The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-04 00:00:00

Before the Master of the R Bs.

..
IN NIFOULIDS Alen PATLICH..—TAXATION.—Mr. Matins
presented a petition, on behalf of Matthew Rowland, for the
taxation of a bill of costa of Messrs. Foulkes and Parker,
solicitors at Wrexham. It appeared that the petitioner was
the pereonal representative of one Matthew Rowland, a
private soldier, who was entitled to a legacy of 1001. under
the will of Rd. Dimon. Os the death of the surviving
executor of Menton's will his widow took out letters of ad-
ministration, with the will annexed, and on her death, in
1843, one Richard Some, a clerk of Messrs. Foulkes and
Parker, became the acting personal representative of
the testator, and as such received a part of this personal
estate. All the legacies bequeathed by the testator were paid
except the one of 100/. given to Mr. Rowland. Andßowland
being dead, and it being unknown who was entitled to the
legacy, Some invested the amount in the name of Mr.
Foulkes. Inquiries were subsequently made by Messrs.
Foulkes and Parker, and advertisements published to ascer-
tain the party entitled, and the result was the establishment
of the petitioner's claim. Mr. Foulkes deducted 3.51., the
amount of his bill of costs in making the inquiries, from the
legacy, and paid over the residue. It appeared that the bill
of costa was not sent to the petitioner for examination before
payment; and for the petitioner it wan now insisted that
there were several overcharges in the bill, and that
there were also charges for personal trouble by Mr.
Foulkes which he could not make, as he was a
trustee of the legacy. The petitioner had offered to
allow 181., but contended that the charges ought not to
have exceeded 51.—Mr. Turner, for the respondents, said
that Mr. Foulkes bad been put to a great deal of trouble and
expense, and that as he had taken charge of the legacy for
the purpose of protecting it, it was hard that he should be
disallowed his costs, which were reasonable.
The Muter of the Rolls regretted that there should be a
dispute about so trifling a matter. He wan very far from
saying that Mr. Foulkes had not acted quite properly, and
was not justified in making the inquiries which he did, and
which were necessarily of an intricate and expensive nature.
Rut he collected that he had constituted himself a trustee of
the fund ; and being so, and having regard to the mode of
payment and to the fact that he had not previously delivered
the bill of costs for examination, he could not refuse to order
taxation. The eouree, however, taken by the petitioner
might entail much greater expense upon him, and he urged
the expediency of a compro.

Before the vice-Chanoellor of Wand.
PEOLIBR o. AIATON.—INJUNCTION Ad TO A CARGO OF
CORIL—Thia was a modes to dissolve an injunction granted
by the court to maids the defendants, Messrs. Alston,
Boman and Ce.„ naleshant in London, their &Bente and
Nirvana, fresio„AZir, 1. or dispasinig of two cargoes
of cork wood,m Ihrpt' by Icing Cisinart, of Seville,
' -et of pain, by die ships Protheroc and Mai-
also fr porting with the bills of jOinft/
9411di0agearslka documents relatlPg tc

the said sciallgnments, except to the plaintiffs, the Messrs.
Pegler, merchant', of London ; and also to restrain the cap-
tains of said two ships from parting with the consign-
ments no any other persons than the plaintiffs. The injunc-
tion wan- pentad upon the ground that the Messrs. Pegler
bad ashamed same of money to John Guinart for the
;woos, of cork, which was to be oo
te them L but that is kneel of this agreement, John =
had sent over tha beibeemntioned consignments to Mown

Alston, Heaven, and Co. Ice support a the injunction, it
wee contended that Mans. Alston and Co. had no know-
ledge of any agreement existing between Oniaart and the
plaintiffs, and that the cargoes of cork had been forwarded to
them in the ordinary course of basinees.—Mr. Bothell and
Mr. Goldsmith appeared for the motion, and Mr. Stuart and
Mr. Bigg in support of the injunction.
The Viet-Chancellor said it appeared from the affidavits
which were filed that there had been an agreement between
the plaintiffs and Guinan that, in respect of any delltosiiiii
might happen to be due from Guinan to the p&P tapas
advances made by the plaintiffs. all the cork sent to Ragland
by Guinart should be consigned to the plaintiff in discharge
of the monies so advanced by them, but still, it was impossible
for the defendants, Mean. Alston, Heaven, and Co., to have
divined that such an egreementhad t iken place, and he did not
see on the face of the affidavit that anything which had taken
place between the parties could have shown that fact to the
defendant'. If any such agreement subsisted in the way re-
presented by the plaintiffs, it was their duty to have men-
tioned it to the defendants at an interview which was said to
have taken place upon the subject in the month of July last.
His Honour considered there were no grounds for supporting
the injunction, which must therefore be dissolved.

BeforeTice-Chancellor Knight Brace.
Cops v. RCIISELL.—ABSCONDING TO AVOID SERVICE OF
SUBINENA.—Mr. Swift moved, under the 31st order of May
1815, ca behalf of the plaintiff, for leave to enter an appear-
ance fora defendant who had left this country before the hill

was filed : the only question being, whethe; a person who
had gone away before any procese had issued, could be held
to have absconded for the purpose of avoiding being served
with the subprena.—The N ice-Chancellor said he did not
wish to be the first to introduce a new practice, but his own
impression was in favour of the motion. His Honour, how-
ever, directed the application to stand over until inquiry had
been made in the registrar's office as to the practice.—The
Lord Chancellor having, under the 10th and 11th Pict., c.
102, appointed the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce to be the
Vice-Chancellor who is to exercise the jurisdiction of the
late Court of Review in Bankruptcy, his Honour proceeded
to hear bankrupt petitions.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
FISHER V. THE ROYAL EXCHANGE ASBCUANCE COM-
PANT.—MARINR ASSY KANCE.—Sir F Thesiger, Q.C.,
moved for a rule to show cause why the plaintiff's verdict in
this case, which was tried at the sittings in Guildhall after
last term, should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on
the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. The
action was brought on two time policies, running respec-
tively from the 18th of June, 1842, to the 18th of June,
1843, and from the 18th of June, 1843, to the 18th of June,
1314, by which the defendants undertook to insure a vessel
called the Mary Mallaby, trading from the Mauritius to the
Persian Gulf. On the earlier policy the plaintiff sought to
recover for an average loss, and the jury bad awarded him
1231. damages ; on the later policy, he declared on a total
loss, and the jury me him 1,8101. The defence sug-
gested was, that the vessel had run ashore, and had then
been sacrificed by a sale. The learned counsel also moved,
on an affidavit, which accounted for the absence at the trial
of a materialwitness for the defence, and suggested that he
would be forthcoming if another trial should be granted.—
Lord Denman said that the case was one which required dis-
cussion, and that there ought to be a rule.—Rule nisi.
EDITARDA AND WIFE T. WILLIAMB.—CONVERSION OT
I ITLE-DEEDS.--The Attorney-General moved, by leave of
the learned judge who tried this case, for a rule to show
cause why the plaintiffs' verdict should not be set aside.
The action was one of trover for four title-deeds ; the facts
had been, by consent, found by the judge ; and two questions
of law had been reserved, of which one was disposed of by a
more minute examination of certain deeds. The only re-
maining question was whether the defendant, who is an
attorney, had been guilty of a conversion of the deeds. They
had been handed to him along with others to examine, on
behalf of a client who was about so become the purchaser of
a certain estate. The purchase bad been completed ; and all
the deeds had been delivered by the defendant to the pur-
chaser. It was afterwards discovered that the four deeds in
question had nothing to do with the estate which bad been
purchased, end a demand of them was made on the defen-
dant, who said that he had not got them, and if he had them
would not give them up, as they were the muniments of the
estate which his client had purchased. The question, then,
was whether this demand and refusal amounted to a conver-
sion.—Lord Denman said that the real question would be
whether the defendant bad parted with the deeds wrong-
fully. The best mode of proceeding would be to state the facts
in a special case ; if the other aide would not consent to that
arrangement the rule would be granted.
ARCHIBALD O. TATLOIL—MARINE ASAGRANCE.—Sir F.
Thesiger, Q.C., moved for a rase calling on the plaintiff to
show cause why the verdict which passed for him at the
trial, which took place at Guildhall after last term, should
not be set aside, and a new trial had. The action was
brought on a policy for insuring a vessel of the plaintiff,
called the Greyhound. The fifth plea had set up the
defence that the plaintiff had concealed information material
to a due estimation of the risk.

Lord Denman: If I recollect rightly, a letter was re-
ceived from the brother of the plaintiff in time for the com-
munication of its contents to those who were about to
undertake the risk. The case must be discussed.—Rule nisi.
BELL V. SEETEINOTON.—ATTORNEY'S BILL.—Sir F.
Thcsiger, Q C., moved for a rule to show cause why the
plaintiff's verdict in this cause should not be set aside, and a
new trial had, unless he should consent to reduce the verdict
from 2,3271. to 1751. ss. 10d. The action was brought
afainst Sir Lumley Skeffington, for the recovery of a
bill of costs due to the plaintiff as solicitor of the
defendant, in certain proceedings in the court of
Equity, Exchequer, and the Howe of Lords. The defence
was, that the plaintiff had agreed to conduct the proceedings
for the money out of pocket, if they should, es on fact they
did, prove unsuccessful. The friends of the defendant had
advanced him 1,7001. towards the expenses. When the
plaintiff's bill of costs was delivered it was not found to
'contain a distinct account of the disbursements, but to be
made up of items very vague and general, such as " nume-
roue attendances, 201'. ;" " innumerable attendances, 50/."
tinder a judge's order particulars of the disbursements were
obtained, and from them it appeared that the plaintiff 's ad-
vances exceeded the money paid to him by the sum of
1751. Se. 10d. The jury was desirous of awarding to the
plaintiff a verdict for this sum; but as the particulars is the
action confined the demand to the " bill of costs," the judge
told them that they could not give the verdict for that
balance. The jury then found for the plaintiff for the whole
amount of the bill of costa.—Lord Denman : Take a rule.—
Rule nisi.
COWLEY.- T'"-

DYER V. __ --WHAT 15 A DELIVERY OF GOODS ?
—Serjeant Kinglake moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict in this case, which passed for the plaintiff at the last
assizes for the city of Bristol, with 251. damages, should not
be set aside, and a consult entered. The de-
fendant had agreed to buy two leopards from the plain-
tiff for the sum of 301. ' • he paid 51. to the plaintiff on account,
and then went up to London from Bristol to get the re-
mainder of the purchme-money,the animals being in the mean
time given into the custody of one Gregory, who was to re-
turn them to the plaintiff if the money should not be forth-
coming. When the defendant returned with the money, the
leopards were dead, end he refused to pay. The plaintiff
then brought this action, and declared as for goods sold and
delivered. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, with leave
to the defendant to enter a nonsuit, if the court should think
that the delivery to Gregory, preserving the plaintiffs lien,
was not sufficient to sustain the action.—Lord Denman:
Take a rule. Rule nisi.

in the kids o
colm B=:1