The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-01 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1860.

flagrant case of insubordination occurred in the presence of
the entire division, Colonel Rea, the oommandant, deter-
mined to make a prompt example of the prisoner, and
ordered a " drum-head" court-martial to assemble imme-
diately, to try the priICOOL The officers accordingly
amembled, and sentenced the prisoner to receive 50 lashes,
which sentence was carried ant to-day.
Twenty-five non-cow:deicing Miners 'and men of the
12th and 65th Regiments arrived at Fort Pitt Hospital this
afternoon from Australia, having diseraterked at Custom-
house-quay, Gravesend, tram the Blue Jacket, which sailed
from Sydney on the 23rd December lad. During the pas.
sage six deaths Occurred on board.

lab) Intelligence.
EQUITY COURTS.—APRIL 30.
Before Vice-Chancellor &r B. T. }Cinderslcy.)
DI RE TID IDITSGAN SLATE AID BUD QUARRY COMPANT.

This case came on on adjourned summons from chambers,
the question being whether the holder of a bill for
913/. Is. 6d. should be admitted as • creditor for that
amount upon the company, which is being wound up. The
claim arose under the following circumstances. The
company was established under the coat-bock principle, and
• Mr. Wilkinson was the purser or manager, and he warn also
owner of nearly one-half of the shares of the company. In
February, 1857, the company was in difficulties, and a
balance-sheet was submitted showing a deficiency of 3,455 t.
The purser stated that the company owed him 9131. is. &L
and a resolution was pared authorising him to draw a bill
for that amount, and to negotiate it as he pleased. He drew
a bill, and also accepted it on behalf and by the authority
of the directors of the company ;" and thin bill, it was
alleged, was discounted by the present claimant, who gave
6&W. for it. The main question before the court was aa to
the bona fides of the transaction.

Mr. titre and Mr. Hannan (of the common-law bar) sp.
Cradfor the claimant ; Mr. Bally and Mr. H. Humphreys
e official manager.
The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, said he did not
think the claimant, who was put upon inquiry by the
singular form of the bill, had shown that he had used due
diligence. The circumstanoes were suspicious, and he must
dismiss the claim.

(Before Vice. Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)
lIIICHILMORZ V. lIVDOZ.

This was a creditor's suit for the administration of the
estate of William Mudge, and the question was, whether
a deposit by a husband by way of equitable mortgage of i
the title deeds of lauds in mortgage to his wife fora terra'
of yeses amounted to such a reduction into possession d
the mortgage debt by him as to destroy the right at the
wife by survivorship to the same. It appeared that Mrs.
Mudge had become, jointly with her sister, under the will
of her father, Mr. Tracey, entitled to his resi-
duary estate, and that in 1851 Mn. Madge'
and Miss Tracey, having agreed to make a partilioa
of their father's property, Miss Tracey assigned her un-
divided moiety in two mortgagee for 8061. and 5501. (which
formed part of the residuary estate of Mr. Tracey) to Mr.
Mudge, the husband of Mrs. Mudge, and at her request.
A sum of 150 f. bad been paid off during Mr. Mudge's life,
and be had received the irterest on the mortgages up to his
death. Mr. Mudge subsequently deposited the title deeds
relating to them mortgage* to secure the repayment of cer-
tain sums of money. A suit baring been instituted for the
administration of the estate of Mr. Mudge, who died in
February, 1856, • question arose whether such deposit of
the title deeds had the effect of destroying the wife's right
by survivorship to the mortpge debts.
Mr. Mahn', Q.C., and Mr. C. H. Keane ; Mr.
Q.C., Mr. Knox, and Mr. Southgate ; and Mr. Edcissi.3acM
Mr. Stapleton appeared for the different parties.
The Vice-Chancellor said he did not think that the de-
posit by the husband by way of equitable mortgage of the
title deeds amounted to such a reduction into possession of
his wife's chooses in action as to defeat her right by survivor.
ship. It had been held that a mere assignment by a hus-
band had not that effect ; and there was no reason why a
mere deposit of title deeds by way of equitable mortgage,
the mortgage money still remaining outstanding, should
have any greater effect. It must therefore be declared that
the wife's right by survivorship had not been destroyed by
the deptait of the title deeds by her husband.

raised upon demurrer to two counts of the declaration. The
first count alleged that the plaintiff took furnished apart-
ments in the defendant's house, and took with him there
certain chattels ; but in consequence of the defendant not
taking such proper care of his house us a prudent owner
would, certain dishonest persons were admitted in the
absence of the plaintiff and took away some of his property.
1 The second count alleged that the defendant being de-
sirous of reletting his lodgings had, according to custom,
license to show the apartments to persons desirous of
taking the same, and that in consequence of his not using
due and proper care whilst no doing, certain persons to
whom he showed the apartments carried away the plaintiff's
110?4*- . .

Mr. Thompson argued that these counts disclosed no
cause of action, and Mr. Archibald appeared on the other
side.

The Lord Chief Justice wan of opinion that there must be
judgment for the defendant. Upon the first count the
plaintiff claimed upon the mere relation of the lodger with
the lodging-house letter, and assumed that the law created
the duty of taking due and proper cue of the goods of the
lodger. To ascertain whether there was any duty of taking
are of the goods of the lodger, he had looked for autho-
rities, and it was clear that no court, no treatise, no judge
had ever affirmed that proposition. On the contrary, rt ap-
cared to him that Csyley's case, which laid down the
iability of innkeepers for the goods of wayfaring
travellers, assumed that that liability was restricted to
innkepers only, and the judges indeed laid it
down distinctly,that a landlord was not liable for the goods
of a mere lodyr, even if they were stolen by one of his
own family. The reasons which were given for the lia-
bility of an innkeeper did not apply to a lodging-house
keeper. The declaration, it was true, only alleged that the
lodging-house keeper was bound to use " due and proper
care," but he was most particularly averse to affirming, for
the first time, that there was • duty to use "due and
proper care," for he believed that the greatest evil they
, could have in a community was an undefinable disputable
' liability, which no man could tell the limits of. Such •
duty would extend to every clans of lodging-house letters,
from those who let lodgings to the wealthiest in the land,
down to those who took in the mere wanderers going from
town to town, :.nd would apply under every variety
of circumstances. There never was such a liability
resting upon lodging-house keepers, and there never ought
to be. On the other hand, it was the duty of the lodger to
take are of his own property. The second count raised the
question whether the lodging-house keeper was responsible
for the acts of any person to whom he showed the lodgings ;
and he wax of opinion that he was not. The lodger should
have put valuable property out of the way before he allowed
the moms to be shown ; and if he was not bound to do so
there would be great opportunity for a lodger to put pre-
perty in the way of evil-disposed persons, and then make
the landlord liable. The raw had not laid down the rule
that in such a case • lodging-house keeper was liable if be
did not ass due and proper are.
Mr. Justice Byles thought that this wan an attempt to
remove the ancient land-mark of the law, and could not
Judgment for the defendant.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES. -APRIL 30.

(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Willes, and Mr.
Justice Hill.)
ALEXANDER r. ALEXANDER AND AMOR.

The petitioner, a gentleman of property, married the
respondent in January, 1838. She was a person of much
humbler tank in life, and the match was not approved of by
her husband's family. They bad four children, the eldest
of whom was a son 21 years of age. The parties cohabited
in various places and at last in Jersey, where Mr. Alexan-
der had • groom named Amos. This person, a very short
time after he entered his master's service, boasted to a fel-
low servant named Sullivan—that is, according to Sullivan's
own account—that he had reason to expect favours of his
I mistress. Sullivan afterwards stated that he had ocular
demonstration of the respondent's guilt. He attempted to
inform his master ' • but Mr. Alexander, before he had well
begun, told Amos to kick him out. Subsequently, how-
ever, he took him hack into his service. A maid servant
named Vallner also gave evidence of disgusting familiarities,
which she said she had observed between the respondents.
The case was originally heard on the 19th of November,
when the respondent's sister stood up in the court and in-
formed their lordships that her sister had a good defence,
but that she had been unable to bring it forward for want
of means. Their lordships in consequence adjourned the
case sine die, and the wife was subsequently permitted to
plead.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Maude now appeared for the
husband ; Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Conch for the wife.
The evidence of 81111111111 and Vsllner was spin repeated,
with some variations : and a few additional witnesses were
called, including the petitioner's brother, a hanker at
Ipswich, who stated that the respondent was a person of
scarcely any education, and that several years ago he had
attempted to arrange a separation by deed; but Mrs. Alex-
ander refused.

If,. O'Malley having addressed the court for the wife,
The Judge Ordinary gave sentence on behalf of their lord-
ships. He commented very strongly on the absence of all
evidence to sustain any charge of impropriety against the
respondent, except that given against her by the two ser-
vants, which they held to be utterly incredible. They,
therefore, dismissed the petition.