The Express.
London, England, 1848-12-14 00:00:00

MILITARY.

THI PIWINSULL XlDALll.—AllOtaat delay will eaka
*cola thedelimey of these medals. They web to have been Issued
this month, otter repeated delays • but sr i hear Just as ornately that
they will sot be reedy until the end of Jed may, 1819, and, even then,
but a Email Mouthed= may be ems 'tad. Mess repeated delays
are very iumoylng to both the Mows end men.

SPORTING.
MLNCHIBTED, TUISDAT.—Not a bet made OD any event
eampt the Wolverhampton Steeple Chase.

Late inttilignitt.

EQUITY COURTS.—YeaTEIDAT.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
JACKSON T. THE NORTH WALRO RAILWAY COMPANY.—
AN ALLEGED CONTRACT NOT MADE Our.—This was an
appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce over-
g a demurrer to the plaintiff's bill—Mr. Bacon and
Mr. J. H. Palmer, in support of the Vice. Chancellor's eider,
stated the case to the effect that the plaintiff was a contrao-
tor for executiag railway works oa a large scale, and applied
for a contract to Sir John Rennie, the engineer of the defen-
dants, to undertake the works on part of their line betweea
Bangor and Caernarvon. From the correspondence between
the plaintiff and Sir J. Rennie, the former conceived, erro-
neously, that he was bound by contract with the defendants,
and he made, or alleged that, from Nov., 1845, to February,
1846, he bad made exp:nsive preparations to begin the
works and carry them on with vigour. The secretary to
the company wrote to him that there was no contract, and
that he ought to have an interview with the directors. He
accordingly took occasion to have some interviews with them
at their offices, and he assumed, from what passed with
them, that the contract wee sanctioned by the directors,
whereas that was not the case, and the trustees afterwards
had it commune sated to the plaintiff that there was no con-
tract with him. He then tiled his bill, not directly to esta-
blish a contract, but to have an account taken of the moneys
which he had laid out, and the expenses to which he was
entitled for his time, &c. The part of the bill on which the
demurrer was founded was an allegation that the defendants
were trustees, and had, in that character, within their con-
trol, large sums of money, which were subject to his demand
on the company : the Vice-Chancellor, though he over-
ruled the demurrer, did not think the plaintiff made out a
satisfactory ea, e.—Mr. J. Russell and Mr. Giffard, fir
the plaintiff and appellant, referred to various alle-
gations in his bill, which they contended showed
a cue for a court of equity. The Lord Chan-
cellor took occasion, timing the argument, to intimate hit
opinion on the workings of the case, and at tne conclusion his
lordship gave his judgment. It did not appear to him that
there was the least pirticie of equity raised in the bill. The
contract, u alleged, for oonsti twang a railway for this com-
pany, was net a valid contract in its origin ; and then arose
the question whether what happened afterwards had or
could make it a contract, not having been reduced to
writing. It was alleged that the company had recognised
Sir John Rennie as their agent, and that be had agreed with
the plaintiff. The facts disclosed on this interview were
that the plaintiff had certain conversations with Sir John
Rennie as to the probability of the intended railway being a
single or a double line of railway, and with respect to the
charges of the construction of the railway, which were to be
according to the regulated scale of charges. But that, it
appeared, the plaintiff had waived ; and the question then
arose whether that fact toad not hay.) superseded the con-
tract, if contract it were By the Statute of Frauds the
contract to bind the company ought to have been reduced to
writing. Minutesof a contract had beensuggested and declined
or refused; noise had been concluded. It was sought now
to compel a discovery, on the ground that the railway company
had in its poetesion certain documents which would make
out the plaintiff's case. The bill also attempted to establish
that the company were trustees for the payment of the
plaintiff's debt. In thus alleging a trust the court ought to
be informed what the trust was, and what were the facts
upon which the trust attached. Here the plaintiff had not
done so, end therefore the court ought not to be, nor could
be, called upon to enforce it. The cue did not in factatbz
here, for the facts contaiceil jn the bill el the
showed that there was no such trust as was alleged. The
Vice-Chancellor, had said, in giving kis judgment, that there
was en infinitesimal quantity of equity in the bill; but his
lordship's opinion was, that email as the equity war, it was
entirely evanescent, and he therefore would allow the de-
murrer. His lordship then rose, having heard and disposed
of the appeals (only two) on the paper of the day.
RHRAM O. SMITH AND OTHIRS.—A. DEFUNCT JOINT
STOCK COMPANY.—A FIRM, ONE OF WHOM WAB A SHARI.
HOLDEN, MAY till OTHER SHAILIIIIOLDERB.—Tkis was an
appeal from an order of the Vice Chancellor of England.
allowing a demurrer to the plaintiff's bill. It appeared from
the statements of counsel that a number of persons, inhabi-
tants of Hull and that neighbourhood, formed a company in
1816 to found a Proprietary College, and with that view
issued shares of 101. each. The project failed after some time.
and there was a balance of 1,2001. against the company at
their banker's. These brought their action for that balance
against Mr. Rheum, who then filed this bill to restrain the
action, alleging that he was holder of one share only in the
joint stock company, and that John H. Smith, a member
of the banking firm, held one &hare, and was equally liable
I with the plaintiff for the debt of the company. The defen-
dants, partners with Smith in the banking firm, de-
murred to the bill, and their demurrer was allowed
by the Vice-Chancellor, from whose order thereon this
was an appeal. Mr. Hilt and Mr. R. Palma supported the
demurrer and the Vice Chancellor's order. Mr. Stuart and
Mr. Goodeve, for the plaintiff, contended that the demurrer
ought to be disallowed, and submitted that as J. H. Smith,
one of the bankers, was jointly liable with the plaintiff, the
*he!, ought not tole allowed to bring the action ; it was to
effect the ante OA an action by one member de'
joint stock company against another member, for the debt
of the whole company. The plaintiff was ready to pay his
own individual share of the olebt.—The Lord Chancellor,
without hearing the reply, said the argument appeared is
him to amount to this, that because one member is the
ba&kifirm was a shareholder, and liable equally with the
si
to the payment of the debt, all the members of the
g firm were precluded from outing the plaintiff fee a
debt due, not to Smith, but to the firm. His lordship re-
hued to general rule, but would not on this point go on
only general principles in respect to demurrers. Taking the
statements in the bill (some of which his lordship read),
he was of opinion that they did not make out any case for
the interposition of the court. The bill was filed by an indi-
vidual who was sued at law for a debt due to the banking
firm, plaintiffs at Law, and his allegation was, that the firm
was not entitled to sue him, because J. H. Smith, a member
of the firm, was equally liable with this individual to pay the
debt, for the whole of which he was sued. The banking
firm say they had nothing to do with the debts of Mr. Smith.
They were sluing for their banking concern in their legal
right. if Smith was liable to make up put of the 1,2001.,
the plaintiff would have his remedy over against him for con-
tribution. The plaintiff says he will not pay until the whole
concern shall be wound up. It may happen that Smith has
no property in the bank, but is indebted to it, and on that
supposition would this court prevent the firm from seeing for
this debt, which is admitted to be due, not to Smith, but to
the firm ? There is no allegation in the bill to show that
Smith would be individually entitled to one Lunn', of this
debt of 1,2001., when recovered by the bank. The demurrer
must be allowed for want of .quit in the bill, and not on
any general rule upon which the Vice Chancellor put his
order.

Before Vios.Chaneellor Haight Bross.
THE ROYAL ETCHLNOB.
ATTORRIST GENERAL V. STRAIIGE.—PRINCE ALBERT V.
TIM SANE.—This ease came on upon the motion of the de-
fendant Strange to dissolve the injunction. The motion was
in the first instance only made in the suit in which Prince
Albert is plaintiff.
Mr. Russell, in support of the motion, said that he moved
in the cause of " Prince Alberto. Strange" to dissolve the in-
junction which had been granted in that case, in far as it
restrained the defendant Strange, his agents, servants, and
workmen from selling or in any manner publishing and from
printing the descriptive catalogue in the information men-
tioned, or any work being or purporting to be a catalogue of
the etchings therein mentioned.
The Vice Chancellor If I recollect rightly, this is
a portion of the case on which I expressed ison.iderable diffi-
culty when the application was first mentioned to me,
although at the time I thought it right to grant the injunc-
tion. I then required an undertaking on the part of the
plaintiff as to damages, which wu given with great readi-
ness.
Mr. Russell said that was the only part of the in-
junction which coucerned the defendant Strange. The only
queatioa as regarded him was as to the right of lus
Royal Highness to prevent him from printing and pub-
lishing any wands. The hill stated that her Majesty and
the prince had occasionally for their amusement made draw-
ings and etching., being principally of private ani romntic
interest to themselves, and of which etchings they had made
impressions Inc their own use, and not for publication. Far
the greater privacy, such impressions had been made for the
most part by means of a private press kept for that purpose,
and the plates themselves ha., been ordinarily kept by her
Majesty under lock, and the impressions bad been placed in
some of tte private apartments at Windsor, and in such
private apartment only. Tat the defendant Strange and
the two deiendanta named Judge had in some manner ob-
tained some of such impressions, which had been surrepti-
tiously taken from some of such plates, and had thereby been
enabled to form and had formed a F Illery or collection of
such etchings of which they wended to make
public exhibition, without the permission of her
Majesty or Priem Albert, or either of them, and
against their will. That the defendants had com-
pile 1 and prepared a work which had been printed and
published by the defendant Strange. The bill then set out
extracts from the catalogue, and then stated that 146 cata-
logue and descriptive remarks couhttparliare bees eodipilall
•

ts's

...
Vi "" _-.1.1 ,' 7.
i 4:4 i. a ilf.
ki..(3..)