The Express.
London, England, 1859-11-07 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 7, iLia:f.

tido futtilisturt.

121TIOPOLITA4 COV*TT COURT&

I.P•Voi
• ammoseria. at. llania-wara.—lrembinityr.forg ape kilowins
Man! cat* 14$1•••••$,—W01$$$$$* 11$6. $ ; numb&
LA *sal a. Can wadi 31•94.14.—Temig,
_4l;
euuscrwina. Demormsuo.-.Mussac Nwr. T Taraiy. e ;
rob,. hubs. 11
—Wok-. lay. Nov. 0; Shindy. 10;

.1.7447tre* So.. 7 : Ilkuttdb).

fr
o,2.oll;irrei•;;L iv. Nov.lo ; Friday. 11.
essas•4lL-T
airia•W x...
115..m•505.
Crti .• Wu, 7ios. 7: Tawas,.
Therwly. 140; MA:. 11.

EQUITY COUltlS.—Nov. b. ,
(floto•• the Waster of the Rolla.)
11C RRRRR e. ILlCllaltal. t _
Thi. c••• sums ea upon sunneons to' take thtTfodre's
opinion on ohs Chief Clerk's certificate. The question We&
vb... her. where a Warned lady had, under a power, nude an
appoinuoest is favour o(ose of her children to the exclusion
of the rear. upon a bergals tMt the child •11,4dd wilier •
benefit ur.,n the fearer (who was not an object of the power),
• r•lltirl the appointment after she b.clune • widow. tinder
general set ed. in the tebrinal power, but *about referring to
it, such rettfloatton could be totuarred sufficient to sada..
tint. the ofiglelli appointment, preciee'y as if that eppoint.
Mint ban one been attained by the illegal birgaio, in favour
et the &am ?

Mr. Srlulu, Mr. W. D. Loeb, sad Mr. Lewin for the
party retocate. Mr. Palmer sad Mr. Come for the other

Ta. cam had not concluded 11 hos his Honour rock;
(Betwo V•cieChancellor Sir W. Pogo Wood.)

IN kE THE D0W410611 LANDOKAvINI OF /MASI ROK-
'PRO, J.IIINIFELT ELIZAIIZTIL OF =OLAND.
ANO If EL THE WILILY ACT.

---•
TMe less . patinae pmeented by the Primes Frame Fried-
Adolphe of Scbwarterberg Dudol eta ft, the Prince Albert
of Rudoletedt, mid the Ponces Augusta Louise TKOS& Ma•
tilde of Schwartezburg lindolvadt, um wife, and it prayed
the p•ynient out of court of three sums of 13001. and odd to
the ienrionero. It appeared th✓ the Dowyrer Lantigreeine,
by • le•ter written by her to the Melees. Drummond, her
/sinkers, directed them to intro& and accumulate during her
lite a mini of 1,30 r/. ConoL, teethe benefit of her husband's
chilitrea,but to keep the trusts of this Metal:mint .oeret
from the objects, d it. nil isivaetmeat was duly made,
mad acetunalsted from time le lime. Ulthastely the trustees
pail it biro r- •urt under the Trustess'lteliefAct, and it formed
the fund in question under this petition. By the desth of
the Leotpreeine it now banune
The Vice Cheer-elk, made the order so prayed.

WE SIR T. M. WILSON'S IST‘TZ.—THIS L.
WRATH MCISATIoN.

Mr. Roll appeared in support of a petition seeking to
stable Sir T. M. Wilson to grant building Wide/ of the pro.
party held by him at, sad In the neighbourhood at, Hamp-
stead. The Ictrned coaaael stand that the pathos was pre-
ened to the court ender the provides. Mar neat act
(19. h and :Nth Vol.. C. 120) mtets' the await r aotho-
nee pareu• !levee limited internee is laud sailer with or
settlements not containing a power of loring to pest lows
of Mei property. There could be no doubt bat that some
of the framers of that sterna iateedel to outs& Mr T.
M. tritons from its benefit. They had theerted a dames, no
dose. with a view to carry out that inmates. But Is ties
am Mao nosiest a Interference with the rights of property
the court woull sot go beyond the Mend wordiert of the act ;
It wand sot, unless It found heed boast by the words of
the logianture, refuse to flir T. 11. Willem the even which
leadoweer powered under the statute. Nu doubt,
metals of the frame's of the act intended for popular pur-
poses to laterfer• with priests right., to carry that insofar-
mei farther then it had ever ye boo earned by Hagfish
law, and farther than It would, he trusted, ever
be mired agaia. Hs would tint cell the attention of
the court to the statute, and then he would
Meta the feta of the cue. By the 20th section notice of any
applicatiost we to he rem la the neepapare, and any per-
son or body corporate might apply to be heed by the coast
ts opposition. Cadet the section Mr. Toner wee than pre-
mat ins babel of the vestry of Hampered. The seat donee
(the 21.) wet the claws which wee awed at Mr T. Wiese.
It ran 'hue The cone AO not be et liberty to great
say application under this out is say was whore the appli-
cant or any party entitled has previously applied to ether
house of parliameat for • private act to edam the mass or •
aliellar object, and each application has bees repsoted on its
merits or reported against by the judger to whom the bill may
have been refined.- Be should contend that upon
the cirmunatenes of thia case there bad teen no
applicatioe to • home of pubes:eat which had been
rejected ow the merits. It wa• true that the
lee bill which Sir T. hl Warm htd brought In we, rejected
by the Haim of Common., but that bill was obtained by an
ifflication to the Hume of Lords, not by an application to
the C 04111.110110, and "the application was not elected at all,
fog the bill pawed that home. In other cases, as the court
weak me, bilis had so doubt been loot in the Lords, bet not
spas the mete for la no tato bat the judge. reported
astabot W bile. The drat bill Mcught focw test by Sir T.
Wiles wee wider the attention of the Roust of Le ria in
1829. It we, vevitd by the judges, it peed the Leda,
sad wee ahisamely withdrawn in the Commons. In 1830 •
seated bill was kaolin before the Lord. • it we. approved
by the judges bet was thrown out by the Lord, on the
amend snag. • thud bill was brought Was the Lords
is 11112, gad It we, approved by the judges.
Teo Vios-Chasothor end that he believed the judge oaly
het MLitt theta the staterooms of th• parties applying tor
the bill.

111 r. Ask Istisma that was MO. The bill of 1843 was with-
drawn. Itt 4146 a berth bill wila brought before the Hoare
of Leda. The Judges reported on that bill that they thought
it melt teem, mitre it should &twat. to the house that
the hewing itimaleming pew,. m to ether estates
comprised la his will, it mast hare been hi. lateens" ant to
anew 84 T. Wilms to leer the Hampstead property. This
bill was lost es • division la the Lod.. A 11th bill was
bemight Steward fa 1853. This was reported upon farousably
thejudgas, bat it was tom upon • dinslon to the Lords
pen Gs mead reeding. The sloth mid list bill wee brought
isrwasd ba WM. Up,. Mb the judges reportbd spedialy,
Gat they bed ears mettles as to whether the teetator did
ims Wend actually to restrict Sir T.Y. Wilms bout grandma
Massa of the iiiinstead property, bat that if the house were
al that wee sot en, they approved of the bal.
bill pawed ton Lode, and was rejected In the Common*.
Ths The-Chimallor asked if the bill of ISIS onaprieed all
the se bit atireted by this g. Mafia r
said that It did so. /laving thee stated the facie
of th;ates. be tenteaded that they sera not within the literal
meaning of the 2lat chum of the art, and that the court cone
emeteg that class strictly ought therefore to gnaw the
greyer of the petition
Mr. Meth. (who was with Mr. Rolt) conteaded that
sae. 21 of the lmast,s End Salm of Settled Ertel., Act wee
bused with ilepeelel Miliellelee to the mums of procedure on
appGistiase far primes Wats bills. That swum was this
tie missiles was owls by panting, which petition was u.
fermi is the perpwr asammitwe. The committee imsaiiaed
IM petitian pragicasd • bill, and apes doing other
alined or disallowed its istroductios. The ishodoctios
Wag allowed, then followed the reference to the judges. It
wee the epplicetion by petitioa to which the act referred. sad
when that rtitios was once granted the future rejection of
the " bill was Gs rejectioa of .a "applicatios " withia
the swilling ef the act.
. .

The Ittp-Ctuuscallot latimated that it waa only asconeary
for Mc. Toiler to address him on the quotas whethter he
ought to bare him coot. of appearing to oppose this petunia.
Mr. Teller was accurdiagly he trd on the quution of carte
mile.
The Vice-Cnecellor p.. judgment. Ile emit that upon
the peeittoa itoelf It appeared tine was ea application In
1853 by Sir T. Wilet.a for .n act to grant lens over this
{dentinal property. It was true that the application we. by
petitin, as Mr. Hetherington soggeoted, bat his honour
thought that upon the drat construe/ma of the act the poli-
tica sad the actual introduction of the bill merle up in the
enthrone application to what:mat. It wee dear, the., that
I. 1853 than was ea aplioavon to parliament; it was also
clear tint It woo then rejected by the house to which it was
made. Thee seen this further question was 'hit rejection
is the merits? Now then might be two kinds of rejortiona.
TIM Sr.. would be on tho !Toned of some itregnlerlty is
cen.plyiag with the stooding orders of the home. Every
tnbonel mast nocesearily have the p .war of rtfasiag .a ap-
plication to it if not made after • dos observance. of these
forma which were established for the conduct of its hosineem.
It was rot miggseted that it was upon chi. ground that the
bill of ISIM we. thrown oat. There remained, then, but the
second bond of rejection, and that wee rejection am the merits.
That court could not look Into the debates of the hoes* to see
what guided ledividual peers is their votes; it could
only take the decision at; which the hones came, sad
it was hound ley an Irreeistable interface to swum* that the
rejection was urem the merit.. If then had bees a motion
that the 6111 should not be read a wood time on tha !lewd
of some informality, it might have Gera different. Such,
however, was cant Vie case. It watt clear, therefore, to the
court that this ruse can. within the 21at section of the Lemes
sal Salm of Settled Estates Act, and that the application
mast be refused. Then was, t 0.., the quastioo of wets oily
rernsminm. As to that, hie honoor thought that iammuch
as the Haeopstrud valley won prevent as volunteer, and aa
their rights were amply guarded by the section to which he
bed ativotvd, they ougat sot to have any c Wa ea against
B,r T. Wilma. Three would thereivre, Le no order on the
petition.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—Noy. 6.
Bitting* in Banco —(Beier* the Loft! Chief Justice. Mr.
Jecice Winittatea, Mr. Jua,iot Bill sad Mr. Jodie
Bleckbarn.)
I.II6IICPY V. cxtesint.n.— k I'LI.IIOIT NTIGIINOM
This warn an &shun for a 'lawns, to plsznutf• pspeely.
Wed at the last LiscAnohlte Ariz • I,ef ro Lord Chief Jnvfna
Erie, when a vardiet waa returned fee the defendant.
Mr. Reejeant Hayes non moved for a new nut, on the
mend that the veruict was against evalente, end epos tli-
&vita.

It Would meta that the plaintiff was in the 00-11pathe
et • good privet. residence in the town of Whir
borough— indeed, it was one of the beet h mare In the
Sows—what the defendant set up • attain cable manu-
factory nest door. The Irene el the two Meese ware in
reelect, and it so happened that the portion of the
dolitailanee pretowe• m which ha esteblished his forge and
sing adjoined the pleintiers dining roam. The lianeweneg

that west on is describe! se incessant, ♦•during from 4
o'clock bathe waning until Isle in the evening. The coll-
oquium was the plaintiff woe driven from his dining room
and Irvin hie drawing rcoar, bosom obliged to tee, refuge is •
small room at the top of the house. This we, the nuiruses
complaised of. The learned sesjeant moved, therefore, that
the verdict was quite contrary to the evidence. But he also
moved for • new trial on alldavita which showed that it was
impossible the plaintiff could have lied • fair trial under the
eirournauinom. It would appear that shortly sitar the trW
• report of the proceedings might the eye of • gentleman
who had brought an ac kin against one of the jury in
"Mercer v. Gritemold," fur estebliehing a saw mill next dour
to his residence—in fact, fora nuisance under ercemetences
nearly precisely anal.gous to the present. The second action
was likewise set down fi,r trial at the Lincoln Assisee, but
for some reason or other that did not take place. It was not
unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that the verdict of
that particular juryman must have been materially
influenced by the dangers which threatened himself, and if
so, the verdict wee open to suspicion. Again, the same jury-
man had an intimate friend on the jury, which fact tended to
• similar conclusion to the former.

-
The Chef Juttice—What was the subetential defence to
the action, !froths'. Hayes?
&spout Hayes—Why, my lord, the defendant first of all
pleaded that he did not make much noiae. Them he laid
that the neighbourhood wee • busies** neighbourhood, and
that the plaintiff bad got a very good Mose very cheap be-
cause of his liability to ouch neks ; and thirdly, that about 25
years ago a small forge had been oubliette:l upon the very
prosier now occupied by him.
The Lard Chief Justice said the court would give it. deci-
sion altar having consulted Chief Justice Erle.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. b.

owing, at NiZich; Wort Mr.
hada Cromptas gad Comma' Jariss

!CELL ADD WI I. COLLIN* AND ACOTHEK.-ACCIDFNT.

The plaintiff in this soda", watchmaker, residing in
Juddiutrost, sued She defendans, a butcher, of Compton-
Meet, for damages oecenionel to the female plaintiff by rea-
son of the defendant.' negligence. The plaintiff's wife wee
passing the defendants' shop, when she slipped, and in catching
hold of the defendants ratios(' to support herself, one of the
'pikes ran into her hand, sad so seriously lojered her that
she had lost the use of the finger, and bad been pat to 151.
expense for m.ditgl attendance.
The question involved In the trial was whether the rail-
legs which caused the injury could be held us having been
improperly erected or were jtunided by general custom.
The jury were of opinion that they were institisid by endow,
end the plaintiff was soasuitad.

Nonornady oo a Sunday. Ia tab °matey It wee he doubt
viola ion of the Sabbath, but he bid hotting to do
:rft.7710 matter to that court.
The investigation was ont preened, sod the filial order day
wee flamed, with an iotituatwo that • vexation defence bad
beat proved.

IN RE JEAN RRIECISLE.
The insolvent had b en leesee of the Bt. James's Thestre,
and now applied under tio Pro,sction Act. Mr. Dowse sup-
ported.
The insolvent was lessee with two other persons fora short
than, and then lessee hinvielf of the theatre in the produc-
tion of French ups.. The losses were considerable. No
creditor opposed.
A day was canted for the final order.