The Express.
London, England, 1860-08-08 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY XVIMG, AUGUST

b":"12 iitataftbdt. I'
de...ithami
sr
_NE oi Lout .
braise was
sm bakes thetolleZ them sisWilima MR
cleat the =Ms of Jar am *ea the *iota pails
bailer bat prevesiod taxtist step Wag Wien; mid
it was now obvious Net they mold not havdtilli=lT
to them this swim Trader these dream iest.
meet felt that it would not be right to waste warUM
in makiu as ineffectual attempt to pass therm through
committee. They hoped, however, to be able to take than
rep again early salt Noma ; but whether it would? then be
adsisable to Mar them to a select committee; agar them
in the veva manor, clause by clause, it •be for
the boom to determiae. (Hear.)
Mr. James, Sr P. Kelly, and Mr. Mains lamented the
fate at these bills, and
Lard PALMERSTON expressed his regret, bat had no
stimulative.

.4TheTia-oilon was agreed to, end the bills were withdrawn.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered and
Mlto.
CE AND TOWNS IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND)
ACT AMENDMENT BILL
The Lords' aimesdnionts were oonsiderad and *greed to.
EMBLEMENTS, la. (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. HENNESSY moved that the order for the
resdia=s bill should be diseharged.—Agreed to.
IMPROVEMENT (IRMAND) BILL
This order was also discharged.
THE REV. L. C. P. FOX.
Mr. VANCE moved for copies of further oorrerpou
between the Irish Poor-law Commissioner, and this
Merman.
Mr. CARDWELL stated that, acting on his advice,
commissioners had recommended the guardians of
South Dublin Union to reinstate the Rev. Mr. For. (Hier.)
The motion was withdrawn.
The house adjourned at a quarter after one o'clock.

'; is 'ln ttilfgrna.

HOl3Bl OF LORDS.—Auourr 7.
APPEAL&
=rem th TEO PALA= ROTICL 00/RANT.
_ _

1120 s acs ea appeal from &decision of the Lords Jogices,
iii a decree of Fiott-Chancellor Wood, by which
he seel en application made by the appellant to est
sib in sjiagnalt entered into between the Secretary of
Illsks lw Mil mai the directors of the company, whereby
the Wee weed to let a portion of the building to the
haw at the rent of 6,0001. per annum, for the term of
WINO elt lye ears. Thu agreement had been confirmed by
the eimohoWen of the company, which was incorporsted
sear the Jeletatesk Companies Act of 18513. The capital
of fibs eampeay was to be 100,0001., in 10,000 shares of
101. snob ; and the object was to be the purchase of lesae-
lasid lands in the city of Westminster, the erection, furnish-
ing, sod mainteoance of an hotel thereon, the carrying on
the wool baldness of an hotel and tavern and the doing all
seek SI: were incident, or were otherwise conducive
to welt . In the beginning of the present year Sir
Chides ood, as Secretary al State for India, entered
late ansolistions with the directors of the company
ter ths pawn of obtaining a lease from them of a certain
polka of We building, on the terms above mentioned. One
of the meditioos mentioned was that the company were to
Eb refreshments to the poremment clerks on a tariff
upon in the Treeaury-olice. In May the appellant,
was the holder of fifty 10/. shares, filed his bill,
y he prayed that the agreement might be declared
1011, and that the company might be restrained from grant-
such lease, or from expending any sums upon any
aerations which might be necessary for such tenancy.
elfmealier Wood having dismissed the bill with costa,
hcision ins affirmed by the Lords Justices. Hence the
Mr, ti= (with whomwas' •Mr.. .Jessel) was heard on
bebelf at she appellant ; Mr. Bolt and • Mr. Cotton repro-
seated the company ; Mr. Forsyth watched the case on be.
hay of Sir Clarke Wood.

Theirlorcishipshearithe arguments on Monday, and this
morning they delivered their opinions, affirming the decision
of the court below, and dismissing the appeaL
ZQUITY COURTS.—Auover 7.
(Before Vioe-Chaneellor Biz It. T. Hindersley.)
SASS r. wuzlaws.—Bass's mix ALL

Mr. Daniel and Mr. Bodwell moved for an injunction to
restrain the defendant Williams, who was a wine merchant
at Ashford, in Kent, from using the plaintiffs' labels or
trade marks, so as to pass off spwimis beer as that manu-
factured by the plaintiffs. The practice in the trade WAS
to employ some printer to manufacture labels, all of which
were sent to the proprietors, who supplied them on the per.
sone application of their customers, and when so supplied
it was usual to state at the bottom of the label by whom
the beer was bottled. In March last the plaintiffs disco-
vered that beer not manufactured by them had been sup-
plied in some of their genuine bottles, which had been
washed and the beer bad been tested by Dr. Hoffman, who
found that it was much weaker, and did not contain near
so much sulphate of lime as the genuine beer manufactured
with Burton water.

The Vice-Chancellor said he thought the plaintiff. were
entitled to an injunction.