The Express.
London, England, 1860-02-17 00:00:00

tatu iEnteilignut.
• ----- - -

EQUITY COURTII.—Yu. 16.
(bAN, th•llmbir $b R*1114)
°Wass ik rains ass• wiroTHaa.

Tide Mottos, which mum es yesterday, wee resumed this
mambo
The pletetiff is the elhor of the PAologrepAie New., of
which the defendants, wit° emibtiebed It in 1868, ere the
printers and publishers, The plaintiff has been c maectad
with the paper Irma its eloacesaiteeimit, end, 81 virtue of as
ageemeent, dated its Janwery, len, • certain royalty on the
melts wee seemed M him to Owe of soy Wary. finder
this aereement he waged to give his review to the paper for
15 years, dories which poriod he was not to be at liberty to
sestet is the conducting of any other paper devoted to the
alas eldest se the Photorephio NOM Disputes ashes.
gams** areas between the parties, originating chiefly, it ap-
peared, in the plaintiff's °Neogene to 'aerations whisk
the defeadasts insisted os taking in articles fur-
nished by him • the omitting of his articles was
elm a ground a cOmplaint, and then the defendants, it was
alleged contemplated so elteration in the title of the paper,
of which bb name would no longer appear as editor. In
December last the defendants became much dimatiefled with
the conduct of the plaintiff, who formed as eetresemaitt with
another paper, the Cayesimil IVelea, and indeed, they denied
his claim to be any longer recognised by them es editor of
the J'hotogrophie Ram The plaintiff took another view of
his new engagement, which he considered se besseolal to the
defendants' paper, and now sought by injunctica to restrain
them horn interfering with him in his editorial capacity or
otherwise.

His Honour did not call on the defendants' conasel,
and observed that the court could not satithetorily
Interline In such a ors. The evidence oerteinly established
that withiowithout the plaintiff 'a consent site:re-
does or reheats were made in his articles • bat
this woe Oflittle importance and seemed nothing novel.
The Court could not determine to what extent snob altera-
tions Could'properly be tamed, and it was difficult, if not
impossible, to reach a satisfactory conclusion on such a matter.
The evidence did not establish any case entitling the plaintiff
to the control of the paper as against the defendants. In cue
of breach of eegmgement by the defendants, the plaintid's
remedy was at law, in the steps of damages. The motion
most, therefore, be dismissed; the costs to be costs in the
calm

Tifr. R. Palmer arid Mr. Dickenson for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Westlake for the defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLR/a—FEB. 16.
Sittings at Nki Prins in Lsadaa.—(Bokatr Lord Clad
Jostlss Ens sad • Spilka Jag.)

OTE O. HPORIII.—LITIII/0 TIMM&
The trial of this ease was ragweed this ac?. It was an
adios to recover 40004 which Mr. Ups bad la advance
fora yeas rent of ler Modesty's Thostre, also Nose =-
peons to idea he had boa pat ; the ground elastics being
that poseardoe of the theatre had sot been gives to Yr.
fiye. The delheos was that # was no part of the
mat that Mr. Op should be pat lain paearsion, and.=
!Ad neatened so damage throegit not having ft.
Mr. Leib, Mr. Creamy, sad Mr. Damao appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Bevil!, Mr. Serjesat Pigott, and Mr. Lloyd
for the defendant

Mr. O. Beck, the attormy for Mr. Hughes, said that he
acted in that capacity daring the sigatiation with Mr. Om.
• meeting took plats in rehreem to the letting of
the theatre on the fed of March, 1862, at witassm's
office. Anne( other things whams stated, is the
of Mr. Oye and his ligal adviser, Mr. Bergen prat
Mr.
Lumley was is poomemW of the theatre, aad thin they had
no means of getting him oat but by so Malawi. • long
discussion took place as to who shooed boar the amass of
the ejectment, and It was agreed bawls Mr. Hughes sad
Mr. Bermes that the aspens, should be bores between
them, and a clams was drawn to that effect; but difficulties
being suggested, Mr. Hughes sad Mr. Burgess met to con-
snit Idr. Hedge, the convoys:oar. Mr. Hedp mommanded
that the dams should not form part of the agromant. Mr.
Oye said be wee so satisfied silk the mass: is which the
negotiation bad bon madeoted, that ha was willing to leave
it as Mr. Hedge saggeptod, sad Wagreement was almost
Immediately signed. Mr. Oye said that be knew his taking
the theatre would be so repagaset to Mr. Lumley that he
would give blur (Mr. Om) all the trouble he could. A '
great deal of dimeassion followed about • Issas,
and it wee imaged that Maim amid set
then prepare a Wm% sad ft was suggestelthat if Mr. Hughes
granted a lens, it Med be timainstad by his 'Moist being
szliamdshed. sews sleet maim objectedto a yam,but Mr. Om 'grand his opiates that wins they
come.
Oa he had paid his 6,0001., desk would comae.
Oa the 30th Maroh whims saw Mr. and am ap-
pointmint was treads for gluing Mr. any mmossica they
were able to give him. Mr. Hogkees authority was mo-
deled for that purpose. They went to the theatre on ths
Ist of April, and wens missed .admittanoti. Mr. Oyu ap-
peared nettled," saying that he feared it would be the sub.
ject of • newspaper paragraph; bat that seemed to be this
extent of his annoyance. He saw Mr. Duman on the Ind
of April, and it was agreed that the Im4 way of meting
posseimiou was by efeeteneat. On the 9th of April Mr. Oys
authorised witness to take proceedings in ejsotraset.
Croneexamlned—His object la going to the theatre on
the Ist of April was to pat Mr. Walker, Mr. Oyes man, in
possession. He was positive that helm the agreement was
signed he mentioned the subject of ejectment to Mr. Oye,
bat he had no entry to that effect In his diary.
Tin witness was further cross-examined about • number
°Mita&
The Lord Chief Justice however,iatimpossd by saying
that the garden was what was . entree* batmen ths
1 parties? the plaintiff s case Ming that be was to have im-
mediate posseemoa of the theatre, std the dehedsnes cams
that be wee only to give such lateen as he had.
Witness continued—On the Mid Mardi he believed that
they could give Mr. Oye such posotodon as they had, hat
be had the strongest poolble doubt that they could give Mr.
(he such possessions am would tenable him to nee the tbeatra.
He °oak* not say why in his letters to Mr. Oye and his d-
eists he had not meattread that he thought they could not
give Mr. Oye effective possession.
Mr. William ffaneal Price Hughes, the d
said It was fully mplaised at the interview on Is=
March the pomition in which maths stool ; that they bad
gore to the theatre as digit creditors, sad lift • ..an they
hued the,. is possession, and that Mr. Ltualay wee
in °on-
eurriat posseselos. Mr. Oye know des oirontostasoss per-
hotly, sad it wee understood that he was to have the gams
possession which they had. Farther, that an ejectment
night be seeemazy, which !Licensee would have to be
brought in WiiIIIISS's name. Witness stated expressly that
he did sot consider the pornsion they had was of say prac-
tical me. The ejectment was to be brought in witness's
name, because Mr. Oye objected to his soma being and In
litigation with Mr. Lumley. When Mr. Oye asked the
miming of the term in the ogronasat that ha was to
to authorised " to take pomades. witness ex-
Method what pommies' he had, and that Mr.
(eye ma to have that possessioe, of whatever value it was.
It was said that Mr. Oye was to stand in witness's shoes as
as digit creditor. Wither always explained to Mr. Oye the
exact position is which matters stood, and be knew every
promoting is well am adman did. Witness expended the
whole 6,0001. mitred iron Mr. Oye in costs and charges to
rephrases to the theatre before ha motel with him interest to
Lord Ward.

6;ate-;;;:sised—Whes re mitered hato the he
believed it was Xe. file's latestios to opal the rhesus, if he
could do so prelhably, that year. Witness believed that be
could aria Ow Mr. Oye absolute lon, but only such
paseseska as wham tad. He bsl srd his poseesalon wee of
as sleet spiel Mr. Lumley. Wither cotdd aot say whether
it was kr tbh that Kr. Oys paid 6,0004 Mr. Oye taw
best wlstilatesgitbe money for, but altars was happy to
10:41.11 It. ham) Villages had teen edvisad by Mr.
Haan& ether counsel that be bad legal pasestalos of
the theatre.

Mr. Hedge, the oonverinow, said he mottled an agreement
harm the pares. 0a the 22nd Match, 1853, he saw Mr.
Hughes end Mr. Bargees in Tehrana to it. The precarious
nature of the contract was discussed between them, and there
was a discussion ea to whom nuns the ejectment should be
brought in.
Mr. Chas. Farber, the motkaser, said be was concerned
for Mr. Beck in lealag the lima.. He was present on the
211.4 March, when the agreement was edged. After a long
discussion about the agreement sad about the question of
pommies, they watt to Mr. Hedge that be might say what
was right to be dm.
Robs. Wm. Smith said that he was hrmerly is possession
of the theatre for the mortice' sad while Jlllll somebody
cams and gave him a written sWptty to hold peemesion for
the sleet creditors. He laid peseession der them for a month
or more. His pommel= fur lb.. 611111Mbitild to April, 1863,
by ejectment.
Crage-eusesised—He WWII held vagaries of the keys of
the Mr dome. Fish held than ler Mr. Lumley. Witness
eccapied Madam Orion mom Langhter.) Fish said Mr.
Gpe wag aissftg le get (Lague
if be got in he
(Flab) would give Idea iato may.
The Lord Chief alter seam dieuresign as to the way
M which the ease should be dime" istimaird that if be
had to datermhe what was the mamba el the agreement his
million was amine. the Weedier ; but that qualm would
be reserved for the court if raissemy. If the matter wee for
the jury he should ask them whither they were of opinion
that Mr. Hughes maireeted M glee Mr. Bye power an, or
only the right M Mad le the dam of Meet by sleet.
The*, "desisted that It was set necessary ill his lord-
=sum ap In detail, their Melondetail, babi a favour of the
A millet was accordingly returned for the plaintiff for
8,7301., lift the 5,0001. paid, Lorna opal it, and 4591. paid
by Mr. Bye for insurance.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—FIa. 16.
alttiais at NW Press, at Odle11A—(Belon Yr. Bum
Mink sad a Bpsdal Jury.)

MORGAN AND ANOTIRR e. 71■ LONDON DOCK 001.
PANT.-711 WlOll AND SPIRIT TIADIS.—ALL/tOID
FRAUDS IN Tll LONDON DOLL.

Ter else was resnard this with the auselsatioa
of 1144111111 witaseses as behalf of the stiff to prove trete
the we*. pusisaill 1. and u. tl4l44loestlee 41 the wise
complaint% el la the bill of poetised's.. Their testimony
west to show that the whin wore suit damaged dudes their
sooting.
with the now of proving the eyelets is mimeos/ is the
dock., as to lb. Weise of Mar, a sambrr of fee.
safely is the onspmay's elapiey was caned. :1. sejarky