The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-05 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 4.

Sitting in Banco.--(Before Lord Chief Justice Bovill and
Justices Wilke, Ryles, and Keating.)
ecxHoesE AID OTHERS r. AIIIISTELONG.

Thi, was an action by the trustees of W. Cooke, de-
ceaaci, to recover possession of some property which had
been leased to the defendant by the testator for 14 years
from January 1851. The plaintiffs' case was simply this,
that the term of the lease had expired ; but at the trial
before Mr. Justice Smith, at Carlisle, the defendant with-
out any previous notice produced what purported to be
a conveyance of the property from the testator to the
defendant, and which conveyance was to take effect from
the expiration of the lease.
The jury upon this found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Manisty, Q.C., now moved for a rule for a new
trial upon statements contained in certain affidavits, and
stated that the conveyance was upon a most
extraordinarily dilapidated, disfigured, and dis-
coloured sheet of paper, and that it was so
torn that the water mark could not be made out. The
official ink stamp close to the impressed stamp purported
to have been issued in 18.12, but upon being examined
after the trial it appeared that the figure "5" was upon
an erasure. There was also an affidavit, in which it was
stated that no such stamp as that was issued until 1862.
The learned counsel stated some other further circum-
stances as to handwriting and other matters, to invalidate
the deed, and be added that the plaintiffs were quite
taken by surprise when it wan produced.
Rule granted.
MORRIE V. SHIMMER AND WIFE.

This was an action upon a promissory note for 2.10/., at
three months, given by Mrs. Shermer and some other
members of her family to the plaintiff, in 1860, as
security for an advance of money to that lady's father.
The defendant pleaded an equitable plea, that she
Mrs. Shermer, soon after she attained 21, being at that
time young and inexperienced, was induced by the undue
influence and control of her father to sign the note, and
that she never had any value for so doing. 'Fast the
plaintiff had full notice of these facts, and that he had
colluded with the father in procuring the note. At the
trial before Mr. Justice Byles the jury found that Mrs.
Shermer had been subjected to undue influence by her
father, and that the note was for his sole benefit, but that
neither the plaintiff nor Mr. Lawrence, his solicitor, who
negotiated the matter, had any notice of the circum-
stances. Upon this finding • verdict was entered for the
defendant upon the equitable plea.
Mr. Huddleston to-day moved for • rule to enter • ver-
dict for the plaintiff for 3.W., and submitted that it was
clear that in law to exonerate the defendants it would be
necessary to prove notice of the facts to the plaintiff, and
that there was no reason for supposing that • different
rule should prevail in equity.
Rule granted.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Smith and a Common Jury.)
Nearly the whole of the day was occupied with two
eases. The first was to recover the price of a cart, and
was of no public interest i and the second, which was to
recover damages for injuncs sustained upon the temporary
bridge at Blackfriars, was not concluded when the court
rose.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 4.

Sittings at Nisi Prins.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin and
Common Juries.)

The first sittings in term commenced to-day. The list
is not more than usually heavy. Several undefended cases
were disposed of, and the cases tried presented no feature
of public interest.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.—Nov. 4.

The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Mesa and
several of the other judges entered the court this morning,
when the former announced that errors would be taken on
the subjoined days—from the Queen's Bench on the 20th
and 27th inst. ; from the Common Pleas on the 2dth and
29th inst.; from the Exchequer on the 30th inst. and the
2nd December.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Nov. 4.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE JA3IE/4 MUTTON.—" THE DAT " NEWSP.IPER.

After our report left yesterday,
Mr. T. E. Kebble claimed 230/. as contributor of articles
and assistant editor.

Mr. James Elmore, Mr. Charles Canfield, Mr. Roger
Griffin, and Mr. George Elmore, reporters iu different
courts, each claimed entail amounts for arrears of salary
and notice.

Mr. W. T. Marchant, publiiher, of Wellington-street,
i Strand, claimed :;01. for general services in engaging the
staff and other matters. A peculiar feature in this case
was that a cheque for :101. had been tendered to the wit-
: nem by Mr. Hutton before the bankruptcy, and, according
to his own account, be had destroyed it in a fit of passion,
he and Mr. Hutton having quarrelled.
Mr. Peter Rankin, printcr,of Drury-house, Drury-court,
preferred a claim on behalf of himself and his partner,
Mr. Wilson, of 695/., for printing the paper for 41 days.
I The principal question retied in this case was, whether a
I sum of 500/., which had been paid down in the first
instance, was to be deducted from the claim, or was
j meant to be applied in liquidation of the preliminary ex-
penses necessary on the bringing out of a new daily paper.
Mr. Rankin deposed that on the 9th March the bank-
rapt called upon them, and wished them to undertake tbs
printing of the .Day, stating that it must be brought out
by the 19th, so as to give 14r. Disraeli's speech on intro-
' diming the Refarrn Bill. They at first thought it almost
impossible, the time was so short, but afterwards under-
took it conditionally on receiving 5001. as preliminary
expenses. They had to refit their premises, purchase
types, and other matters, the expense of which altogether.
was nearly 8001. They inquired who were the persons
supporting the paper, and certain noble lords were named.
Mr. Hutton said that the paper was to support the views
of the party called " Adullarnites," and that expense was
no object. They (the printers) said that they should want
40,0004. or 50,0001. put into the bank before they could
pr,iceed, and Mr. Hutton said that 40,0001. was subscribed.
Their outlay of 8001. could only have been reconped by the
continuance of the paper for a twelverr.onth. It was usual
either to have a guarantee from responsible persons for the
continuance of a paper during that time, or to have the
preliminary expenses paid down. The Day being published
only 41 days, they were largely out of pocket. Mr. Hutton,
in a letter of the 10th of March, said—" It is quite under-
stood between us that lam to exist you with 5001., and
that you on your part will undertake to bring out a daily