The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before inas.Chaneellor Mr B. T. Xliedsrder4
HE OVZIYIND, MUM, AMID CO.
The two motions to strike off the Men a
shareholders front the list of contributories whiek aya
over till to-day on the understandbig that nothing 16-41
be done in the meantime in Chambers weYe further pit„
potted till Thursday next upon the same undertakieg.
BLITlea EQIIIPABLZ AMSIIRANCE COMPASY.—Tha TAIj e
MEATH RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Mum moved for an injunction to restrain mod.
at law upon a policy of assurame. The ease ma 1,4;
the court in July last, but was allowed to steal erw
the plaintiff's paying the amount of the policy int. (wit.
The defendants had now no objection to the inj
but the farm would have to be altered in conneatesstls
the amalgamation of the Vale of Neath Railway et* ihe
Great Western klailwey.
defendants
Mr. Ince tad the .
The inin=las granted.

SULLIVAN W. IWID.—TFIt MD, SAM
In this case an interim injunction had been gnaw
retraining the defendant William Sykes Wok 'is.
gistered official of the Leeds Banking Company, hue p►
ceding with an action at law upon two bills of
amounting together to 9471., and the cause now ee4446Z
h • . The plaintiff alleged that the bills woman
by rug and Co., and accepted by him in pentane
an arrangement with the manager of the hank that It.
were to be need for the retirement of a bill which 144,
fall due on the 214 of September, DM, but that Raw
sequence of the stoppage of the bank on the 17th d
tember that arrangement could not be carried e5e.,,,4
no consideration was ever received from the beak

bills.
The oiced7haneellorsaid there could be no quake Oat
the bills which were discounted by the bank on
of September and the amount credited to Want 141,
became then the property of the bank, and the rely ma
therefore was as to the arrangement laid to hirro
entered into with Mr. Greenland. The ones of nail&
inic the arrangement rested with the plaintiff, sad is
opinion the plaintiff had failed in establish* in gshi
must be dismianed with eats.
Mr. Bailey and Mr. Roberts appeared for the at
sad Mr. Glass and Mr. G. for the defeat

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
g@ in Baneo.—(Before the Lord Chief Joie stdßittin
Justice' Blackburn, Mellor, and Lash.)
in El AN ATTORNZT.—Rt LI OT Arrscintln
Mr. Ill'lntyre applied for • rule nisi for an stheinesi
against an attorney of this court. The cbarge egad se
attorney was that he refused to pay over to • WM& a
sum of money and the probate of a wilL Aa or& efgr.
Justice Willem directing him to do so was made silk Id
court on the 24th May. The money and donnas bed
been demanded of the attorney, but be had retold bibs
either up:
Rule nisi granted.
111 tits AN ARBITRATION.
Mr. Dowdeswell, who appeared for Mr. Binh..,
moved for • rule to set aside an award in AM the
gentleman, a Mr. Hopper, and Mr. Wrigisems,
interested on three grounds—first, misecedset d As
arbitrator ; second, that the umpire was chaos by Ise
by the two arbitrators and third, that the essess
moot of bumpire, which was in writing, was aelipg
by the arbitrators in the presence of each other. He sit
conduct complained of was that the umpire and
together. with Mr. Wrightson (who is a
and his attorney, one day at the oromlniume
sitting, dined together, and Mr. WriettlosMil
won • bet on a race, treated the party to &engin,li
that during the dinner, the business of fits sth
tration was discussed in the absence of lfr.
ingham. They dined together the folio
when the umpire became intoxicated, sad
to leave the table between 5 and 6 o'elre .
was so bad that he had to remain at Mm. trigs
son's inn the whole of the night, and on the folisesj
morning on asking for his bill he was Writhing'
nothing to pay. The award was afterwards reek, of
was found to be very much in Dlr. Wrightson's kw
The objection to the appointment of the umpire me
the arbitrators not beg able to agree put the eons in
a hat and the umpire, a friend of Mr. lfStg
son, was drawn, and he was appointed. Tin iid
point, that the appointment wan not signed lithe 14
tratoss in presence of each other, it was eontelded,sie
the award void.
The Court said the learned counsel might intestine
all the points, but they should hesitate before theyale
the award void on the latter point.
Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Baneo.—(Before the Lord Chief Rua ed
Barons Martin, Channd Pigott.)

CAVELL V. PRINCE.
This was an extraordinary case, nrrising out of a er
risge settlement, which was tried before Ifs. Bus
Martin, at the sittings at Westminster, after hates,
and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., in pursuance of leave Mali 1
by the learned judge, now moved to set wide thereat
and enter a verdict for the defendant. The adios as
brought by the trustee for the husband under a unto
settlement, to recover certain instalments doe sit
from the defendant, who was the wife's fatherds•lnt el
the defence set up was an allegation of the itapotwl4
the husband, and of fraud on his pas 2
entering into the marriage contract with
ledge of his disability. The learned counsel toe
argued that there was a total failure of considnuce
the annuity secured by the settlement. The &foils
gave the annuityon the understanding that the mania
perform the duties of husband, and be in such a psis
that there might be progeny between him and
after the marriage. ha IwtM
The Lord Chief Baron said he agreed ar;th
Martin that there was no evidence to go to the juquist
port of the pleas alleging impotency. This I*,
Lion was not only not proved, but tie cst
witness called to support it—namely, ths kis
band, distinctly and expiessly disproved it spa
oath. The case was one into which the court sues".4l
enter more at large than was absolutely weeny Wu.
purposes of justice, and it was enough to ray thattbsto
terial allegation on which the whole meriu natal it
been positively negatived. With regard to ths
of fraud, there was not only no and
support that, but the husband denied say, hr
ledge of his alleged impotency at the tills
the marriage. If, however, there had been Whiles!
justice, it was a consolation to know that justice
'ltie
sought and obtained in the Divorce Court aical...T.;
divorce a vinculo, and if the impotency .was
marriage would be pronounced void ab Maio, sialell/0
ties secured in their rights. Ile thought there eat"
be no rule.
The other barons being of the same opinion, WO
`ion was refused.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE
(Before the Judge Ordinary.,
HUDSON AND SMITH r. NCRRAY AND HOLPANOI6I.1,
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Hayford for the Or•_,J
The testator in this case was a 'Verkshiremsn ,P..
Francis lioldsworth. He had inherited a conserw 1.
tate from a gentleman named Gill, and be had mar !
whereby he bequeathed it to his two sistsis far there'
with remainder to their children, or in the motif tle
leaving no issue, to the family from whom hen had &Or°
property. After this he went niad ; . still 11 $ '
are td
asylum he made a second will, whereby be gC
perty to his sisters absolutely. This dorms, t
propounded, and the case was sent dor
trial to Leeds assizes ; but they called no
and the verdict passed against them. When the
the
were returned to the court, the judge declined
them, no evidence having been given to disproof, ,Ibi
will. The executors, therefore, propounded or',,
and gave evidence to show that ou the 3.4 on ',,_
later one was executed, the testator was in a hoer •
lion. It had, however, been attested by Mr. Neill& ,
proprietor of the asylum.
Sir J. Wilde—This seems to bee very abainef de'"'"ellii,;
and it is a matter that ought to he brought to
ledge of the Lunacy Comniosioners. wig%
Dr. Deane—We are giving this evidence, 1111
a view to ulterior proceedings. eillol
Formal proof of the execution of the former
been adduced, • Oasi
The court pronounced in favour of the earlier
the later will, with omits.
ERERSLET r. PLATT AND oTHEIM alp
Dr. Spinks for the plaintiff ; Dr. Wainbey fade"'
&atm. i
The testator, Robert Ekersley, a muslin InerMs
Bolton, died in January, 1864. On his death tbefrol
Platt, an intimate friend of the deceased, Preli V
dated two years before, under which Richard liserl, 'oi
eldest son, only took 2001. The instrument gave 3a.•_l/0
of his grandchildren, and ss. a week to histuotber P7O
queathed his freehold house, land, furniture, ,1,,,
apparel to Platt, the residue being left to be din'
_;17,41
thegrandchildren. This disposition wan
bitterut
the testator had only a few days befoe
plaintiff, but having no reason to doubt its ef:t
Richard Skersley joined in taking 7-0.
it. Subsequently be had a &TO"' 'll O/
and in the course of a Chancel ~,d
mime out that the testator, thinking that he ba577,4
son wrong, had made two later wills, in ettrrirs
which the plaintiff's legacy was increased M 3,,,,:;040.
the latter he was made universal legatee. ~, 10.
given by Platt, was that he knew of the tee p,7,„01
but that on one occasion the testator had ie ru;illa
read over all his wills, bad selected the •
MO
burnt the other two.
[The case was not concluded when our
_____----------.7._.
-- .r .2 P.),

AOCIDEIT TO W. T. MITFORD,
FAlariii-0110
regret to hear that the respected member for
met with a severe aecident--a fall into an moure7o, #
re
after dark, on the badly lighted pier to gulf
though be is said to be recovering from die einsili
fall, we fear that it will be some tints before
ab!e to walls.—feat Sussex Gaulle.