The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-17 00:00:00

.NOTICE.

Tai. 11 VlFtp!ia, 1844.-I.lt ts

attend for Ur tater, that. if • media raw
of Ertel belca=iLe.
rad the am kW dole ten% the ananay who Itab
soma to mil the masa doll give ...s sr it to the elatemey
be oppoeiteentr. Plonipplpopt el=4 OWN et the imam
pitybe Poold ropOr.—Dy
Beacir.—Thie Coati bee ambled 1110 Mp ion elm Una on
Nov. ST, SS, Sit, SO, Deo 2, rd. ossuory, Op 4, 5.
Ificsoana.-11410 Ooort tin lipid dor this Op sod
Nov. 21. _ _

Assrves.—Mr. Data Mims. mad Mr. Justke
!aria hare waisted tie Sth day d Daseabie rat. at We Cas-
tle, to ►old tie whiter rim for the aeeaty of Chaster.

EQUITY COUlLTB—YsernasiT.
Helen the Lord Chancellor.

LORD WILLISLIT e. EAJAIT or MORNINOTON.—A DOH-
citor, addressing the court in reference to the motion which
was appointed for this day, for discharging an order of the
Vies-Chancellor of England for appointing a receiver over
the estates in question in this case, said, it was understood
that the application was withdrawn by the consent of all
patios.
CRONFORD CANAL COMPANY O. CUTTS AND OTRIRS.—
QUFATION OP RIOUT TO COMPINSATION AGAINST • COY-
PANY.—This was an appeal motion to discharge an injunc-
tion granted by the Vito-Chuicellor of England, en parte,
and which his Honour refused to discharge on the coming in
of the answer. The iejenotias was Weed to restrain the de-
fen/Unto, trustees, and outinh quo trust of property, includ-
ing coal mines in Derbyshire, from taking the necessary pro-
ceeding to awes the damages to which they claimed to be
entitled from the canal company on account of their inability
to work their mines without injuring the canal navigation,
which was prohibited by the canal amputee acts of parlia-
ment. Mr. Stuart and Mr. Follett contended that under
those ads, prohibiting the working of the mines under the
canal, the owners were entitled to have compensation
amounting to the estimated value of the coals, and
they ought to be allowed to obtain that value by the verdict
of a jury according to the mode prescribed by the acts.
—Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Metcalfe supported the order of
the Vice-Chancellor, and said that the defendants might
work their mines near and under the canal without injuring
the navigation or contravening the prohibitions of the acts
of parliament. Their object was In fact to drive the canal
company to purchase their coal mines. The company would
rather repair any trifling damage which the working of the
mines would effect to the canal than pay some thousands to
the defendants for their conk.—The Lord Chancellor said
his opinion was on consideration of the whole cue, and of the
evidence as read from the answer, that the pi/distills had no
equity to sustain their injunction. On comparison of the
34th and 35th clauses of the act of parliament, it appeared
that the very case before him had been provided for, and
that in the event of the workings of the coal mines being so
carried on as to threaten damage to the canal, a jury might
be summoned to amens the amount of the damages and of
the compensation. It had been said that the defendants did
sot saw there was any danger, but the evidence supported
• ease quite the contrary. The grounds on which the in-
junction rested were therefore untenable ; and in dissolving
st his lordship said he did not interfere with the view taken
by the Vine-Chancellor, who gave no opinion on the state-
mitt of tuts.—The injunction was dissolved, with oasts.
BAINTIR F. FIROUSON.—ALI/ORD SIMON OF ROSSI
YENT.—lNlumettoN.—Acriox.—Ths plaintiff, a medical
practitioner in Macclesfield, engaged the defendant in Feb-
ruary but es his resistant, at a salary of 1001. a year, with •
proviso in writing that, he should not at or after the termi-
nation of his engagement set up to practise for himself in or
within seven miles of Macclesfield, under a penalty of 6001.
defendant continued in the employment until August
loaf, wire he was dismissed for improper conduct towards •
member of the plaintiff's family, betides other matters of
dilemma between him and the plaintiff. Some time before
that the plaintiff was appointed the medical officer of a
burial eseisty, with a salary of 3501. a year. The defendant
imossantely Ow kis ghosting.' applied for that office, and
anummied fn rift the plaintiff removed, and himself ap-
pointed threw, and he then took a hones in Macclesfield
aid commenced practising for himself. The plaintiff filed
this bill to restrain the defendant from actising in violation
of his agreement, and applied for an injuprnction for that pur-
pose to Vice-Chancellor Knight Brune, but his Honour re-
used it, leaving the plaintiff to bring his action for the
breach of the agreement.—Mr. Russell and Mr. Gime now
supported an appeal motion tor the injunction. Declining to
read in open court the affidavits, so far as they disclosed the
nature 01 the defendant's misconduct in the plaintiff's family,
they handed them to the Lord Ciuncellor (the defendant's
counsel consenting), together with letters written by the
defendant, adding that if these hod been discovered in time
to lay them before the Vice-Chancellor they had no doubt
he would have granted the injunetion.-11r. Bacon and Mr.
Lewin opposed the motion, and contended that the question
between the pasties 'es it for a jury. T e action had boss
already Drought. The whole cam turned onithis—whether
the plaintiff was justified in diuniming. the defendant
The Lord Chancellor expressed his opinion that, while the
facts as to the dismissal of the defendant were undecided ,
the court ought not to grant an injunction. The question
Ziardle one of law. If the &mind was justifiable
to
the agreement between the parties ought to De en-
kiwi The interference of this court might prejudice the
MPS at law, which thould go to a jury unfettered by any act
or opinion of this court. His lordship for these reasons
thought the Viu-Chancellor was perfectly right in refusing
the injunction, and refused the appeal motion, with oasts.
MANGUM 0. Duni AND OTRRIUE—In this PIN, argued
on Wednesday and reported in yeterday's paper, Mr.
Cooper, in compliance with the wish expressed by the Lord
Chancellor, cited the following eases " Header:len v. Chey.
Rey "(2 Vernon, 150) ; Clare es. Earl of Bedford" (13
Viner's Abr., 537); " Macula e. Murgatzoyd" (1 P. Wm.,
393); " Hobbs Norton "(1 Vern. 136); " Savage v.
Fester" (9 Had., 33) ; " Erinyes. Nichks" (2 Eq. Cu. Abr ,
469); and a passage in 1 Fonblanque, on Equity, book i.,
shop. 3, •4; and p. 163 (sth edit.), where other cases of
the same nature are cited. These (he mid) were cues of
Bawd or concealment, and applicable to the present case, but
he could not find any case exactly in point to the question
put by the Lord Chancellor.—Mr. Humphrey and Mr.
Smith, for the plaintiffs, also referred to some cues which
were, as they said, more to the point, as, " Moore o. Jervis "
(2 CoUyer, 69); " Ibbotion o. Rhodes" (2 Vernon, 553);
and • passage from Lord Eldon's judgment fa " Evans v.
Bicknell '• (6 Veer', 191).—Judgment was postponed.