The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-17 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)
LAITRENCR ABU °THRILL( T. THR BRISTOL AND NORTH
SOMILRWAT RAILWAY COMPANY.

This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at
Bristol and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs—
damages, 29,0001.
Mr. Kingdon, Q.C., pursuant to leave reserved by the
learned judge, now moved for a rule to set aside the ver-
dict and enter a nonsuit. The plaintiff contracted
with the defendants to construct their railway
in Somenetahire, and in May, 1856, after a great
portion of the line had been completed, disputes
arose between them,and they agreed to refer the matters
in difference to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award
in favour of the plaintiffs for 29,0001., and the company
not having paid the money, an action was brought upon
the award, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs
for that sum. The learned counsel contended that the
action could not be sustained inasmuch as the award was
not final, the arbitrator not having decided two of the
matters referred to him.
The Lord Chief Baron said that seven matters were re-
ferred to the arbitrator, and the counsel and parties who
were before him agreed that two of them should be with-
drawn from his consideration, and that he should make an
award upon them. The question then was, whether, as
the arbitrator had omitted to deal with these points, his
award was bad. At the trial a resolution of the board of
the railway company stating that they agreed to carry the
award into execution was given in evidence.
Mr. Ringdon submitted that when the two matters in
question were withdrnwn from the arbitrators' notice he
ought to have decided that upon them there was no claim
against the company.
Mr. Baron Martin thought that it was perfectly compe.
tent for the parties to agree that the arbitrator should not
deal with the points mentioned, and that the award was
not open to the objection taken to it. He was of opinion
that the rule should be refused, and he was glad in
arriving at the conclusion, because he thought the defen-
dants had set up a dishonest defence to the action.
The other judges also agreed that the rule should not
be granted.
Rule refused.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
The oonrt was occupied by bearing a number of motions
which had stood over from the paper of yesterday, but up
to the time of going to press nothing of public importance
had occurred.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Oosamissimer Gonlbum.)
IX H 6 ROWE.—APPLICATIOIt TO DOOII4II A PLTITION.
. .

The bankrupt in this case was formerly • grocer at
Southampton, in partnership with • Mr. Newman, at
whose instance the partnership bad been dissolved, by
reason of the bankrupt having incurred a large liability in
oonnexion with the Accidental Marine Insurance Company
(Limited.) On retiring from the partnership the bankrupt
received in cash and bills upwards of 9001., nearly the whole
of which he paid over to Mrs. Rowe, his aunt. He then
filed his own petition, and obtained adjudication of bank-
ruptcy against himself. An assignee was chosen, a small
creditor (friendly to the bankrupt), but be of course took
no steps to recover the amount paid to the aunt. Subse-
quently a petition was presented on behalf of the official
liquidator of the Accidental Marine Company, who
claimed upwards of 5001. from the bankrupt ; and the
prayer of the petition was that bankrupt's petition for
adjudication of bankruptcy against himself might be die.