The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-05 00:00:00

- . -
etwitTs. :EsTERDAT.
• P 11, I Jg
Tim AT rOIVorT•firSIIIAL Tlll. 0.41../UATIII,I or
:ttoS.
Mr. Smut, Mr. Lr, awl Mr lin...ash-nil' were heard
kr the appellants upon the app.,: motion in this case. '''hey
mid the object of the motion was to obtain the discharge of
an ee kr for herebyi made by the late Vice Chaseellor
of Eughin I, he delesul.ate (the appellants) were
restrained from applying or 'spending any portion of the
baroagh land of the cerpuratien towards the soli-
or pro-ecutintr, se endeavouring to obtain
a hill in parliament to enable them to improve
the mans: inn of the river Wensunt or Yore, which
Sows through the city of Norwich to Yarmouth.
They stated that the projected impluvement would tend
ere dly to the benefit of the inhabitants of Norwich, by
facilitating the tett-, of shipping to their city, awl ineress.
Ina the tr.ale thereof; and that by the 92nd section of the
Municipal Corr...cations litforus Act (d & 6 Wm. IV., e. 76),
they, the aveillentg, were authoriacil to apply any earplug
borough laud, after papal. ut therimut of the vale-
ri, s of the nias or, recorder, town clerk, and treasurer
of the corporation and other tare neem specified in the act,
f,r the puldic le audit or tie inhabitant., and improvement
of the bornugh. It appeared that after payment of the en-
prints in the last art, there had not been in any year since
the 'miming of the act say surplus of the borough fund;
but they contended that the enactments of the statute en-
abled theta to a; ply the staple. borou,rh fund that might
at any (lOW, accrue in procuring a power from parliament
to improve the navigatien of the river. It appeared that
the Vice Chancellor bail granted the injunction on the
ground that t.c euactinenta of the statute haul reference
to the law cie it exited when they were made, and that
they did not anthonse the corporation to apply the funds in
out J.. power* which were not then vested In them.
Mr. Heil ell, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Itogcrs were for the
inform mt and laton, and were called upon to address
CO' C.lrt Only aA to tilt tiUtStIOII of cods.
Upon the it con.enting to a declaration being inserted in
the order to he made, to the effect that the injunction was
not to Ire cea•elered as restraining or relating to the ex-
penditure or appecatien of the leiromth fund fur tiny other
pure., Cam the ...heating, prosecuting, or endeavouring
to Mg on a t..il in parliament for the purpose of enabling
theta to u. u pen, widen, or improve the navigation of the
rimer in the pienlings mu sitioneel,
Their lordeliips reboill the motion with mete.

Urn.. fI..M UN TM{ SOYA
MIMI O. WAT•II2I.

This was n p trines of the est coons of the plaintiff theet
the cam now en court to the credit of the cause be paid over
to th to, and thereby to put an end to the cause. cult
iii.tituto 41 by the Itcv. James Gni; the plaintiff, a4ainst
the defendant, who was his solicitor. In 18:36 Greg placed
3,01X.11. to the• hands of itVatstiti to invest for him. Watson
did invest it, but on a security which turned out to be ins
saffirieht and he invested the money in his own name in-
stead of that of the plaintiff. The lulu eat was paid by Watson
Gomm time to time until 1411, when, falling into Amur, the
suit was instituted, :MI a decree wee mullet that the
estate lee sod• 1, thit the proceeds should be paid into
court, anel that the plaiutiff should be paid out of them,
and that in ease the &meant weer ineulticient the private
estate of Watson should ha liable for the deficiency. In
November, 140, the plaintiff died, and his executors re-
silted the sail. Ihe estate was sold, and it produced
1,4611. Ms. 7d , which had loon Fetid into court, mid with
the interest mow amounted to 2,ol•11. as. The defendant
had -theeh enema bankropt, but his estate hail paid no divi-
dend, cane was it likely that it would. The case had been
rel. er.l t e the NI ester, but her It ell not made his report.
111. Honour directed that the petition should stated over,
0111 d that the Master report us tee the amount due ; tlitit
thee the petition he amendial, an I he would make the order
at new.

...•....• .
I% RN TUN MONNIOUT 11,011/1 AND OLANOUOABwIIIRII
BANILINU 17011 VAN AVON TNUSX TUE WINN.
110 14. MT. •
• •

Mr. It. and II Palmer appeared in support of a petition
by Margaret Ilenkiti, that the affairs of this bank be wound
up utuli r ,14.• Wi.itling-up Avt.lk• were sevens other
petitionn in reference to the same matter.
The Solleitortieneral, with Mr. W. P. James, appeared
in %oppose 011.• 6.0111 a committee of shareholders; Mr.
Marell oriole by Mr. Bennett, a shareholder, again.t wind-
iog up; and Mr. Freeling is support of one drum Mr.
Jane , alor a shareholder, for winding up.
The Soli. montaviteral .aid this matter was one of im-
menar import:urn , Mc...lying, it might hi, the welfare of a
whole county. It hied better be brought on fully it brought
un at all. Ti,. set allowed reference in this matter
as the coon should see fit, and the petition be
nupportell was, that if anything was dune at all
there should Ine a preliminary inquiry before the
Judgo:ul the County Court. It would unquestionably
be to the int, rent of all parties concerned if the
matter shoulil lie allowed to stand over at present, there
nut being a numb: erielium taking any proceedings. it
having been umunisoon.ly resolved at a meeting of the
sharettotiter. that steps should be taken to wind up the
strairn of this unfortunate company in such a incliner an to
prevent immediate steps being token by the creditors. The
shareholder. vei re mint irf them inninemstern, having very
barge work, in that part of the country ; and, if they were
allowed to mak, a gradual liquidation, they would be able
to tarry ink works thonamh the winter ; whereas the
inshentani eon effect of may under of this court to bring the
bank under tile Winiling•up Art would be a rush by the
creditors, and tho Cioloviefire would be a total break up of
the very nn .41,0 by which the creditor. were to be ickitl, and
the throwing out of employ anent an immense nuother of
lallinin.rie in that part of the country.
Mr 'touted. II Calmer said the petition he was going to
open ninspl, prayed for a winding-up order. It was from a
shareholder n. 4.1 Margaret Rankin, the holder of 48
Acmes of 2. . each, a considerable amount of which, but
not the allot ~ had Is i.n paid up. The onnpany was formed
in pcio, to carry on tho banking in several
in Molimoutleslore and the neighbourhood. The eump flay
men sensed Uncap...lees as flunking large profits, and dis
lin tad. wen• pawl trona time to time, when suddenly', thin
year, un the lath of Octola r, it was announced that the
C eines...rend Bank of 'Ashton had declined to honour their
dulls, and therefore the Monmouthshire: and Glamorgan-

itink dnewitinueil bi jn, s. A meeting ol the "'late-
Ikukkis r.t. helot nu the I ith °eviller, at which it
was stated that the liabiltins were 54.43,;901 , in
. . . . . .

which estimate they included it lee likely to 'arise
from out-tooling Inns of 24,000/., but the amount
of the iris 210,000/. 1/n the other side there was cash
nod lolls lars,olll. that beine the amount of their most
available a -wt.; cloths ries, noes sere., 43,119/. •' seeuri-
ties in the Isanda of the IsoislosiJuint Stock Ilank,lM6,3OlL,
giving is total id 103, ; and then there were "dormant
areousits," V. hid% included • portion of the 403,1611., and
the prop. s*.v aunsirsaisof to d 4.119/., making the whole
anemia te;1,,,i3/. Then, the petitioner stated that in con-
sequence ia advances to shrettore and others without sein-
rity there ould 101,0110/.. to make up in order to satisfy
the its matide of the airs CWr, she stated the
pros-ea-ding. were heing taken by sdverse share-
holders, and that v•1/109114 questions would arise
which could only be decided by the court, and therefore she
pis kraal tue usual petition that the bank should be brought
trod r tbs• operation of th.. Winding-up Act. ;against that
petitisso th,-re had 1.4,11 hied omie affidavits which might he
into two classes, affidavit. of pereonal attack and Atti-
la its that the court might riereiM iU discretion and not
grant the isr....ser of the petition. This lady was the widow
an a givitleinan who hat held a ritualism in one of the ado-
nis., and elle now conducts an estahliahnsent for the riluca-
tem ot yonsig ladies at Weston-toper-Mare. It :ippriarVll
that she had a brother who was a solicitor at Halifax in
lorkdore, and he very naturally was employed as her soli-
mtor. Auotle r gel/a...um° of the same name (Itankii9,l
who was h. r husband's brother, who lived at Bristol
and was a wine merchant, being, an be stated,
without any peseonal interest as a shareholder, hail called
en tin. lady. ante the advertisement append of her in.
minion to pre wist a petition. and repreveuted to her that
she bed s ceu taking a step which might entail upon her
mimosa eimeesiusncess, and he prevailed upon her, without
communkating with her brother, to write a letter to the
London agents of her own solicitor, that she would take no
further steps in the matter, and desiriug them nut to pro-
ceed is it, 411 d al the Mme time she wrote a similar letter to
her solicitor. Thereupon her solicitor again communicated
with her, and the result was that she determined to go on
with the petition. The eon's's] el am of affidavits were to induce
the court to do nothing, or that it might be sent to
the rummy court. It appeared from thew affidavits
that on the 13th of October a meeting of creditors
.was held at the Town 1141, Newport, and they appointed a
ennimittee to investigate the affairs of the bank. On the
leth a meeting of shareholders took place to raise such a
NM
of msnie) a, would prevent the ruinous consequeuces
of etopping, at which a committee was appointed, and at
which it was resolved to rein- and apply .5,00111., which it
wee stated would pay all the creditors under NI. Then a
eneeteig of creditors was held on the 20th of October, at
which it was resolved that in ease the shareholders should
by ceotributi ms raise the turn of 100,0001., or sorb sum as
will yiebl a dividend of ds. in the pound to the share-
holders by the Ist of January, and realise the avail-
able assets of the bank, which would pay another
dividend of reasonable time should be given to the
shareholders for realising the " dormant amounts" to be
applied to the payment of the remainder; and at a subs*•
eluent meeting 01 the committee of shareholders it was re-
solved that if the creditors would wait, they would raise
amongst themselves sufficient to pay :ea In the pound im-
mediately. Now it appeared from the report of the COM-
=Mime of shareholders that, assuming the total liabilities at
608,6101., and deducting the securities and available assets,
there was a deficiency of 3221. 3.. I ld. to be made good by
the shareholders, and that a contribution of 201, per share
from each shareholder was the very lowest amount that
would mw t the emergency. It appeared also in reviewing
the management of the coneeru, that very large amounts
had been advanced to directors, shareholders, and others,
without security, which had been applied is carrying out
profitless speculations; that 120,000/. was advanced in 1842
to one of the directors, Mr. Bls Witt, who wan also the mese
tend officer of the company, and that no interest had been
paid on that sum from 1112 to the present time ; and that
0,0001. had been advanced to Mr. Phillip Jones, another
di.-ector. lie contended tberetOre that this was • case
within the act, and secondly that this bank was brought
into its present position not merely by negligence but by
such culpable mismanagement and misconduct as would
involve mural responsibility on the part of the directors
who bad been concerned in the management. These facts
showed that there ought to be the strictest investigation,
and it could not be conceived to be even probable that jos.
lace could be done in winding up the affairs of this bank
merely b levying a contribution of 201. a dare on the
altarekol&rs.
Mx. Rowlyargh followed ow she muse die.

The Solicitor-General, in reply, contended that no order
should be made, but that the petition should stand over in
order that the c...art might see a hat steps were buns title
taken in order to promote the best iatertsts of all the parties
cone rued. lye state.' that the panic in Monmouthshire
and Glamorgan.!.ire was quits so great as that which pre-
vailed in the• h of the country at the latter end of 15:5.
whole of ths . district dreads: the affairs of this batik
getting into Chancery, as the inevitable result would be
wide-spread ruin; and he contended that this wee a ease in
which the court could properly exercise its discretion in
suspending the order, or that at any rate before making the
order a preliminary inquiry should be held before the
master or before the judge of the county court.
Mr. W. P. Janice followed on the same side, and
The further hearing of the case was then adjourned until
this day.

Barnaa Tscs•Caerareacia
SPARROW e. THE OXEOHD, WOACESTED, AND WOLTIDe
RIILWAT Costresor.
This was an applicatem for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from proceeding to obtain possession of certain
portions of land, which the plaintittit contended formed au
important part of their manufactory. The Solicitor-General
was heard on Monday, and the facts appeared in our repurt
of the proceedings of that day. Mr. Shapter was now heard
on the same side, and cited a number of cases in support of
the propmitione which were laid down by the Solicitor-
General on behalf of the plaintiff..
The Vice-Charmellor inquired of the counsel for the de-
fendants whether they could expect this case to be decided
without the opinion of a court of law being taken. Under
the recent statute 14 and 15 Vic., c. 83, sec. 8, great facili-
ties were provided for obtaining the assistance of a common
law judge. And though he was always much more inclined
to decide eases himself than to send them to a court
of common law, yet there might be cases where he should
feel compelled to adopt the latter course. In the present
ease, he felt that the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor of
England in Brocklebank v. the Whitehavt Junction Rail-
way Company" was astroog authority in favour of granting
this injunction, and though Lord Cottenham did not appear
to agree altngt thee with the view taken by the Vice-Chan-
cellor, still he considered that be could not decide the ques-
tion without having the opinion of a court of law.
Mr. Holt, on behalf 01 the company, mid lie thought he
should satisfy his honour that the courts of common law had
already sheared their opinion on the construction of the
statute, and that it would be more convenient to have the
case argued.
Mr. Shapter then argued that the giving a notice that the
land, would he requiryd in aocaniante with Sec. 16 of the
Lands Clause. COll,Olll.l4tiCH Act, was no part of the corn-
pubory proceedings, as it might end in au agreement, and
that in "Adonis c. lthickwall Railway Company" (2 M'N.
and Ger., 118), the Lord Chaueellor laid it down that
giving the notice did not amount to a contract even if
acquiesced in. All the caetc in which the courts of law bad
decided not in conformity with the views of the Vice-
Chancellor Shudwell were cases where there had been not
only a notice hut an eutry upon the lands, and that circum-
stance was remarked upon by Mr. Justice l'atteson in his
judgment in Due dean Armietead r. The North Stalihrd-
shire Railway Company." The learned counsel then
argued that the affidavits showed clearly that the portion
of the premises whe h the company proposed to take were
essential to the carrying on of the manufactory.
Mr. !Holt, on behalf of the company, relied on the broad
proposition that the *try ice of the notice by the company con-
titated a binding contract between the partiesontlestuleislied
the relation of vendor and purchaser. the contract might be
different in its incidents from ordinary contracts, uud, if
laukeu by either side, the remedies which the courts would
apply might be difkrent ; but that was immaterial, if there
woos contract before the expiration of the time for compul-
sory purchase had expired ; the matter might be proceeded
with afterwards, and a landowner might compel the com-
pany to take the necessary steps for determining the prim.
The hardship upon the owner was, that after the passing
of the act he was uncertaiu whether or nut be shall have to
part with hie land, and the limitation of time was intro-
duced to limit this hardship by reducing the time of un-
certainty to three yearn; and within that time, if notice is
given, the unterhuhty is at an end, and the landowner may
compel the cutup:tin to proceed. In Osburies case (19
Law Journal, Q.B. 453), which hod since been confirmed
by thy Exchequer Chamber, the Court of Queen's Death
granted a mandamus to compel the company, utter the ex- '1
piration of three years, to take steps to have the amount of
compensation ascertained, at the requisition of an owner to
whom they hail gist n notice of taking his land within
the three years; and the case of Armistead e. the
North Stattortl Railway," throws very great doubt
upon the Brocklehank ease, from which Mr. Juu-
bee Patti:sun, in his judgm,iit, dissented, and in
" Stone r. The Commercial Duck Company," Lard Cot-
tenham laid it down that the notice was a contract, and it
had been even doubt, d whether it is not a contract to such
all extent that the company cannot vary it by serving a se-
cond notice. With respect to the question whether or not
the cinupany were bound to take the whole manufactory,
he maintained that when premises had been built as was
the cue hem, after the lei:sing of the special act, the 92nd
see. threw the onus upon the landowner of satisfying the
court that they had to ell built Luna tide, and not the the
purpine of claimina cumpeusation, and that the affidavits
were defective it, that respect ; and also that the clauses in-
troduce' into the special act stopped the plaintiffs from
claiming town the whole.
Mr. Rosin followed on the same site.

Mr. Simpler was heard iu reply.
The Vice Chancellor ~iid he wished to know whether the
parties would be satisfied to take his opinion in conjunction
with that of u judge of one of the common law courts,
as a dual decision of the case iu the present
stage of the proceedings ?—lie meant final, so fu
as to agree not to press to have the case hereafter
sent to a court of common law, and not to object that the
matter was deterrniuid au,nu.ion instead of upon a hear-
ing of the cause, he of course did not wish to cull on the
parties to debar them...lris from applying to a court of ap-
peal. If that course was nut agreed to he f..ared he could
only determine the case by granting an injunction until the
opinion of a court of law could he taken, because he could
Out ask a judge to come here and determine what was to be
dune in a mere interlocutory matter ; sad he thought the
cases which had been cited train the common law courts
did nut clear away the difficulties raised by the Brucile-
hank case, and the matter was of too important a nature to
the whole railway interest fur him to decide upon.
It was then agreed that the parties should take till the
' nest morning to decide whether they would accept the pru-
-1 posal of his honour.

16nroas Virt-entweu.oc Nun Rsousio KINDISSAT.
ul'Yl\lellU or TUE COVILT._

The Vice-Chancellor suggnted Co-illbar whether it
would nut be the mu,t desirable course that the petition list
should be proceeded
Several counsel crreed with his honour upon this view,
and stated that owing to the list having beeu so often ad-
juurned the expenw to the portico had amounted to on
emninous sum. Ilw I leLky had hven most ruinous, and it
was highly desirable to dispose of the petitions before any
other business was proceeded with.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTERDAT.
krrtmos u rAxcv.—Buvas Cns,r Juonce, hillVt.' NIL 'mica
1114.. a, Ma. Jintr. WU-W.IIN a•D Ma. Jt TALAWILD.

NLW QUELN;a CUt NOEL.

At the sitting of the court this morning, the following
gentlemen appeared iu court, and were directed to take
their seats within the bar us Queen's Counsel, viz.: Mr.
Ingham, Mr. Will111,1it!, Mr. l'hillimore, Mr. Mellor, Mr.
Warren, Mr. l'astrice, Mr. Bramwell, Mr. Hugh lldl, and
Mr. CollloliailiUller Hargrart.s.

IIoWAMD T. OF A STAND A/

ItAc

The plaintiff in this car• was also plaintiff in the cele-
brated cue of Ileaard v. Gossett,- and he brought his
action to r. ever damages for injuries sustained by him In
consequeuve of the e,•tendant's stand falling. The cue was
tried belore Chief Justice Jervis at the last Surrey Assizes,
and a verdict soar i1.111.1a fur the plaintiff for Is.
Mr. Serjeant Chantidi now stated to the court that tha
injury the pLaintilf sustained was the breaking of the small
bone to his leg, and that this motion was for a new trial
upon the ground the: the verdict was a perverse one, or at
least that the datuau.> given %era utterly inadequate to
cover the plaintiff.> ,jury.
The Chief.) ii,tiee 3.liti that the ease was not an aggra-
vated one, for the der: icon; employed the carpenter to put
up the stand, aho had erected it for many years, the cause
of the accident being that sumo of the timbers had become
unsound.

Mr. liericant Channel! dii not charge the defendant with
any personal misconduct. bat his position was simply this,
that the defendant's liability having been proved, the
damages were inadequate to the injury. lie apprehended
that one thing which influenced the jury was that it had
nut been shown that the plaintiff had paid anything for
medical attendance. The truth was that he lived next
door to his son-in-law, who was a medical man, and who
attended him. It appeared that this gentleman had made
no charge against the plaintiff, but he stated that his bill
to an ordinary patient would 1. tee been about 20 guineas.
The Chief Justice said that ho could not see anything to
lead „him to belie, e that the jury had given their verdict
I from any improper motive, and this being so, he agreed
with his learned brothers in thinking that there should be
no rule, for the question of damages was one entirely for
the consideration of the jury.
I Rule refused.
• M•is.,natt C. TUE YOUR, NEWCESTLE, AND BERWICK
I RAILWAY COMVANY.—AcTION FOR Lou/ LI:GOADS.
Mr. Ilumfrey, Q.C., said that this action was tried at the
last Westminster sittings, be fore Chief Justice Jervis, who
directed a nousuit, but gore the plaintiff leave to move to
enter a verdict (or 3111., the value of the lost property. The
facts of the case were these .—The plaintiff was at the time
the cause of action arose valet to Lard Adolphus Vane,
and as such travelled with his lordship upon the defen-
dants' railway. The declaration stated that he was a pas-
senger carried for hire, pain by him to the defendants, and
that being so he lost his baggage. The fact, however, was
that the plaintiff's fare had been paid by Lord Adolphus
Vane, and this being so it we. objected at the trial that the
only person who could sue the company was his lordship
and not the plaintiff, and the Chief Justice agreed with the
objection, and noasuited the plaintiff. rhe only question
now fur the court was whether the Chief Justice was cor-
rect in ruling that the plaintiff had no cause of action.
Rule granted.
PRACTICE OF THE COERT.
In consequence of no other motions being made, the court
row shoal; before two o'clock, there being no bonnets to
proceed with.
The Chief Justice, however. drew the attention of the
bar to the fact that the time of the court had been as yet
eeseparatively unoccupied, and that being ao it would be
unfair to the other stilton to allow notions for new Weis to

-- -