The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-26 00:00:00

LAW UTEUJGENCE.

(TED 3 DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir B. T. Modernity).
RE LEEDS BANKING COMPANT IMPARTS MATTHEWMAN.— 1
THE SEPARATE ESTATE OF A MARRIED WOMAN.
The question in this case, which came before the
eourt in the form of an adjourned summons
from chambers, was whether a married lady, Mrs.
Matthewman, who had certain property settled
upon her for her separate use, was liable to be
placed upon the list of contributories in respect of certain
hares which she contracted to take in the Leeds Bank.
Mts. Matthewman'A first husband, William Sedman, who
was the holder of 55 shares in the company, appointed his
wife his sole executrix. Upon the death of the husband it
wee competent to the company, under its deed of settle-
ment, to have insisted that Mrs. Sedman should either have
these shares placed in her own name, or that they should
be sold. In this case, as in several others, nothing of the
kind had been done, and the shares remained
in Mr. Badman's name until the bank stopped pay-
ment in September, 1864, but with the notification
that Mr. Sedman was dead, and that his widow was the
sole executrix. At the time of his death Mr. Sedman was
was also a customer to the extent of 6631., and that account
was closed and the balance carried to a new account
opened in the name of Mrs. Sedman. In April, 1864,
about six months before the bank stopped payment, Mrs.
Sedman intermarried with George Matthewman, on which
occasion a settlement was made by which her property
was vested in trustees for her separate use, and
notification of the fact was sent to the bank. W hen the
resolution was come to to offer the 2,660 unallotted shares
to the shareholders, Mrs. Matthewman applied for and
obtained the fifteen shares which formed the subject of
the present controversy. The shares were paid for
by a cheque drawn by Mrs. fdatthewutan upon
her own account with the bank. The question
w-s whether, under these circumstances, Mrs. Matthew-
man, although a married woman, ought to be placed
upon the list of contributories for the pm pose of
making her separate estate liable for the calls under the

windixtu.
The 'icep-Chancellor concurred in the view of Lord Jus-
tice Turner, that if a married woman incurred obligations
intending to contract with reterence to her sepa-
rate estate only, and if this was understood
by the creditor, he had a right to make her
separate estate liable for the payment of the debt. It
was clearly not necessary that such a contract should be
in writing, but the fact of its existence must be judged
from all the circumstances of the case. No judge would
go to the extent of saying that even' obligation of a mar-
ried woman who had separate estate should be payable out
of her separate estate. There could be no doubt that
in the present case Mrs. Ilatthewman was intending to
take the 15 shares independently of her husband, and
that the company ,in making the allotment was dealing
with her on that understanding. A manied woman hav-
ing separate estate could unquestionably hold shares in a
joint-stock company independently of her husband,
and it followed, therefore, that she could and ought
to be placed upon the list of contributories in the
liquidation unless there was something to the contrary in
the deed of settlement of the company. It had been
argued that a married woman was not permitted to hold
shares in this company. In his opinion this was a very
strained construction of the deed, but even if there
were anything in the argument, Mrs. Blatthewinan
could not be permitted to repudiate her contract
on any such ground. The came of this lady must
therefore, remain on the list in respect of her sepa-
rate estate ; hut, of course, the case was not one in which
he should require her to pay the costs.
Mr. Glasse and Mr. Cotton appeared for the official liqui-
dator ; and Mr. Baily and Mr. Itosburgh for Mrs. Mat-
thownian.
THE BRIGHTON CLUB AND NORFOLK HOTEL COMPANY.
Mr. Daily moved, on behalf of Mr. Reynolds, who
claimed to be a creditor of the company, that the winding-
up order which was obtained on the 3rd inst. might be
committed to him to carry out, and that it should not be
abandoned without notice to him. Mr. Reynolds alleged
that on the construction of the company a large sum was
due to him, and that he bad brought an action upon his
debt and had recovered judgment. He said further that the
company disputed the amount of the claim and paid
',to court what they considered due, and the matter was
referred to a gentleman of the common law bar, who in
consequence of illness had not yet been able to proceed
with the arbitration. The order for winding-up had not
been drawn up, and the company had been making atrange-
ments with the other creditors for tho withdrawal of the
petition upon which the order was made.
Mr. Swanston supported the application.
Mr. Glasse, on the part of the company, opposed upon
tit- ground that Mr. Reynolds was not a creditor, he hay-
ing been fully paid for his work and certain penalties for
delay being due from him to the company under his con-
tract. Mr. Reynolds had applied to the Master of the
Rolls for a w tiding-up order which had been refused
a ithout the other side being heard.
Mr. Woodroffe represented the Hampshire Banking
Company, who were cree,tors to the extent of 26,0001. out
of the ~8,000/., which was the total indebtedness of the
company. His clients were satisfied that the arrange-
ment in contemplation was the beat for all the creditors.
Mr. Lindley and Mr. Bruce appeared for other creditors
in opposition to the motion.
The Vice-Chancellor il;d not see how he could positively
grant the order. All the shareholders and all the creditors
with the exception of Mr. Reynolds, considered that the
best course for all parties was to carry on the company,
and it might turn out that Mr. Reynolds was not a creditor
at all.
The application was refused with costs.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
THE RETIREMENT OF SIR W. ERLE.
The retirement of Sir Win. Erie, Lord Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, after honourable service on the bench
for a period extending as far back as November, 1844, was
the great event of the day in Westminster Hall, as this
was the last day of Michaelmas term. The court was crowded
to excess, and a large party of ladies were accommodated
with seats in the gallery. Sir W. Erie is about 73 years of
age, and was a member of the western circuit before his ele-
vation to the bench. He sat for 15 years as one of the
puisne judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, and has held
his present position of Lord Chief Justice of this court for
exactly seven years.
Among those who were present were the Solicitor
Genera], the Queen's Advocate, Sir Roundel' Palmer, and
most of the leading members of the bar; and so great
was the throng that it was with extreme difficulty that
the Attorney-General, who arrived shortly before one,
was able to work his way through the crowd of learned
gentlemen. Lady Erle and her sister, and another lady,
were upon the bench, though from the limited space allotted
there it could hardly be said that they were " accommo.
dated" there.
The ATIORNEY-GENERAL, upon the re-assembling of the
court after lunch, rose, the whole bar remaining standing
during the ceremony, read a short address, express-
ing the high admiration which the profession
entertained for the judicial qualities displayed
by his lordship, and their affectionate regard for
the kindness and courtesy that had been displayed by him
upon the bench and in the intercourse of private life. He
concluded by affectionately bidding his lordship
farewell."
His lordship, who was much affected, replied in suitable
terms, and the court immediately afterwards rose.

COURT OF ARCHES.
(Before the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington.)

PLAHANK T. THE Ray. THOMAS BORNE HI It PEON. -THE
RITUALISTIC MOVEMENT.-JUDGMENT.
_ _ _

This case, which appeared in the Express on the 12th
instant, was now decided on a preliminary objection taken
on the part of the rev. defendant, who is the perpetual
curate of East Teignmonth, Devon, and who was charged
with five offences under the Church Discipline Act, called
" ritualistic practices."
The Queen's Advocate, Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr.
Remelt were for the defendant ; Mr. A. Stephens, Q.C.,
Dr. Swabey, and Mr. Drook were for the plaintiff, Mr.
Thomas Flamm*, who had been churchwarden of the
parish.
The objection on the part of Mr. Simpson was that the
proceedings before the commissioner appointed by the
Bishop of Exeter did not recite, as it was contended they
should, that the offences were committed within two
years.

I 1 to 1 His lordship proceeded to give judgment on the point,
9 but spoke in so low a voice that it was with difficulty he

—•
could be understood. He said he would presently advert
7 to the facts of the case, but he deemed it expedient to
I state the question at issue. Truly there was but one
I question, and that was whether the defendant had been
3 properly cited to appear in this court to the offences
brought against him. His lordship then referred to
7 the proceedings before the commissioners, in which no date
6 was given, but in the letters of request the period of two
6
s years was mentioned. An objection had been taken before
4 the commissioner as to the dates not being stated and over-
-4 * ruled. He had no power to sit in appeal over the commis-
'loners, and after going through the taste his lordship re-
" fused to sustain the objection made on the pert of Mr.
Simpson, and, therefore, the motion would be dismissed.
The Queen's Advocate asked leave to appeal to the Judi-
cial Committee of the Privy Council. It was necessary by
the 3rd and 4th Viet., c. 13, to obtain leave.
His lordsh;p gave leave, as if he was wrong there would
be no jurisdiction to hear the ease.
Mr. Stephens, Q.C., hoped there would be no delay in
pn smiting the appeaL
The application was dismissed. Leave to appeal granted.