The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(Ting-mw.)

EQI IT (*OURT.
I :t•fv: t !. ,Cia150,4144-31alitts.)
Yilp Co,

-111 A • kol that this u.atter• which stood for
, .1. ,t I. ts.,,tpoued tdl Thursday, the At-
• .• ts., attend before that day.
, 1.• • ,• n!•-• tt• stand at the head of Thurs-

t'itanrtlLa.tw• no objection to the course
••• i, hut it, 1.1,h•I tirtt it might be placed AI the
~... for fitursiiity, the nuttter must appear as
' •., it IN.ta motion.
i..t LV,ur tixe.l for ThitietLiy next.
t't lila OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

in it ale... 9tefo're the Lord Chief Justice and

.l.tit ice..l:lackhurn, Mellor, :11111 Lustc):

set. the 'list .I,ty of Ifilary Term.

As ihe Lord

Alor only rcicives the learned judges and leading
..f T/14 iqlr at a levee held on the first day of
• I••i.e. 31Id 1.:411rl r terms, the court sat to-day at half-

\ EA% .I.I*SSEL.
ie.well and Mr. Prideaux were to-day called
• r bar is queen's Counsel.
•VI . -I. TII I HETIS,IsoLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY.

vi • crouipton more.' for a rule for a mandamus coin.
11..; the Metropolitan District Railway Company to
their warrant to summon a sheriff's jury to
• compeo,ition for certain property in St. George's,
r • ~vec...filare. which thy had given notice to take
their act of lal;4. The company subsequently
v.. 1 to take the property. A question arose as to
• • ia•r„ under the 79th section of the act, a notice to
• land was einivalent to a notice to treat. A similar
-,:c.ir.ted in another case, it being considered
I. •:o hatr the point discussed on demurrer.
1:,;•• granted.

lAPARTC J. H. BENTLEY.

`II. Watkins Williams moved for a rule calling
:p.m two .ittorneya of Cheltenham to show muse
..hv they should not answer the matters contained in
.rtain attiila%its. Mr. Bentley's father died in 18.16,
sine considerahle property to the applicant on his
....mg of age. He came of age in January, 1865, and the
.tt..rtieys continue., to act for him until June, when
i.• ,ringed his solicitors. The applicant contended that
:ittorneys hail received 1.1;29/. on his account, and he
hn.ilde to get from them any money, except a pay-
.it ,•f or any statement of account. The learned
.-ntlt min read a correspondence which had passed be-
it the parties, in which it was alleged. that the atter-
. y.; hail tnisapplied !KW., and had given a wrong account
the transaction.

Mr. Justice Blackburn said this application was in the
n,ture of a criminal charge. Its facts should be clearly
distinct) y set forth before the court called upon an at-
torney to make answer, because the granting a rule which
was absolute in the tirst, instance implied that there was
dear prima facie Lase made out. That did not appear
to be the ease here. Had the usual course of applying for
An account been adopted?.

Mt. Williams said he believed not. Ur. Bentley pre-
ferred taking this course.

I:ttle refuused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
sittings in Banco.--(liefore Lord Chief Justice Bovill and
Justices Willes, Keating, and Smith.)
rue NEW CISME JUSTICE,
At the sitting of the court this morning Sir Win. Bovill
w:,,‘ sworn in Lord Chief Justice of this court. Master
Bak ailtuinistered the oath.
BAGRELSI E. RAWLS;
Thit ease arose out of the following circumstances. The
tenants of a Staffordshire colliery got into sneer for
rater, and the overseer &strained and seized a
toter. The defendant baught it at the auction, and a day
ii• two afterwards sold it to the plaintiff, a dealer in old
boilers. The boiler was placed upon a bed of brick work,
sial not fixed there, but the doorway of the building would
Live to be enlarged before it could be taken away. When
the plaintiffs went for their purchase they were threat-
tool with legal proceedings if they removed the boiler,
mid therefore they abstained from doing so, and com-
menced the present action against the defendant, for
not completing his agreement to sell. At the trial before
Mr. Justice Blackburn at Liverpool, the jury found for
the plaintiff, damages 401.
Mr. Holker now moved fore rule to enter a verd,ct for
the defendant or for a new trial, and submitted that the
boi!er was liable to he seized for poor's rate, and that the
plaintiff had a right to remove it. The fact that the
plaintiff had been threatened with proceedin s if he re-
moved the boiler was nothing to the fendant, if, in fact,
there was a legal right to remove.
Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord thief Baron and
Barons Martin, Channel!, and Pigott.)
This was the first day of Hilary Term. Mr. Dowdeswell
and Mr. Prideaux, who had attained to the dignity of
Queen's counsel, were called within the bar, with the
customary formalities.

WCAVER r. aura.
This was a " running down " case, which raised a ques-
tion of some importance. The action was brought for
injury dote to a horse by the negligent driving of
n cabman in the service of the defendant. The cabman
was taken before a magistrate, who, under the powers
of the Hackney Carriage Act 6 and 7 Vic., cap. 86, sec.
committed him to prison, and ordered the defendant
to {a.107. for damages done to the plaintiff's cab, which
had been run into. It was alleged before the magistrate
that the horse said to be injured was really not the one
in the plaintiff's cab at the time of the occurrence, but
another, and the 101. was awarded only in respect of the
coviage. At the trial of this a,ition, which took place
before Mr. Baron Martin at the last sittings at Guildhall,
the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 13/.
Mr. Pearce, in pursuance of leave reserved by the
learned judge, moved to enter a nonsuit. The question
was whether the plaintiff, having obtained under the act
in question compensation for one portion of the property
injured, could bring an action to recover damages in
respect of the other part. The learned counael contended
that as the plaintiff had elected to go before a justice of
the p
thi eacesa , and had received the 10/., he could not main-
Mr.tain s da%
Baron Martin said his impression was that as the
plaintiff had obtained redress under the Hackney Carriage
Act, he could not recover for the damages by a civil
action.
The Court granted a rule nisi.

COtRT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCZ.
u
(Before the Jdge Ordinary. )
Thai morning the court resumed its sittings after the
Christmas holidas. The new cause list contains one
divorce case for bearing before the full court as against
two in the last paper ; seven cases to be tried before special
pries as against four; 28 to be heard before common juries
as against 22 ;and 84 to be tried without juries against
EA. In all there are 120 cases, of which 14 are for judicial
*Potation, five for restitution of conjugal rights, and two
umberees casesiy of marriage. The increase in the
hof is attributable to the unusual amount of
the probate business last term. It again promises to be
rather heavy.

TCRSZR r. PERTEM
Dr. Spinks, Q.C. and Mr. Callaghan for the plaintiff ;
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Searle for the defendant.
The testator, a retired eating-house keeper, in (lum-
ber-street, Nottingham, died in March last. He was un-
married, but he had adopted his niece, Ann Curtis, who
had lived with him sus his daughter since the time she was a
little girl. He had property to the extent of about 3,000/.,
which he bequeathed to her. Probate of the instrument,
however, wan resisted by Win. Perfect, the heir-at-law, on
the grounds of undue execution, undue influence. want of
capacity, and want of knowledge of the contents of the
paper.
[The case was proceeding when our report left.]

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE RONANNA DUNN PRAT.
The bankrupt, described as a dressmaker, of South.street,
crosvenor•square, MA King's-cress-road, is well known
from the legal proceedings in which she has been concerned
sfrxast the Earl of Zetland, in whose employ she had
hved As lady's maid to the countess. She attributed her
la,lure to the ill success which has attended her litigation.
.o.....lehtsare about 3001. ; thecreditors, sevenin number, are
II for law coats. Amongst them are Mr. Justice Bieck.
.'nt, IV. ;
_and the Earl of Zetland, 1131. At the last
fi•trig an adjournment was ordered, on the representation
of me b.;;ltrupt that something might yet be derived from
4e proceedings still pending against the Earl of Zetland.
Aldridge, for the official assignee, offered no further
Nr. 11.,gley, who appeared for the Earl of Zetland, said
1` hal no desire to preas hie opposition. All he desired
e‘• that she would let him alone, which up to that time
1";-114.1 not done. (Laughter.) She bad returned the
°;rl as a creditor for 11:11., but there wars other bills of
t.; the amount of 431., taxed in May last, which
• to he included.
Honour asked the bankrupt if she would give an
rtiking to discontinue all proceedings, and told her
would be a wiser and happier woman if she did so.
Fr,sy raid she should certainly reject the offer.
1%,41ey mid that the bankrupt brought one action
Lord Zetland so long ago as 1855, in which
.- the late Serjeant Wilkins, Sir A. Cockburn,
Mr. &win appeared ; and she agreed to
rl't :W. as damages, which was paid. Un-
.:''''^4toY, she had quarrelled with her attorney, Mr.
: and in an affidavit made by her long after she
Amitted that that arrangement was binding. Not-
•t ;nding this she bad persisted in taking proceedings
Lord Zetland, which were all decided against her,
of course entailed costs on the Earl of Zetland.
r a long addresa from Miss Fray, in which she
...I the whole of the proceedings from her own point
4. and bitterly inveighed against the conduct of the
Zetland, who, she said, bad injured her to such an