The Express.
London, England, 1858-06-11 00:00:00

THE iXPILFgS, FRIDAY EVENiN6}, JUNE 11, 1868,

tab) inteilignite.
SUMMER CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES.
.11.01 rcr oy.—Lonl Quapbell and Mr. Jowl; tr •
Wr.,1,10.1 llama Wanton and 131 L: via Ckata,dl
Ottoomo Otacoiy.-11r. Justice ilia and Mr. Just/co Hill.
Noarnann ltineote.—ClaisC Bants Pollock and Baron Marlin.
Tbo Homo, lildiand. and Wale. Clre,dta sus not yet arranged.

EQUITY cotners.--JuNE 10.
(Before Vice-Chancellor indersley •)
vnLaine O. ROZBOCK.
The plaintiff in this cult was a shareholder in "the
Western Bank of London," and the bill was flied by him to
set aside • certain deed as fraudulent against the share-
holders of the bank. Previous to the lormation of the win-
pany, an arrangement bad bees made between the intended
directors and the defendant, Henry Tucker Clark, that he
should be the general =eager of the *mown at a salary of
1,6001. a_year, with the possession of a house and fur-
niture. kis WAS not to be (Roraima without notice, or
for any cause other then misconduct, but he was in turn
to bind hlmaelf, under • penalty of 2,0001., not to
take any other similar appointment while employed by the
beak. It was also SSOOSOZOISSII4 that an additional imam
should be given to Click when • bonus of 61. per cent. should
be declared on the paid-up capital. This bank was duly in-
corporated, and then • deed was prepared, in October, 1866,
and engroasments were snlausquently made of it. It did not
appear that either of the engroarments in the prepared deed
were ever read over to or sanctioned 17 any general board of
the directors. The cheater of the bank enabled them to
grant a superannuation to their offiorra' but It was contended
that the proposed dud was not within the terms of the bank
charter. The seal of the bank was, however, it was stated,
dined by the defendant Roebuck and others to the deed. The
plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the shareholders (other
than the defendants), sought to have the deed declared
fraudulent and void, as ocestrary to the charter, and attune-
doned by the directors of the bank. The bill also charged
other circumstances tending to show • fraudulent conceal-
ment of the arrangement from the general body of the share-
holders.

Mr. Glasse and Mr. Dew appeared for the plaintiffs ;
Mr. Baily and Mr. Wickens Cr the defendant..
The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the 64th clause
ci the hank oharter enabled the directors to grant such an
allowance to Clark se that in question. He thought that the
sanction of the directors was sufficiently apparent to the
suing of the seal to thedeed, and he must therefore, on
the ggrroound that the fraudulent concealment was not OM
tabl , dismiss the bill, with costa.

(Before
COOK V. 021;11.0118,

Sir Joan Stuart.)

A question of consideralge importance arom in this tw—
it was whether, under the 1 and 2 Vic., cap. 110, the Act
for the Abolition of Arrest on Keene Process, and for Amend-
ing the Lime for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, Rec. 92,
the Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors has the exclusive
jurisdiction of adjod'osUug as to the rights to the surplus
of an Insolvent's estate, alder his debts under the insolvency
hare been fully Whiled.
The question mote order the following oirenzastenoes :
One Dyson, in the year 1849, took the benefit of the Insol-
vent Debtors Ada, being entitled to largeastatat. In the
year 1860 he sold all the surplus to arise from his estates
saw ratifying the oredikes under his insolvency to the
plaintiff in this snit, at the Frio. of 3,0001. The debts under
his insolvency amounted to 88,0001. In 1861 he transferred
the same residue to other persona, defendants in this suit, for
valuable consideration, and in the year 1863 he again took
the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors Acts.

The plaintiff Bled his bill some time since, asking payment
to him of the surplus, but that surplus was ordered to be
paid to the defendant Bturnis, the official assignee of the
Insolvent Debtors Court. The plaintiff then applied to one
of the oommiesioners of the Insolvent Court for an order on

iliii.iticrifeTc;psytheeurpina to him; ; but ;eh order was
refused. The Lord Chancellor then, at the plaintiff's In•
sluice, issued a prohibition prohibiting the Court for the
Relief of Insolvent Debtors from adjudicating as to the sur-
plus except by giving effect to the plaintiff's title. The plain-
tiff ant made an ineffectual application to the Court of
Queues Bench for a mandamus to the commissioner of the

Insolvent Court to maks= order in the plaintiff's favour.
The plaintiff then, by this bill, 'eked that Mr. Sturgis, as
the provisional assignee, might be declared • trustee of the
surplus for the plaintiff.
Mr. Malin', Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Bagehawe, jun., were
for the plaintiffs; Mr. and Mr. Osborne appeared for
the defendant Mr. Sturgis ; Mr. Huffmaa and Mr. Marten
for other defendants.
aprl:ereVi ice. Chancellor, after stating the object of the suit,
mid that on looking at the words of the 92nd &C. of the
I end 2 Vic. c. 110, it appeared to him that they had not the
mooning sought to be attached to them by the defendants.
If it bad been the intention of the legislature to take away
from the ordinary courts their old established jurisdiction,
the legislature would have said so; It would have made a
mere explicit declaration if it had intimdild to give to the
Insolvent Court even • coecurrent jurisdiction; and from
the perusal of the whole section, he concluded that the
statute law had not been framed so as to give the Insolvent
Court power even to entertain contentious questions like the
present. It bad been urged, that the Court of Queen's
Bench had, in reference to the present question,
in the "Queen v. Law," (7 Queen's Bench Reports),
come to a different conclusion when that court
refused the mandamus • but he sew nothing in that case
which indicated an opinion that the act had taken away the
jurisdiction of this court, or had conferred on the Insolvent
Debtors' Court any jurisdiction to determine questions such
as the present. He must, therefore, declare that the right to
the surplus estate of Dyson under his insolvency had been
assigned to the plaintiff as purchaser, subject to the eight of
Mr. Sturria, as provisionl saidgme, to receive any portion of
the 3,0001., the purchase money, which should be found to be
wiped. Liberty to be given to the plaintiff to make such
application to the Insolvent Debtors' Court as he may be ad-
visa, to give effect to the declaration now made, and the
plaintiff must be ordered to pay into court to the credit of this
came whatever money he might receive from the Insolvent
Debtors' Court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.--Juxi 10.
(Map to Baneto.—Before Lord Campbell sad Justices
Coleridge, Itels, seed Crosaptes.)
APFLICATION rOlt NAILS 00/IrVe.—"COltrirriso
I emus."
Mr. Gray, cm the part of Mr. sad Mrs. Evans, moved for a
writ of habeis corpus, directed to Mr. David Williams end
Ann, his wife, eon:unending them to brkg up the body of
Phillip Taylor, an old am, sada the follow tie-com-
et/Bees —Mrs. Evans, when 18 years of sge, lost her father,
who died in Jamaica. She was then living with him, being
unloanied, sad Mr. Philip Take, bar in-'s brother, who
resided at Hirwain, neer Aheirthwe, in Glemorgenehire, wrote
to her. requesting her to leave Jamaica and come here and
live in his house. Ameriftgly, in 1888 she returned
to this oountry, and teak up her abode with her
amble, with whom the remained until 1847. when,
I. consequence of some difference with his wife, who
alas bed a niece in the home named Ann Bdwarda, who wee
=of Miss Taylor, he provided her • residence else-
lib idle died in 1848, and the day siterwards he emit
im Mks Taylor to ewes end live with him and bike care of
kid hems. She did so, end he gave her the keys. Things
mdmined `that Mete until 1861, when Miss Taylor married
14. Evens, and went to live with her husband in Manche*.
/make.
Ia 1866, in num of sn levitation from her cools,
keened and two ren went to live with him In Ole-
They all lived together from September,
1 to September 1866, when the Evanees took the
majoisiag haws, all far the sake of convenience resided in
it, bat the houses oostraunicated with each other, sod Mrs.
Evans continued re bake, to manage her uncle's affairs. Mr.
David Williams, who had formerly been a shopkeeper in the
service of Mr.. Taylor, married Mrs. Taylor's aims, and was
now living immaletely opposite the boons in question. In
April, 1866, Mr. Taylor beams childish and imbecile. and at
his request Mrs. Evans reettaged all his effuire. In Decem-
ber, mthe same year, Mr. sad Mrs. Taylor went out for a
walk, and on their return they want surprised to Sod that Mr.
Williams end his wife bad talon Mr. Taylor is their home.
The affidavits sat out that Mr. and Mrs. Evans made various
attempts to see him, and that on every occ.ision, with one
exception, the Willbusess took him forcibly away, end would
mot allow them to have an faterview with him. Once, how-
ever, Mrs. Braes saw the old man, when he burst into tsars,
said he was 111-treated, end 'eked her to take him away.
The aißdavits further stated that Mr. Taylor had property
of the value of between 14,0001. and 16,0001.
Lord Campbell—Yon my the man is imbecile ; therefore,
peppering we granted • habeas corpus, what could we do
with him f _ . .
.. . .

iiirairay—He is imbecile to a certain extant, but it does
not appear that he will not be able to give tome indication to
the court that he is ill•treated.

—LOW Campbell—la it not rather a case for the Lord
Chimeliar, who fa the guardian of pawns in such a posi-
dos P _ _ .

/Ir. Gray—The affidavit' show that these parties have
got Kr. Taylor to make a will.
Kr. Judas Erl•--It is • owe of competing legatees. One
party lakes possession of the intended testator, and they lock
him sad his will up fest until death shall oome.
Kr. Oray, having referred to some authorities, submitted
that ha had adduced sufficient grounds to show that Mr.
Taylor wee detained in improper custody, and expressed •
hope that the court would grant • rule, in order that that
tact might be ascertained. . . _

Lord Campbell—We me very great difficulty in ending
here any deprivation of liberty of which we can take notice.
They are competing whose, end we do not know whether
the one may not be es good ea the other with respect to the
custody of the uncle.
Mr. Gray—Mrs. Williams is not • niece of Mr. Taylor,
bat of his lateMps.

—lard Campbell—We think the proper course will be to
grant a rule to show eause—oanse to be shown at chambers—
and then probably some light sum be thrown on the subject.
Mr. Gray—Will your lordship allow a medical man to be
named to examine the party P
Mr. Justice Coleridge—We can hardly do so in the first
ferance. The judge at chambers may give itptruct lona on
that point ; but the rule being to show cause, the man will
not be brought up until It is made ohm:date.
Rule nisi.

OMIT OF COMMON FLAB.—.Tong 10.
(Mita.n Biaa.—Bauto Judos Wiliam. Crowder, sad
Wake.)

IANSOIIIII AND MINIVAN I. NIA DAMAN 00UNTIYA
RAILWAY OONDANT.—APPLICATION TOL LN ASTACHNINT
ADILINIT TYR RAILWAY DiIIOTONII.
eampielamole lek ow, Maas. ____ Ned

Chard, are coal dealers at !pewit* sad they had as several
occasions applied to the court, upon the ground that the rail-
way company ebowed undue preference to the traffic in coal
men from Peterborough over the traffic in seaborne coal from
Ipswich. In the first place an application was made for an
lajunction against the ratlgay company, and the court
an that oaceition laid down the rule that the charge
should be fair and equal whatever place the coal
was sent from. The company therenpoe framed •
new scale of charges, and part of the new system was that
the cost of carrying was diminished where coals were sent
into the same distnct in full train loads of 200 tons each.
Another writ of injunction was then applied for, and on that
wooden great complaint was made as to the formation of
the districts, bat the court thought that there was no ob-
jection to the district system. At the close of the discuadon
however, it was stated that the new scale was unequal, be:
cause though coal was carried for the first 76 miles at about
Id. per ton for two miles, yet beyond that distance the charge
was strangely lowered. From 76 to 81 miles, inclusive, only
Id. was charged; 82 to 94 miles, Id.; 95 to 100 miles, ld. ;
and afterwards the charge wee Id. for every two miles.
These low charges beyond 76 miles, it was rid, enabled the
dealers in Peterborough coal to compete snoossetnlly with the
dealers is seaborne coal. The court granted the injunction npon
this point. The complainants contended that this injunction
had not been obeyed, and they accordingly obtained a rule
calling upon the railway directors to show cause why an
attachment should not issue aga•nat them, and why they
ohould not pay • penalty of 2001. a day, or such lees sum 111
the court should think fit. The question to-day was whether
this rule should be made absolute.
Mr. &yin, and Mr. Sharp appeared to show cause
and Mr. Atherton Q.C., and Mr. T. Jones, to support the
rale.

On behalf of the company, it was stated that
chairm they had
obeyed the injunction. Mr. Love, the , had in-
structed Mr. Moseley, the traffic manager, to carry oat the
views of the court, and it wee submitted that the new male
wee fair and equal, having due regard to the cost of carrying
coals for short as compared with that for long distances.
The principal item of coat was that of loading end starting
trains, and which of course was the name whether the train
went a Long or a short distance. If the train went a long
distance the fixed charge was spread over the whole distance,
and of course was less per mile than if the train went a few
miles only.
Mr. Justice Williams thought that the rule should be dis-
charged. There were affidavits that the defendsata had done
their beat to carry out the order of the court. It was said
that there was still inequality between the charge for coal
from Peterborough and that from Ipswich, bat it was replied
that that was accounted for by the fixed charge for starting
trains. The court thought that this sufficiently accounted
for the difference of charge. It was further said that the
fixed charge did not account for the low charge for short
'distances, and that was not explained upon the affidavit.
But this was no ground for an attachment, for it did not tend
to prefer the Peterborough dealers before the Ipswich dealers
Rule discharged with costs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-JuNE 10.

(Sittings In Banco.—Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Ilastin, Bramwell, and Watson.)

THI ATTORNET•OKNERAL V. OXIILDS.-INCOMX TAX.
This was an information filed by the -General, to
recover from the defendant two peruMes of 001. each, for
having on two occasions nailed to allow deductions for
income tax. The cue was tried at the sittings atter last
term, before Mr. Baron Martin. The defence was that the
defendant, an old lady, had bun entitled under her marriage
settlement to an annuity of 1001., clear of all taxes, and
acting on the advice of her attorney, she on this
ground refused to refund to a bray named BtUTil, the
owners of the property charged with the inanity, the amounts
paid by them with respect to the tax. The jury found a
verdict for the crown, but a rule wee subsequently obtained
by leave reserved to raise the question, whether under the
teems of her settlement the defendant was liable.
Mr. Wilde now showed cause against the rule, which was
supported by Mr. Within Williama, who conceded that the
defendant was bound to make the deductions ; but be con-
tended that the income was never intended to be • fluctuat-
ing one, and she had rusted payment on the supposition that
she was entitled to a clear 1001. a year.
The inert having suggested that, under the circumstances,
the crown might remit penalties,
Mr. Wilde said he was willing to do so if the defendant,
who had not tried the queetion fairly, and had oppressed the
tenant, by putting in an execution fur 781., would make the
Moss
good to the parties. lie bad made the same offer at the

The Chief Baron Geld that the defendant had acted on the
advice of her attorney, and the jury had said they wished he
could be made to pay the penalties. Let the crown take the
judgment it was entitled' to, and the enforcing of the penal•
ties might depend on an arrangement.
Rule discharged.

TER NEW APPROACH 70 TVISTMINBIBR-
ABBEY AND TER TPIMITIFINSTIR BOND
HOLDERS.