The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-19 00:00:00

Rata) iinteltigence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
Tri. Loy.% itr/CILI
ATTORNEY GENERAL e. 111.41DOCR AND OTHERS.
Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Moline were heard in continuation
of theargument for the dcfendants in this c
that the ase. It was
contends
before 1719, when the congregation at Iterwick had existed
chapel was built. congregation
had been founc:eak by: ono Ogle in 1685, and
,1
his successors till tad chapel was founded. Or,:nany•
therefore, it could not have been of the kirk, for the kirk
was not the established re;,igion at the period of its fount:l-
- The congregation same. its principles
had not been changed, and a connexion which did nett
exist in 168.5 could not have become essential in 1719.
This therefore overruled the neap: relied upon by the re-
lators and plaintiffs, and showed a trust for protestant dis-
senters generally. The usage relied on proved only the
lawfulness of the appointment of Scotch ministers, and not
an obligation to appoint them. Though kirk ministers had
usually been appointed to officiate at the Low Meeting.
house, it did not follow tlat they were the only ones eligi-
ble. They contended also that, assuming for the purposes
of the argument that the relators and plaintiffs were right
as to the rules of the chapel or meetinghouse, still the de-
fendant Murdoch had not infringed those rules; and that
the opinions entertained by him with respect to the diffe-
rences of the Scottish church were of a purely special. tive
character; and that the holding of such opinions did not
amount to a breach of trust. _ _ _

At 3 o'clock the court rose. The remainder of the argu-
ment fur the deft ndants was postponed till Saturday next,
it being understood that the time of their lordships wiil be
occupied to-morrow in hearing petitior.s in bankruptcy and
lunacy ; on Thursday, in hearing appeal motions ; and on
Friday, in attendance upon the Judicial Committee.

Samos IN I IN:FS/1.1;4m5, normal Iva j.nao CRAWCI: wa.

LIMES V.THE EASTER: COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT.

The plaintiff, by appeal from a decree of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, prayed for a decree for specific performance of an
agreement entered into between him and the railway com-
pany, whereby they, in consideration of hi+ foregoing oppo-
sition to their then projected line from Wisbeach to Spald-
ing, agreed to purchase a certain estate belonging to him
near to the town of Spalding, within eighteen months
after obtaining an act of parliament authorising the con-
struction of the line. The facts of the case were reported
in the Express of IVedni allay.
It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the
act obtained did not come within the meaning of the
agreement—that the plaintiff hail not power to give a
good title, inasmuch as he was only tenant for life of a por-
tion of the estate ; generally, that they were not bound
under the contract ; and that, even 'supposing they were
thereby bound, they were not bound to perform the con-
tract out of the funds of the Eastern Counties Railway
Company, they having no funds for the construction of the
. . .

Sir Fitzroy Kelly was now heard in reply. Ile contended
that the contract was for a good consideration, and being
under the seal of the company, was a valid contract, and
binding on them. Would it be a good plea in an action of
debt to urge that they had abandoned the line ? What was
the difference between a contract to buy off an opposi•ion
for 13,000 f., and a contract to purchase 130 engines ? In-
dependently of the general ground, he submitted that the
act of parliament was conclusive against the company, as
they were authorised to raise 250,000/. in addition to the
funds they already possessed. He submitted that all the
authorities supported the propositioa that the contract was
binding upon the defendants ; that the title was a good
one, as under the act of parliament this was one of the
" extraordinary purposes" for which the company were
empowered to purchase land; and he prayed decree for
specific pet formance of the contract.
Ills lordship took time to consider his judgment, and it
was arranged that the other appeal cast, Ilawhes v.
RinternCounties Railway Company." should stand over
till judgment was delivered on this appeal.
ZULVETA V. VisENl.—ltirewriom, _ _ .

The arguments in this case occupied the remainder of the
illy. Mr. Itoupell had not concluded when his lordship
rose.

11,roas Ti

SPARROW T. OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVER-
HAMPTON RAILWAY COMPANY.-RIGHT OF COMPANY
TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF LANUS AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OP COMPULSORY POWERS.

This wan an application fur an injunction to restrain the
defendants from taking possession of land for the purposes
of the railway. The question was argued on the first and
subsequent Jays of the present term.
The Vice-Chancellor now gave judgment, and said that
this was an application for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendants from taking certain portions of land of the
taking of which they had given notice, on the ground that
the time for the compulsory purchase had expired, and also
upon the ground that the portions which the company
sought to take were parts of a manufactory, and that, if
they took any, they were bound to take the whole. Tie
special act of the company was passed on the 13th of
August, 1848 (11 & 12 Viet. cap. 130), and by the 3rd
section the provisions of the Lando Clauses Consolidation
Act, so far as the same were applicable and were not incon-
sistent with the provisions of the special act, were incorpo-
rated. By the 12th section the company were to purchase
certain portions of land if the owners wished; but these
portions did not comprehend the land in question. By sec-
tion 13 it was provided that certain parcels of land in-
cluding that in question, were to be arched over, and the
arching was to be constructed in a certain manner pre
scribed by the act, and to be of sufficient strength to bear a
branch railway to be worked by horse power; and if the
owners and the company should differ as to the construc-
tion of such arching, the same was to be settled by arbitra-
tion in the manner prescribed by the Lands Clauses Act;
and by the 14th section the owners of those lands were to
have the same rights over the surface when arched over as
they had had previously, with a proviso, however, that they
should out build upon it ur erect buildings so near the rail-
way as to be injurious tlereto. And section 36 enacted that
the compulsory powers given by the act should cease at the
expiration of three years; that would thereby be on the
13th of August, 1831. After the passing of this act the
plaintiffs erected various buildings upon the land for the
purposes of their manufactory. On the 25th of June, 1831,
the company served the plaintiffs with the usual notice of
taking the land, and a counter notice was served by the
plaintiffs on the same day, to the effect that they could not
be compelled to sell a part of their manufactory. but
were willing to sell the whole, and claimed us the price of
it the sum of 60,0001. On the 13th August the company
perved the plaintiff with a bond according to the provisions
of the Lands Clauses Act, and shortly afterwards paid into
the bank 6001., the amount of the valuation, and then
claimed to enter upon the lands, but did not do so. It was
not necessary for him to go into the affidavits. It was suffi-
cient to state that they contained enough to give the court
the right to interfere by injunction, if the right to enter
did nut exist, or was doubtful; but it was the duty of the
plaintiff to satisfy the court that doubts of the legal title
did exist, because however irreparable the injury which
would result might be, the court could not interfere if the
proposed act had been sanctioned by the legislature. The
plaintiffs contended—first, that the defendants had no right
to take the load at all, because the compulsory powers
had ceased ; and, secondly, that if they took any part they
were bound to take the whole. The first question de-
pended upon the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and was
whether the right to enter existed when the power to pur-
chase was expired. Both these powers subsisted, tinkle
taken away by the 123rd section of that act, which enacted
that the powers of the promoters for the compulsory pur-
chase or taking of lands should not be exercised after the
expiration of dm 'bed period. It became necessary,
therefore, to what were " the powers of the promo-
! OW* whisk thee eveffita might apply. The act stcod thus :
le ea 5151511.1 Ida NM pensions for the purchase of lands
by agreement, sad them went to the purchase not b?
agreement. The 16th oohs required the promoters to
give notice, and the stibeemasse sections applied to the wt•
element of the price • aminliena dames were imperative on
the promoters. The'seeligas hem the 69th to the 83rd re-
lated to the deposit of the pswelmsemeney, and those were
also imperative. Theis elves the 64th to the 91st related to I
the entry on the lead% OM 56th being that under which the
defendants had preensied, which enacted that, having com-
llied with the previous provisions of the act, it should be
awful for the promoters to enter upon and use the lands.
Then followed some sections not important to the present I
case, and then came the 123rd section, providing for the I
capiratioa of the powers given. It must be observed that
all the clauses, so far as they were for the benefit of the '
landowners, were imperative upon the promoters ; and, in-
dependently of the language of the act, the cases which had
been cited in the argument lease no doubt that the notice
given by the promoters created the relation of vendor and •
purchaser. Them was it reasonable that the landowner'
should have the power of compelling the company to proceed
to the purchase of lands which they could not hold ?
He thought that was not the construction of the act.
The first point therefore resolved inlet( into the question,
what was the meaning of the word " powers" in the 123 d sec-
tion ? Did Rowan those powers given by the aetto the several
sets of promoters of several special acts, or did it apply to
the several pewees given to one set of promoters. He thought
it meant the fernier. But that did not remove the whole
difficulty. It was evident it referred to powers of taking
land otherwise than by agreement. Theo did it refer to all
those powers ? He thought not, but only to that of giving
notice. The others were not powers of purchase in the or-
dinary sense, but of carrying into effect the purchase already
made. Much reliance was placed in the argument on the
introduction into that clause of the word " taking," but he
thought that could not make any difference. He rested his
opinion oa the defendants' having served notice and given
the hoed within the prescribed time, and he thought that
the power to complete the purchase was not gone, and
therefore )te could grant no injunction on that round.
This decision was at variorum with the mos of " Brockk-
bank v. the Whitehaven Junction Railway Company,"
and he should have felt great difficulty, if that ease had
not been (Wanted from by Lord Consilium is a Tay, Be-
tided manner • and since that two cases had bees
'decided
at law, in the first of which it was held that as eespany,
having given their notate before the expiating( the time,
were mend if salted es by the hadowaise to eammem a
jury afterwards; sat la the ether, that when pmesesim
bad been taken mike the Nth seem Were the engieetime
of the time, they were entitled to had the bed es Imhem
afterwards, though ask title bad set hem ampleted.
That latter ease seemed to go the whale beelbet de pre-
sent. The Neese plead taken by the phase, was that
the company were band le tabs the Wilde amants=
That depended on whether the lead meths of the
Clauses Act was imagememmil byes* medal met. He thought
it was not, esethe Imam at as special act only ism,-
posted am& of IL Leib Mem Act as " was applica-

The

Mc and not inconsistent with the provisions of the special
act," and he thought that that suction (the 92nd) was In-
consistent with those provisions of the special act which
provided for the arching over of the plaintiff's land, and
the powers given to the plaintiff: to use the surface when en
arched over. He thought, therefore, that both grounds
failed, and the motion must be dismissed, bat without costs.

CRPORN Ver.C3I,4MCSLLOK PIA IL KINDICRAUT.
PENNY O. 01101,11.-INSUKANCR COMPANY.-INBUFFI-
CIENCT OF ONE ANSWBIL

This ease came u.
:1: :ilaintiff was a varnish-
upon exceptions to an answer as to the
production d e.G:.*.uulents.
maker at Cheshunt, and had effected an luiurance in the
Westminster Assurance-office, which was represi;:!ied b
lint
the defendant. Two fires nt taken pace fl the plaintiff,
wa.rehouse, one in February, and another in July, Dia), ,
and IN plaintiff claimed the full amount of the policy, '
hews 101.301. as the value of the warehouse and • quantity
of varnish to the amount of 2,539 gallons which had been
destroyed. The company heftwe paying the demand re-
qvired production of the plaintiff 'a hooks, iu pursuance of
a et, milation to that effect included in the conditions upon
whiCh all policies were effected in this office, in order that
the ewe amount of damage might be correctly ascer-
tained. The plaintiff refus:d compliance with this requi-
sition on ti.e ground that thereby the secrets of the ma-
nufacture in which he was engaged would be disclosed.
The company than offered to refer the matter to arbitra-
tion, or to abide the decision of an action at law. The
plaintiff, however, filed this bill against the company, and
10 the answer of the company as to the production of &cu.
molts, the following passage occurred:—The defendants
say they believe that there are at the office of this society,
but nut otherwise in their custody or power, the deed of
settlement in the bill mentioned, and also several letters
and numerous other domain nt4, papers and writings, which
may more or has relate to the matters in question in this
cause, or some of them. but the defendants denied that the
truth of the matters would appear thereby otherwise than
as stated in the answer to this passage. The plaintiff ex-
cepted fur insufficiency.
Mr. Terrell appeared for the exceptions, and Mr. Matins
and Mr. Watford fur the defendants.

he Vice-Chancellor said he had nothingat present to do
with the merits of the case, but, as far as he could see, he
thought this Insurance Company had acted in the fairest
manner. The only question now was as to the production
of a document, and though he was not at all sure that the
production of it would in any way advance the plaintiff's
claim, still he thought the defendants could not refuse pro-
duction. The exceptions must therefore be allowed.
WINTUROP r. ELDERTUR.—PLRA Ur OUTLAWRY.
This was a bill filed by the plaintiff against his solicitor
'to restrain an action at law. Elie defendant put in a plea
of outlawry. It appeared that Mr. Winthrop was a bank.
rupt, and did not surrender, upon which he was proclaimed
an outlaw by the Court of Bankruptcy.
Mr. W. Cooper, in support of the plea, submitted that
the practice of the Court of Bankruptcy was this—the
bankrupt was bound to surrender on a day to be fixed
under penalty of being guilty of felony. Mr. Winthrop
did not surrender, and not haring done so at the close of
the day he was proclaimed an outlaw by the messenger.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Glasse contended that this was not
such an outlawry as would support a plea to the bill.
The Vice-Chancellor said Nacre could be no outlawry
without judgment of outlawry. It was not now necessary
to consider whether the Court of Bankruptcy had power to
prockOm a man an outlaw, because these proceedings only
showed that Mr. Winthrop had not surrendered, and
nothing more. The plea, therefore, must be overruled.

Bureau VICS-COANCRLLOII ?item.

RE THE IMPERIAL SALT AND ALKALI JOINT STOCK
COMPANY EN PANTE SCLATER.

The Master, to whom the winding-up of this company
had been referred, had, under the 38 sec. of the Winding-
up Act, 1848, directed that a contributory should be served
with all notices of attendances or prueecoings before him, on
payment tor each notice of a fee of 2s. Gd. Ile had accordingly
been served with several notices, and attended the Master
accordingly. It appeared that the works had been unsuc-
cessfully put up fur sale by auction, and that, subsequently,
offers had been received from various persons for purchase
by private contract. tin the suggestion of the official
manager, that it would be d,sinable that the proceedings
with reference to a reserved bidding at an intended second
auction being fixed on by the blaster, should be conducted
in private, the Master had made an order that the contri-
butory should nut be served with notice of the meetings
killre the Master on the subject.
Mr. Roxburgh now moved that that decision of the Master
might be rescinded, contending that the section left no dis-
cretion in the Muster, except to fix the manner in which the
notice should be given, and that at all events every con-
tributory had a right to be present when his property was
to be dealt with.

Mr. C. L, Webb, for the official manager, supported the
order, contending that it was discretionary with the Master
to allow or disallow the attendance of what persons he
chose.

The 34th and Ildth sections of the act were also re-
ferred to. _ _ .

said he could nut sec that the

Master had the diwretiou contended for by the official
manager. The Master from whom this appeal came was
most likely to have formed a correct judgment on the sub-
ject, but the language of the act did not enable him to do
otherwise than grant the motion; the costs to come out of
the estate.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.
BITTING % IX BANCo.—Baroaa LOAD CAMPISKLI, Mn J vs! lat
ML JNSTICS COWLING. ♦xD ML J MICR

TuriaiwTh;;;;;7l7D-EitiTlN4.Hii RAILWAY COM-
PANT O. TIM LONDON AND NORTH WY.STEUN RALLWAT
COMPANY.-DEMURNER. . . .

This was a demurrer to some pleas in an action brought
for the evasion of an agreement. It appeared that the
Shropshire Union Railway Company, having a bill before
Narliament empowering them to lease their line to the
orth Western Cumpany, the Shrewsbury and Birmingham
Company, who were opponents to such bill, consented to
withdraw their opposition upon au agreement being entered
into that they should have a certain share of the profits
from the working of the two lines. It was now contended
that this agreement was contrary to the spirit of the act
of parliament, which meant to give the working of the
line to the Shropshire Union and the North Western Com-
panies.
Mr. Cowling having been heard in support of, and Mr.
Peacock against, the demurrer,
The Court deferred its judgment.
The arguments presented no feature of public interest.

BAIL COURT.-YESTERDAT.
&mat., IN Bo4c..—klaroas

RAYNOR O. ODDLINSON.—Tau saw LAI, OF EVIDENCE.
Mr. Manesty applied, under the 6th section of the new
Law of Evidence Act. for a rule calling on the plaintiff to
state upon oath whether the several allegations contained
in the affidavit of the defendant were true or not, and
whether or not the plaintiff had in his possession any note,
document, or book, containing any memorandum or ac-
count relating to the matter in dispute between them; and
if so to show cause why he should not produce the said do-
cuments or account-books. The plaintiff was a broker in
the City, and the defendant a merchant at Newcastle, and
the action had been brought to recover the value of a
quantity of tallow alleged to have been sold by the plain-
tiff to the defendant. The defence was, that the plaintiff
' was only a broker, and not directly employed by the de-
fendant ; but the defendant having employed a commission
agent in London to purchase tor him, the latter, without
the privity of the defendant, employed the plaintiff as
broker, and who purchased the tallow in question at a pub-
lic sale. Circumstances had subsequently occurred to make
it desirable that the owners of the talMw should not have
to look to the parties in London who purchased it from
them, but to the defendant in Newcastle.
Mr. Justice Erie doubted whether any part of the act
under which the application had been made authorized the
granting of a rule calling upon one party to a suit to an-
swer by affidavit allegations made by the other. Re would,
however, consider the point, and give his opinion on Thurs-
day morning.
THE QUEEN F. THE MATOE AND ABSEIDIORB OF THE

Bonottog or liaawicit.
Mr. Lush moved Sir a role to show cause why a manda-
mus should not issue commanding the defendants to revise
the list of claimants to be placed upon the burgess roll, pur-
suant to the Municipal Corporation Act. The borough of
Harwich consisted of two parishes, in each of which there
were two churchwardens and two overseers. The muni-
cipal lista in September last were sigued in each parish by
the two overseers only. Various persons, whose names had
been omitted, sent in their claims, a list of which was duly
made by the town clerk. On the day of revision an objec-
tion was taken to the mayor and assesson passiug the lists,
on the ground that they had not been signed by the two
churchwardens. The mayor took time to consider the
point, cod on the 14th of September stated that he would
not revise the list ; the consequence wee, that the whole
list wee gone, and the parties whose names were upon it
were deprived of the right to vote. The present applicant
had his name upon the roll for 1850, and was one of the
parties who objected to the mayor revising the list of the
overseers.
Mr. Justice Fdle, who had considerable doubt on the
point, granted a rule nisi.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Ysirrsitara.
%Trues to seam.—Basusa TIM LOLL LYuar EASON, MIL HALOS
PARE; Ma. Bones ALIWON. AND Ma. Banos PLAIT
Rootlet e. Tinsman—TEE Nsw Lew or BTIDINCR.
In this cue Mr. Quaine applied for a rule of discovery to
inspect certain document'. The learned counsel stated that
he made the application under the 6th section of the New
low of Evidence Act. The action wee brought by the
master of a vessel against the owner, to recover the amount
of his war., and of certain disbursements which he had
made. Ihe case had been before Mr. Baron Martin at
chambers who said, as there woe a difference of opinion
111100041 tte:jerend ye es to whether
ut4he t
I%plication matter bzuetwbegrr
broughtbe ted
thebefore issue woo
the full eeillertu.k
The Lord Chief Baron—Take a rule to show eause.
Rule nisi @ranted.
ermine AT Meal PASTS AT WIPTLY
MAATOG
MARTIN F. MANORON.—ACTION ON A BILL OF
Excuastaa.
This was as action to recover the sum of 1004. on • bill
of exchange and on an account stated. Defendant, who
was represented by Mr. Hawkins, ph aded non-acceptance,
and that notice of dishonour had not been given. The
acceptance, however, was afterwards admitted by a judge's
order.
Mr. Field appeared for the plaintiff, • painter and gla-
zier, in Great Brewer-street, Golden-Rowe, who deposed
that he had discounted the bill. It was drawn by the de-
fendant upon a person named Power and was made pay-
able at the Union Bank, Argyll-place. It was dated on

•Bssoss Ma. BLaos

the 24th of July, 1817, and wax nue in the following No-
vember. On the day it became due he went to the bank
for payment, but the answer was "No effects." Ile then
went to the defendant's house and told him that the bill
had been dishonoured. The defendant said that he should
from Poinwseeaart),u;idtf:ytthvitie9lp;int:
ythen he had several times otlled
orbenottalihdele.dtatrio,,tnagdithinttlehien. money from
thit
do j the bill became
he had not seen the
eatpi'lhs;:;%:l3.t.uia ien:hct :trraat tuotill
.! :tech
re
Lp.. 4:1
should see Power in a day or two, and that he would try
til
ceived
to get the money for him. Plaintiff had called on him
several times since to inquire where Power was, but he had
e
attorney's lett?: this action on the sth of September,
1841. On the part of the defendant some accounts for work
which the plaintiff had done for him, and a letter, dated
the 4th of September, 1849, demanding payment of them,
were also put in, and this bill of exchange was not alluded
to in them. . . .

...........
nothing to do with the
these nactants
altnfadrthtine
lbertlteeftr-'h summed up, declaring that
issue; and
The jury at once found a verdict' for the plaidtitf for 1001.,
the amount of the bill, and 201. fur interest.
The learned judge said that this was one of those eases in
which the new law of evidence would act in a very benefi-
cial manner. There had been hundreds and thousands of
instances in which parties holding bills had neglected to
take a witness with them when they gave pet ~01111 i notice
of dishonour, and, being unable to give evil :nee them-
selves, had thus been precluded front recovering the sums
due to them.

COURT OF BA\KItUPTCY.—Yr•.sTEaDA

ihr./Illt Ms. Cointogo,.yu HOLROTY.
IN RE HANSON.

This was the certificate meeting. The bsnkrupt vas
described as a mason and statuary of Kennington Cm 011
basin. His debts were 1,297/. ; assets about 5001. Th 0
profits had been 1,9801. ; trade expenses, 1,42 1. ; personas'
ditto, 7221. ; 8902.
Mr. Lawr.uice supported. There was no opposition, and"
a second-class certificate was granted.