The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-13 00:00:00

NEW SOUTH WALES.

-
Parliament was opened by Sir John Yo'angthe
days after the departure of the October mail.
The colony has been suffering terribly he
drought. " During the latter part of last month'
says the Sydney Herald of Nov. 21, " the weak
continued to be hot and dry, with strong patent
winds that burnt up everything before *
destroying gradually but surely vegetates
every description. Bush fires also prevail
to a fearful extent in every district of tbe coke
although it is very seldom that they have his
known to occur at so early a season of the ye
Usually in October the bush is still saturated in
the moisture that the rainy season has left bele
it, and the young and green grass bids defisaree
The extension of flame ; but this year them is
virtually been no rainy season, and although
winter has been a severe one, with strong cult*
winds and heavy frosts, it brought with it nose
the rain that usually accompanies the wins
months. Thus, bare as was the bush of feed, Is
there had been no growth of grass, it was ni
still cleaner by the fires, which burnt off thee
dry tufts of coarse unnutritious grass that Bel
the insides of the starving cattle, if it did note
to their condition. It need hardly be added te
these fires added very materially to the heat of rte
wind that passed off them, rendering the no
almost unbearable. In many places, as meatieri
last month, the wheat crop was so far a failoretiat
despairing of getting grain from the sheltie
plants, the farmers turned their stock in opt
saving their farm cattle at the expense of silk,
oq a harvest. In other places, again, the *den
as well as the bush, in which the home stock es
kept, bad become so literally bare of feed that do
owners were feeding their herds upon green fee
This of course could not have lasted long, Indio
there not been a timely fall of rain theconsepro
would have been serious in the extreme. Lted*
with the first days of the present month tbe 121
looked-for change occurred.

NEW ZEALAND.

The Daily Southern Cross of the 11th Norval 1
commenting on the prospects of peace in the 10
Island, says :
All the items of news from the native districisdenk
issue of the peace irroclamatArbow that there is stk.
slightest hope of its ioduci ingle rebel to lay duoil
arms. Taking the West C ,we have the Nplake
poles at Kawhis, watching their opportunity to et
the poets in the Waikato, when weakened by tee'
drawal of the troops, and threatening oar err
allies about the settlement of Raglan. Fees Ite I
1 all down the West Coast the feeling of Ow elte f
towards us is worse than ever it was. la Waits.`
itself the " Kupapao," or those who have to lk!
oath of allegiance. are milky and untrustworthy. To"
no sign from Thompson and the Ngatihanas, or theAtti
of accepting peace. They maintain a hostile steel
security at Magmata. The news from the East Colet"
previous events, show how detenninesi are the wise
3 that part of the country to fight to the last, It Is 0111
certain that Major Atkinson would at the present Ole
ample employment for his colonial army of 1,300 se
Weise% even if he were there in person to commie
The Anima have been loyal throughout, and than ktk
little doubt will so remain ; but we have no hoes N
from any other tribe. Coming nearer to..Auckleds
Thames tribes, which have hitherto been very 411.
loyal, have within the last week or two shown ds
worse symptoms. Suspicioos of • tendency to
active enemies instead of very passive friends chiefly
to Taraia and that portion of Ngatitantatera rem/degl!
up the Thames ; and the fact that Mr. Mackay, aplur
minims., left Auckland on Monday for that destiet
would seem to show that all was not right there. 1,1
fans of all this wears told that the troops are to to '"'
drawn.

On New Year's-day a scene was enacted is
Vatican. After having offered his congratulation
Pope, Baron Meyeadorff. the Russian Minister, WO
talk politics to his Holiness, and at last be ronedll
sorted that in Poland Roman catholicism and 112411
were synonymous. To this the Pope replied, " Tim"
respect the Emperor of Russia as a monarch, 1 as.
cessitated to request his Envoy to withdrew from uf
since." Baron bleyendorff quitted the room, and Only
Antalkali lost no time in requesting Count Mrsollig°
make known what had occurred to the Russian omit
The people of New York city are talking 01 al°
Wishing as underground railroad for passenger trafiloy°
Broadway, to carry passengers from the lower end ri
city to Central Park. The route is a straight ose.oll
four miles in length, and trains moving at the rate di
miles an hoar can, including stoppages, traverse It "
minutes.
During the year 1845 there were 183 ralli
moidesta la the United States, at which 335 plows
killed, and 1,427 persons wounded, and 32 steamboat
deists, at which 1,788 persons lost their lives, sad 2151,
sous were wounded.
A New York paper says that only two sokiioa
the fiat 'caution are now alive—via, Lemuel OA
was presses at the surrender of Cornwallis. in 17". •
who is 102 years old, and William Hutchings. Id"
years of age.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Lord Catimeellor.)
CATON V. CATON.-JUDGMENT.

This appeal iiOn-i-Vice-Charicellor Stuart was hear] at
the sittings after lad term.
The Lord Chmiceller now gave judgment, and said that
the bill in the suit was filed to obtain relief under a parole
contract in consideration of marriage. In the autumn of
1832 the Rev. Richard Caton, being then about the age of
SO, slaw deceased, made proposals of marriage to the now
plaintiff, then Mrs. Henley, who was about 60 years
of age. She was possessed of a life interest in *dates in Ire-
land, and personal property amounting to over 13,0001. It was
proposed that on the marriage the whole of her property
should be settled on Mr. Caton for life, subject to a payment
of SOL ayear to the wife, with remainder so her, of ell her
own existing property and any she might afterwards
acquire ; besides a leasehold house and furniture of Mr.
Catoe's was to be secured to her. These proportions were
rednoed to writing, and a draft of a settlement prepared
and approved by the parties ; but afterwards the part re-
lating to the estates In Ireland was struck out. After.
wards Mr. Caton proposed to Mrs. Henley that she should
not insiston a settlement on condition that he left her by his
will all her own property and the house and furniture, to
which she assentedin spite of the remonstrances of her
solicitor. The marriage took place, and Mr. Caton
duly executed a will in conformity with the agreement.
This he subsequently revoked and left the bulk of the
acquired by his wife to his eons, the present
retrasidtaYnts. The Vice-Chancellor made a decree in favour
of the plaintiff for the performance of the agreement. The
defendants, the appellants, denied that the contract was
valid under the Statute of Frauds. Now it was clear that
no
parole contract in consideration of marriage could, ac-
cording to the Statute of Frauds, be the subject of an action
at law ; and by a parity of reasoning could any suit for
specific performance of any such contract prevail in this
court. It was argued that equitable relief could be given,
notwithstanding the statute, where there bad been part per-
formance of the contract, end that being so the question was
whether that rule applied in the present case. Marriage was
not part performance of a contract so as to tyke it out of
the statute; and the ground of [the ViorChancellor's
decision was, that the making of the will in conformity
with the parole agreement constituted an adequate part
performance to entitle the plaintiff to relief. He (the
Lord Chancellor), however, was of opinion that even that
act was note sufficient part performance, for • will swarms
revocable, and the contract was of such a negative nature,
that what had been done oould not be held to be part per-
formance. He must hold that there was no ground for the
decree, which must be reversed, and the bill dismissed with
costa
BE AGRICULTURIST'S CATTLE INSURANCE COXPAIST EXPARTE

STABROPE.—JUDCMENT.
This was an appeal from the Master of the Rolls, and was
argued at the late matins.
The Lord Chancellor now gave judgment. end said that
the ease involved the question of an application by en
official liquidator to place the name of the executrix of the
lice Hon. and Rev. Fitzroy Stanhope on the list of oon-
tributaries of an insolvent company called the Agricul-
turists' Cattle lasurance 'Company. The company was
formed in 1845, and Mr. Stanhope took 100 shares on which
be duly paid the deposit. An order was made in 1861
for the winding up of the company. Mr. Stanhope died in
1864 ; and on a motion to place the name of his executrix
on the list of contributories, the Master of the Rolls re-
fitted the application. Several cases of disputed contri-
bution had arisen under the winding up of this company.
The first was that of one Brotherhood, which occurred in
Jane, 1862. It appeared that is 1848 many of the share-
holders were anxious to retire from the company,
and at • meeting of the shareholder', which was held at
Chippenham, it was discussed how they should be enabled
to retire; and an (arrangement, known afterwards as the
" Chippenbam arrangement," was come to, by which • call
et 31. should be made, and those who wished to retire
should not pay it, and their shares be forfeited, while
those who remained should only pay 10s. per share
of the call. This was confirmed at a subsequent
meeting. Brotherhood and others accepted the first
terms, and were never afterwards treated as shareholder.
In 1862, after the order for winding-rap, a motion was made
to place Brotherhoc3 on the list of contributories, but it
mu refused by the Master of the Rolls on the ground of
hue of time ; and this order was on appeal affirmed by the
Lords Justices. Then Caine Spackman's case, who had declined
to come into the Chippenham arrangement, and in 1849
presented a petition for the winding-u pof the company, which
was refused. Thereupon he and seven other shareholders
came to a compromise with the directors, and on payment of
4,000 t. were released, and their shares forfeited. This ar-
xiogement was never brought before any meeting of the
shareholders. In 1864 an application was made to the
Master of the Rolls to put Spackman on the list of mufti-
butories and refused ; but on appeal Lord Westbury ordered
his name to be so placed. Then came Lord Bel-
haven's ease, which stood in a distinct posi-
tion ; for though his name appeared as vies-pre-
sident of the company ho never signed the deed, and
refused to take any shares, and always repudiated any lia-
bility, but in the end paid 501. to be released. The Muter
of the Rolls, acting in Spaekmsn's ease, put Lord Belhaven
on the list, but on appeal the Lords Justices struck it off.
Then came the present cue, that of Mr. Stanhope, who
had not retired under the Chippenham arrangement, but
paid 10a. • share of mill. In the next year
Lowsver, he tried to be released, and eventually in August,
1849, on payment of 1001., his shares were declared for-
feited, and he was never afterwards treated as a share-
holder. On application to the Master of the Rolls, his
lordship refused to place him on the list of cootributories,
saying that the decisions in Spackman's and Lord Belhaveu's
cases being in conflict he held with the latter. The
ease then came on appeal before him (the
Lord Chancellor), and it appeared to him that it was impos-
sible to find any difference between it and that of Speakman.
Both refused to come in under the Chippenbam arrange-
meet, both paid a sum of money to obtain the forfeiture of
their shares, and in neither case was the compromise with
them submitted to the shareholders. It was clear
that if Lord Belhaven's case had not occurred
the Muter of the Rolls would have been bound
by the decision in that of Spackman ; but the
circumstances of Lord Belhaven's were peculiar ; there was
no coneealanot—it was a question whether he was ever a
shareholder ; and there were good grounds for holding the
compromise with him valid. He (the Lord Chancellor)
mast be bound by the decision in Speckman's case ; hut
even if it were not for the decision in that ease, his judg-
ment would be the same, for he was of opinion that Mr.
Stanhope could not hive been released from his obliga-
tions by the act of the directors alone ; but only by the
consent of the shareholders. The order of the Muter of
the Rolls must be reversed, and the name of Mrs. Stanhope,
as executrix of her late husband, placed en the list of
contributories.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir R. T. Kindenley.)
BE PREEN AND CO. (LIMITED).—THE COMPANIES ACT

or 1862.
This wss a petition for winding-up, presented be the
largest shareholder of the company, who was one of the
directors. It appeared that the company was constituted
ID September, 1864, for the purpose of purchasing the
property and business of a then existing company of lime
and cement manufacturers, known as Freeu and Co. The
capital was to consist of 50,0001., in 1,000 shares of 50/.
each, but only 419 shares were subscribed for, and in the
year and a quarter of its existence the company had con-
tracted a debt of 1 0001. beyond its ciapisaL There were
still two places of business, Frindsbury, Kent, and
Abiagdon. street, Westminster.
The petition was unopposed and bin Honour granted a
decree.
Cracknell represented the petitioner.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall.-4 Before the Lord
Chief Justice and a Special JarY.)
. . _
HILL V. FISNET.

This was the eighth thy of the hearing of this remark-
able can.

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., sod Dr. Tristram were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., and Mr. Watkin Wil-
liams were counsel for the defendants.

Mr. Coleridge, in replying upon the whole case, said be
bad a very anxious and arduous task to perform, because
be bad to reply upon a case of the greatest possible im-
Portents, end after a most elaborate and powerful speech
from one of the most powerful man it had been his good or
.
fortune to be opposed to at the English bar. He
desired to reinvite their attention as to the real
beet of the inquiry, and to draw their minds
to what were the two points they would have to
decide. But he would first state that this action
was not brought for the purpose of vindicating the
character at the expense of his late attorney.
That was not a fair way or • correct way of stating the
grounds or motives upon which this action had been con-
tested. The action had been brought for this meson,
that finding avenue after avenue for that redress
which the plaintiff conceived to be a great wrong to be
cloud against him, and he baying ascertained that all that
had come upon him by the act, as he stated and contended,
of bin attorney, it was to him only that he could look for
redress for the miserable position in which he was now
Plated. The plaintiff made this attack and had brought
this action because it was now discovered that owing to the
defendant's °cadent he bad been placed in his
Present nefortnnate position, sod unless be could
tet redress in this form of action the defendant's
conduct had prevented his obtaining it in any other fora
Ile real points he submitted to be discussed in this case
wen—first, was the defendant negligent, and did he mks-
conduct himself in settling and compelling the settlement
c't the judicial separation snit under the circumstances
elder which he compelled its settlement ; and,
asineadly, was there or was there not • fair
sad substantial ground of defence on the part
0t the plaintiff to that suit. They were die-
beet pain* and it was not necessary lbw they @hada
coma to the same conclusion on both. And although case
did ant necessarily follow the other, he should contend for
both. It was possible they might come to a different coo-
dftieu on both those points, and therefore he should
endeavour to keep them distinct la the observations
he should have to make to them.
The Lord Chief Justice—l than feel it to be my duty