The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-23 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING,

lab) frettiffittact.

EQUITY COURTS. --Jr ars 22.
(Before Vice-Chanoellor Sir J. Stuart.)
IN RE THE UNIVERSAL BASHING CORPORATION (LIMITED)
In this matter the Vice-Chancellor made the usual
winding-up order.
Mr. Malin", Q.C., Mr. Roxburgh, Mr. Brookabank, and
Air, T. N. Higgins appeared for the several parties.
Till CONSOLIDATED BANE (LIMITRD).—THZ COMPANIES
ACT. 1882.
Mr. Malin', Q.C., and Mr. Cracknall asked that an
order which had been made in this matter on the Bth inst.,
to wind up the company, and which had been stopped on
the following day for a limited time, might be further
stopped for a week, there being iut expectation that in the
meantime the bank would be re-opened for business.
Mr. Greene, Q.
add
Mr
SwanslOn appeared for the
bank.
The Vice-Chancellor made the order asked.
MAGGOT? r. oormounics.
This cause came before the court upon a petition by Mr.
W. E. Jones, banker, of Bilston, in the county of Stafford,
for the purpose of raking certain securities which had
been realised in the suit available for the benefit of the
depositors in the Bilston Savings Bank. In the year 1861
the Barton Savings Bank discovered that their treasurerf
,
who was also one of their trustees, had been guilty o
defalcations, amounting to about 8,0001. The defendants,
the trustees of the bank, had obtained judgment against
the defaulting treasurer for the sum of 10,,0001 and
and
costs -, and a writ of sequestration of the profits of
the chapelry of St. Leonard's, at Billiton (of which
he was perpetual curate). They had also obtained an
assignment from him of certain reversionary interests to
which he was entitled, and of certain policies of assurance
on his life, in order that the deficiency caused by his misap-
propriation. An association had been formed for making
good the loss to the depositors in the bank, and for pur-
chasing the above reversionary interests and policies.
This suit was instituted by a deposit ate
mark on
bank for
carrying out such purchase. By
the bearing an inquiry was directed as to whether it
would be for the benefit of the depositors:that a sale of the
above interests and securities should take place. The
chief clerk certified that it would, and by. the decree,
on further consideration, a sale of their interests and
securities was directed. It appears that when the trea-
surer's defalcations were discovered in 1861 there was an
amount at the petitioner's bank in the name of the trea-
surer of the Billiton Savings Bank ; and that he bad with-
drawn such account to the amount of 5581. The peti-
tioner, by his petition, prayed leave to participate with the
depositors in the bank in the proceeds of the sale of the
above interests and securities. It was contended that the
evidence showed that the amount of 5681. had been applied
honk fide for the benefit of the depositors.
Mr. Bacon, Q.C., and Mr. Shebbeare, jun., were heard
for the petitioners ; Mr. De Gex, Q.C., and Mr. Dewanap
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Molina, Q.C., and Mr. W. R .
Cooper for the defendants.
The trustees were not called upon.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the petitioner had no
esuity. His case failed, and the motion must be dis-
-,saed, but without costs.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
JEFFREYS V. AGRA AND NARTERNAN'S BANK.
This was a bill by the public officer of the Bank of
Liverpool, to establish a claim against the Agra and Master-
man's Bank, in respect of certain marginal balances assigned
to the Bank of LiverpooL These marginal balances
were deposited with the defendants as a security for a cer-
tain amount, when they were hypothecated to the Bank of
Liverpool, and to this extent DO question arose. The de-
fendants, however, claimed a general lien as bankers, on
the marginal accounts, for all sums due to them.
The Vice-Chancellor declared that the Bank of Liverpool
was entitled to a security upon all monies due on the mar-
ginal receipts over and above what was due to the de-
fendants when they had notice of the assignment to the
Bank of Liverpool.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Jvits 22.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Willes and a Special Jury.)
DAWKINS V. LORD ROJERBY.
The Solicitor-General, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's
examination in chief, submitted that no case had been
made out. As to the alleged false imprisonment, no action
could lie for that after the lapse of four years, because the
right of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations.
The Mutiny Act also provided that any such action must be
brought within six months.
Mr. Justice Willes said there was the further question
whether such a matter as this could be brought before a

civil court.
The Solicitor-General submitted that it oould not, be-
cause what was charged was a military offence, and that it
would be productive of the greatest inconvenience and
detriment to the public service if such actions were per-
mated to be brought. In reference to the alleged conspi-
racy to deprive the plaintiff of his commission, it was urged
that there was no evidence whatever.
Mr. Karalake contended that the point on the Statute
of Limitations could not be raised, because the statute bad
not been pleaded. As to the false imprisonment, he argued
that no military offence whatever had been committed, and
therefore the Mutiny Act did not apply. There was no
military offence found against Colonel Dawkins, and the
statement that be was unfit to command, and the steps
subsequently taken, amounted, it was submitted, to evi-
dence to show that there was a combination to deprive him

of his commission.
Mr. Coleridge followed on the same side.
Mr. Justice Willes said that in bringing this action
against Lord Rokeby Colonel Dawkins complained, first,
of his arrest, which he alleged was illegal, or, if legal, was
continued for an illegal period, and without his being brought
before a court-martial. The arrest took place on the 21st
June, 1860, and lasted for 11 days, and on the matter
being brought before the commander-in-chief, he was re-
leased without a court-martial being held. He also com-
plained of the malicious prosecution by Lord Rokeby be-
fore the court of inquiry and before the commander-in-
chief, the result of which was that her Majesty was un-
justly, as he alleged, towards himself, advised to dispense
with his services. He further complained that this mali-
cious act on the part of Lord Rokeby was com-
mitted in conspiracy
ith w Lord F. Paulet, Colonel
Stepney, and other officers. It was, of course, a
case of the most serious character, and the decision
of it, especially at the present stage, involved
great responsibility. It had been discussed and disposed
of to the satisfaction of the military authorities, who with
respect to military matters represented the Queen, and he
had now been placed upon half-pay. No doubt this was a
lamentable result for services which at one time were
apparently of great promise. On the other hand, Colonel
Dawkins complained that he had suffered injustice at their
hands, and he now sought redress for it in that court. He
must say in the most distinct terms that this was a course
which could not be pursued. The constitutional liberties
of the subject were best maintained by each department
of the government keeping within its own proper limits as
assigned by law, and it was clear, with respect to
military matters which were placed within the juris-
diction of the military authorities, that military men
must determine them. Persons who entered into the
military service and took herMsjesty's pay, were, by a com-
pact which was intelligible to common sense, subject to
military rule and military discipline. It had been decided
by the case of " Johnson v. Sutton" by the House of
Lords, on the advice of such able lawyers as Lord Mans-
field and Lord Loughborough, that military matters com-
ing properly within military jurisdiction could not be
brought in question in the civil courts, and it had been
laid down in a subsequent case that a man, by becoming a
soldier and receiving the Queen'. pay, consented to be
subject to military discipline, and could not appeal to
the civil courts to rescue him from the effect of his own
contract. This would suffice to show that with the ex-
ception of the arrest of 1860, it was not competent fur this
court to consider the matter which had been brought
before it. It was not competent for the court to
undo that which her Majesty had done on the
advice of the proper authorities. Accordingly if it
had been proved that Lord Rokehy had acted maliciously
and without reasonable and probable cause, and was the
prime mover in the dismissal of Colonel Dawkins from
the army, he would not have shrunk from laying it down
as the law that Colonel Dawkins could not have obtained
redress in that court. He was also further of opinion that
there was no evidence to show that Lord Rokeby acted
maliciously before the first court of inquiry. It was not
sought by Lord Rokeby nor by Lord F. Paulet, and in fact
it was not shown, but rather contradicted, that Lord
Rokeby had anything to do in bringing about the court.
With respect to the second court of itqury, it was
not only not sought for by Lord Rokeby, but it
was not sought for by any of the officers with whom it was
said he bad conspired. It was a court rendered neces-
sary by Colonel Dawkins having over and over spin
asserted that these officers bad asserted falsehoods to his
injury. Even if at law such an action could be maintained
he should baveheld that it was not maintainable in the pre-
sent instance, as there was no evidence of persecution,
of malice, or of conspiracy, and no evidence of proceedings
taken except in consequence of what Colonel Dawkins him-
self did and said. 7'he learned judge then referred to
some other facts in the case, and with regard to Colonel
Dawkins declining to take the hand of Lord Rokeby, and
giving the militsay salute instead, this was an intentional
slight by an inferior of a superior officer, and in
his opinion was a matter which came within the
109th article of war, being conduct totbe prejudice of good
military order and discipline. On the whole case he was
bound to say that no cause of actioninacivilcourthad been
proved. He did not know what military menwould think
of such a decision, nor did he indeed care, because he be-
lieved that that portion of the community who were not
soldiers desired that soldiers should settle their disputes
amongst themselves, that they should keep themselves to
their own jurisdiction, at least with to all mitten
which were properly military. He could not conceive any-
thing more fatal to themselves or to the discipline or sub-
ordination of the army than for every officer who consi-
dered that he had been insulted or ill-treated by his
superiors, to whom by becoming a soldier he had engaged
to submit, seeking to undo that judgment, and before a
tribunal which must necessarily have but a slight ses-
quaintanes with the matter on which it had to pronounce

an opinion. He had no doubt this vru the law. He had
no doubt it was cenatttational law, and that it was bene-
ficial to the community. His Lordship then directed that
the plaintiff should be nonsuited, but stayed execution
until next term, in order that theplaintiff might move the
court above to set aside the aansuit
It was then agreed between the parties that the au
which stood next on the list, Dawkins v. the Duke of
Cambridge, should be made a remanet.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JUNI 22.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
EDWARDS V. CLARK.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. G. 0. Grinits for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Denman, Q.C., Dr. Wambey, and Mr. Rasher for the
defendant.
The defendant propounded the will of Sarah Giblett, the
widow of an upholsterer in London who died in 1838.
She herself diedAn November last, leaving property esti-
mated at about 4,000/. She had no relations, and she bad
made wills in favour of friends named Atkins and Edwards.
In 1861, however, she saw fit to alter the disposition of
her property, and she accordingly made • third will, by
which she gave the bulk of what she possessed to her ser-
vant, Jane Clark, the defendant, whom she also appointed
her executrix. The plaintiff, a chemist, in New Caven-
dish-street, opposed probate, on the usual grounds of un-
due execution, incapacity, and undue influence.
Thedefendant's ass had not closed when the court rose.

COURT OF BANKRITPTOT.--Jums 22.
(Before Mr. Commis loner Holroyd.)
111 RI W. BROWN.
The bankrupt was a miller and corn dealer, late of the
Globe Milk, Lower Shadwell, trading in partnership with W.
Moore, under the firm of " Brown and Moore." This was
an adjourned sitting for discharge. The aggregate lia-
bilities are 12,6501., of which 7,019/ is stated to be due to
Mr. Moore, father of the bankrupt's partner. Theme ts
are returned at 3,2271. ; property held as security 4,
Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, stated that the bank-
rupt had passed his examination though there had been
an understanding that the sitting should be adjourned.
He had been required to file a deficiency account, both of
the joint and separate estate, but had only done so of the
former. On this ground another adjournment was asked.
Mr. E. Reed, for the bankrupt, urged that the accounts
rendered contained all the necessary information. He
was prepared and anxious to go into the facts of the ease.
Mr. LinidAer said he had studiously avoided that, but
was ready to do so.
His Honour said he should not allow that until the
question of account had been disposed of.
ifitimatelythe din was adjourned for amended accounts,
the assignees to deliver requisitions within three weeks.
Mr. Reed urged the appointment of a day before the
vacation.
His Honour said that a month or two's delay ought not
to be objected to, especially as there was now a bill before
the legislature which would prevent bankrupts getting
their discharge, under certain circumstances, in less than

six years.
Mr. Reed—But that bill will never pans. (A laugh.)
The Commissioner—At all events it shows the feeling of
the legislature and the commercial world.

SHOCKING DEATH FROM DRINK.

Yesterday Dr. Hardwicke, deputy coroner for
Central Middlesex, held an inquest at the Duke of York,
New Church•street, Marylebone, on the body of Edith
Bland, who resided at 4, Hanover-cots, St. John's-
wood. Mrs. Sarah Bland, mother of deceased, residing at No.
1, Shaftesbury-villas, Kensington, said—My daughter was
married. She was living with a gentleman at No. 4,
Hanover-cottages. I do not know anything of my
daughter's death. She would not eat, but drank hard.
Sarah Clements—l was servant with the deceased. She
kept the house. I have been with her four years. She
was not very well last Saturday night. On Monday she
was worse, but would not let me fetch the doctor. She
locked the door so that the doctor should not come in.
She was in the habit of drinking • great deal of
brandy and soda water and brandy and water. I
was with her on Monday night, and found so great a
change in her that I sent for the doctor (Mr. James).
When be came she had been dead ten minutes. In
answer to Mr. Hallam, the foreman, the witness
stated that there was a gentleman lying in the
the next room to deceased. He was ill with delirium
tremens. He was not well enough to drink with her on
Monday. Mr. William Reynolds James, surgeon, 23,
Upper Gloucester-place, said—lwas sent for to the deceased
shortly after 12 o'clock on Tuesday morning. I found her
lying on the bed quite dead. I had been in attendance at
the house • week previously, but not epos her. I have
made a post-mortem examination. There are no
signs of violence or of poison. The jury here stated that
they had observed a cut over the lip, and a serious injury
to the eye. The doctor said he had not noticed anything
of the sort. The coroner said, you had better go and see
the body again after concluding this portion of your evi-
dence. Mr. James, continuing his evidence, said : The
stomach was quite empty, with the exception of a little
pulp of orange. The cause of death was fatal syncope,
through fatty degeneration of the heart. I did not examine
the head. Charles Nevin said—l am medical attendant
upon the insane. I was engaged to attend upon Mr.
Noel, who was staying at 4, Hanover-cottages. He was
very ill from drinking habits. I have been in attendance
upon him for a week. He was too ill to drink with the
woman whilst I was there. He was in a different
room from her, an adjoining one. A juror s
this gentleman any relation to Lord Gainsborough ?
Witness—l cannot say anything about that. As I was
leaving the house at half-past 9on Monday night the
deceased came out of her room and asked me bow the
gentleman was. The foreman of the jury thought the doctor
ought to have opened the head of deceased. Coroner—l
agree with you, and I shall certainly reprimand him for
that neglect. Sarah Clements, recalled, said she had not
been enabled to induce her mistress to eat food for three
or four days. She drank about half.a-pint of brandy a
day with soda water. A juror—Did notthe gentleman give
her 30W. Witness—He gave her some money, but Ido not
know bow much. Mr. James recalled-1 have seen the
body again, and I can assure you that all the marks on
the face have come on since death. The jury returned
a verdict of " Natural death, accelerated by habits of in-
toxication."