The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood.)

TMIIIN•NYC r. TICHBORNL-TICHBORNE V. NOSTYS.

Sir It. Rawer, Q.C., who is retained with Kr. Bay,
1.c., and Mr. C. Barber, for some of the defendants in
these entries, applied to the court this morning to appoint
pedal ra; tttt incr. pursuant to leave obtained yesterday.
Mr. G. N. Gifford. Q.C., who appears with the
...licitordieneral (Kr. Selwyn, Q.C.), and Mr. Lama
lV,hb, for the plaintiff, said that he had no instructions
to conoent to the appointment of anyone as special
‘:uniner ; but he had no doubt that a very proper person
.could he proposed.
Sir It. Palmer said ho believed it was desired that the
motion rbouhl be heard on Thursday neat.

Mr. Gitfard said that if a epeelel examiner were ap-
pointed, he did not see how it was possible the motion
could come on then. Next Thursday *ax the last
motion day before the vacation. The plaintiff was also
&smll, to cross-examine.

sir I'4lller said he took it fat granted that his learned
frirad wi.heil to hare the principal motion disposed of in
,unie way or the other before the court rose.
The Vie,Chaneellor said he had before suggested that
the parties h.al better settle the issue for trial at law at
Once.

After some further conversation,
The Vice. Chancellor made the order to appoint a special
examiner ; and it was stated that a learned member of the
bar bad been applied to, and had expressed his readiness
to act.

Mr. W. M. James, Q.C., and Mr. Cracknall appear for
other defendants.

VICKERS r. VICKERS.

ard
.7aluch t ackers, are brothers, and were partners in a dis-
tillery business in Aldersgate-street. James bought out
Edward, and in that deed there was a provision that James
ibuuld be at liberty to retire again upon giving notice,
upon which notice Edward was to elect whether he would
re-purchase at a valuation to be made " in the usual way,
by two valuers." In case Edward declined tore-purchase,
James was to be at liberty to re-sell, in which event he was to
l.e relieved from certain onerous covenants and obligations.
What happened was, tha t James gave notice, and called upon
Edward toelect. Edwardelected tore-purchase, and valuers
were appointed, when James altered his mind and said he
would not go on with the valuation. Edward wee about
to file a bill, when some friends of the family interfered,
soil a new agreement was entered into under which James
was to pay Edward certain definite sums of money
in full discharge of all Edward's claims. A deed was
prepared to carry out this arrangement, and was settled by
their respective attorneys, but James refused to execute,
whereupon this bill was filed, claiming a right on the part
of Edward to have specific performance of one of the two
agreements ; that James should elect either to go on with
the valuation, or if not to execute the deed, and that
whichever agreement James Vickers might elect to be
bound by he might be decreed specifically to perform.
Mr, W. M. James, Q.C.? Mr. Druce, Q.C., and Mr.
lianney, were for the plaintiff ; Sir R. Palmer, Q.C., Mr.
Kay, Q.C., and Mr. C. Hall for the defendant.
The defences were three—facet, that the agreement as to
the valuation fell abort of an agreement to submit to ar-
bitration, and was not a contract which the court would
perform specifically ; secondly, that the subsequent agree-
ment was verbal only, and not within the statute of
frauds; and thirdly, that there was no equity to compel
the defendant to execute the deed.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case.
The Vice-Chancellor said be must hold there was no
second agreement.
The case was argued on the 10th inst.
The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment this morning,
said that under the peculiar provuions of this deed, when ar-
rangements were provided for appointing arbitrators, and
if they could not agree, an umpire, but no power of en-
forcing the other side to put the umpire in motion, he
wee reluctantly compelled, following the authorities, to
say that here there was no contract which the court
could enforce and the bill must be dismissed, but, consi-
dering the conduct of the parties, without costa.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
HUTLZY o. TlllMti AND 0TH16119.
- . .

The Attorney-Canard, Dr. Deane, Q.C., Mr. Searle, and
Mr. Crossley for the executory ; Sir R. Collier, Q.C., and
Dr. Tristram for the widow of the deceased ; and Mr.
Coleridge, Q.C., Mr. Day, and Mr. Bower for the next of
kin.

This was a suit relating to the will of James Hutley, a
provision merchant in Bloomsbury, who died in August
Lat. He had began life as a drayman in the employment
of a cheesenionger, but be had afterwards gone into 'met-
als on his own account, and had died possessed of
property worth 140,0001. He was in advanced years,
sad a short timo ago he had married a young woman,
sad had executed a will leaving her the bulk of his estate;
three month. after his death, however, she was married
to Mr. Timms, her first husband's medical attendant.
Probate was resisted by the testator's next of kin on the
pound of incapacity, and also on the ground that Mr.
Hutley did not know or approve of the contents of the
will.

The oppoeition wee, however, withdrawn soon after the
opening of the came, and
The court decreed probate.