which the said earldom
and barony descended lineally to and were enjoyed by h:e
son Robert, and grandson, Charles (son of Robert), and great
grandson, James (son of Charles), the fifth earl acd baron,
who joined in the rebellion of 1715, and was attained of
treason, and died without surviving blew', in 1729;
that the issue of John Carnegie, third son of
David, first earl, was then extinct, and the dignities would,
were it not for the attaineer, base devolved on the issue
male of Alexander, the said David's fourth son, from whom
the claimant is lineally descended, being his grandson's great
grandson, and also heir male of the first earl, a,.d so entitled,
in the terms of the patents, to both the dignities. The
claimant has not sought a reversal of the attainder of the
filth earl and baron in 1715, and therefore a question of
law arises, viz., whether that attainder acted the collateral
heirs male of the patentee.—Sir F. Kelly said he bad several
witnesses for examination in support of the claim, and as
they were brought here at great expense, he would ask the
committee to take their evidence now, although he could not
but feel that this case was somewhat affected by the deca-ion
which their lordships had given in the Perth case. Tbla
decision came on him by surprise, but he would
compare its effect in this claim, and wouid not
trouole the committee again in the present session.—Lord
Lyndhurst, alter conferring with the Lord Chancellor, the
Earl of Devon, and the chairman, said the proposal now
made appeared to them to be to take c siittnce de bene ewe
of this claim. He would suggest to the :earned eounsel that
it would be bettes first to dispose of the question of law, be.
fore occupying the time of their lordships in taking evidence
which might turn out to be useless.—Sir F. Kelly submitted
to th,t suggestion, and the further consideration of the Chia
was adjourned sine die.

13efore Vise-Chancellor Knight Brune.
Ex PARTE litGOlNSost RE HIGOINsoy.—SPRETT.—This
was the petitien ot the bankrupt to have the fiat annulled on
equitable grounds, and also on the ground of 1•gal ince-
lidity. The act of bankruptcy on which the fiat issued was
the failure to pay or secure a debt, according to the provi-
sions of the act 1 & 2 Vie., c. 110, a. 8 ; and the debts re-
lied upon for this purpose were two of 60,0001. ant 53,000!.,
being nmounte of which the bankrupt ht,d gusi :intend the
payment to the Royal Bank of Liverpool by the firm of Bar-
ton, Irlam, and Higginson, a partner in which firm was a,
brother of the bankrupt. It was agreed on both sides that
it was part of the arrangement, in pursuance of which the
former of these guarantees was given, that the bankrupt
should have, as a counter-security, an assignment of certain
ships of which the firm of Barton, Islam, and Higginson
were the registered owners, and that the ships were assigned
accordingly to the bankrupt, but that the assign-
ment was never registered. A paint. however,
no which the evidence was conflicting was, whether
it was part of the arrangement that the Rural Bank
should call on the bankrupt to have the seem ity on the
ships realieed, if there should be °COMP n. On November
13, 1847, the firm of Barton, Islam, and Hioginson became
bankrupt, the act of bankruptcy on which the fiat against
them was issued being a failure to pay a debt dun to the
Royal Bank; and on July 3, 1848, the fiat isau. d against
the present bankrupts. Previously to its issuing the bank-
rupt filed a bill in Chancery to restrain the Royal Bank from
proceeding to make the pititirner a bankrupt under the act
1 & 2 Vic , c. 110, a. 8, and he obtained an ex parse injunc-
tion, which the Vice-Chancellor of England refused to die-
solve on the coming in of the answer, but which was dis-
solved on appeal betore the Lord Chancellor.—Mr. Russell
and Mr. C. Hall, in support of the petition, contended that,
whether it wan part of the understanding or not, the Royal
Bank should give the bankrupt notice to have his security on
the ships registered. It was in the absence of any such
understanding clearly the duty of the bank, who were
parties to that understanding, not to do an act, which, by
rendering the principal debtors bankrupt., would destroy
the bankrupt's counter-security, without at least giving him
notice of their intention to do so, in order that by register-
ing his assignment he might prevent the ships pawing to the
assignees of the principal debt*: s as being in the reputed owner-
ship of the latter, and that, as they had by the pence 'rings
against Barton, Irlam, and Higginson, deprived the hank rupt
ot his counter-security, it washiequitable Tor them to sue out a
fiat upon the guaranteed debt. Time. were Ise legal objections
to the fiat ; one b sing on the ground that the 1 6: 3 Viet.,
c. 110, a. 8, was, in effect, repealed hy the & d Viet., e. 122,
0.11, and another that the public officer cf abinking company
c not make the requisite affidavit of tle!A under the for-
mer statute. The Vice.Chancel:or, (without hearing Mr.
Bacon, Mr. Rolt, or Mr. J. V. Prior, who appeared to sup-
port the fiat) add that, in order to annul a ii t for equitable
invalidity, a el.'ar case must be established. The ground oa
which the petitioning ere ditors' deb: was impeached was, at
the utmost, a moral ground only. It did not 'meant to an
equity. As to the legal objections, the petitioner was entitled
to have their validity decided by an action. The terms of the
requisite proceed.ngs at law for this purp.ise were then ar-
ranged, and the petition was ordered to stand over to abide
the result.