The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before the Lord ChinosUde and Lord Justice Tamer.)
DRUMMOND T. DRUMMOND.
This was an appeal from an order of Vies.chamealt
Stuart, which was made before the long vocation, sai
raised a question of considerable impottenee to the pm
&mice. The point was whether the lOth general wife se
the court authorising serviceof abill upon a person onto[ the
jurisdiction of the oourt was limited to the eases meatkes'
in the statute 4 and 5 Wm. IV., e. 82, or whether it gig
general in its terms, and extended to all eases. lad
Ni,rnactogry, when Chancellor, had held in one case that Urn
power wee limited, but Vice-Chancellor Stuart declined%
follow that decision, and made an order for service out d
the jurisdiction of the court in a case not pointed cut
the Astute.
The defendant appealed.
Mr. W. Pearson and Mr. 3. Pearson were the %mg

he Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the order vas
gener.al and dismissed the appeal. but out of moped to the
decision of Lord Westbury he thought the eats of the
application should be eons in the cause.
Lord Justice Turner concurred.

OARDNZR T. TAR LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOM
RAILWAY COMPANT.
This was an application on behalf of the company h
suspend an order made by Vice-Chancellor Stuart, axes
ing the officers of the company to make a return of the
superfluous lands belonging to the railway. The pleiegg
was a debenture holder upon that part of the lino while
was known as " the general undertaking," which wee
only a small portion of the whole line. The IN,
Chancellor bad further made an order for the
appointment of a receiver of the lands comprised in Ife.
Gardner's security, and in two other snits by that page,
man and • Mr. Drawkridge a similar order had hemmed.
extending over the whole line. The company hay**,
pealed from all these orders the question raised vs
whether the orders for the appointment of receivers are
tended to the rents, profits, and proceeds of the Ids if
what were called " the superfiuous lands."
Mr. Kekewiob, on behalf of the company, sobwithf
that the orders did not include these lands, and that Ow
ought not to be compelled to make the discovery vin
had been ordered if it should turn out that the *Mt
had no interest in the lands. The appeal motion moll
come on shortly.
The Lord Chancellor could not see how the inquiry
would prejudice the company.
lord Justice Turner—lf the plaintiff failed on the 9.
peal, he might be condemned to pay the costs of the ig.

4uiry.
.Kekewich—The inquiry will be this:—Then oe
numerous creditors of the oompany who only wait the cp.
portunity of seizing the property. as they =deed fist
they, not the debenture holders, are entitled to the min
flume land.
Their lordships were clearly of opinion that they oedi
not interfere to stay the Vice-Chancellor's order.
Mr. Kekewich then contended that the order wee to
general in its terms.
The Lord Chancellor—What right has the plaintiff toe
discovery as to lands with which he has nothing to do?
Mr. Bacon, for the plaintiff, said the order wee
tamed by the consent of all parties some time ago.
The Lord Chancellor—We cannot suspend the °pasta
of the order, but it must be confined to the lands**.
prised in " the general undertaking."
Lord Justice Turner—The plaintiff will have canal
relief if the inquiry is limited to those portions of the Ens
over which his securities operate.
Mr. Kekewich then asked permission. notwitlistandig,
to appeal from the order of the Vice-Chancellor.
Lord Justice Turner—We do not stop the order, ll*
merely limit its operation. You do not require say Meaty
to appeal.
Mr. Bacon was afraid the only effect of the decision d
the court would be to compel Mr. Gardner in his etha
suite, in which the securities extended over the wide
line, to apply for an order similar to that now complains!

of.
The Lord Chancellor—However that may be, all we Ola
now do is to vary the present order u I have stated.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
After Term Nisi Prins Sittings at Westniinster.—(Ssfors
the Lord Chief Justice and a Special!ary.)

THE QUEEN C. HALL AND ;NoTHEIL
This was a prosecution arising uut of the now egabratsi
causes of "Bouillon v. Valentin " and " Valentin v. HAM
for a conspiracy against Mr. Hall, M. Bouillon's Worley,
and lafoureade, one of the witnesses.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Mr. Sei jeant P.allantine. McNair,
and Mr. Poland appeared for the defendant Hall; YL
Hibton and Mr. H. F. Lewis for Lafourcada. No am
appeared for the prosecution.
Mr. Coleridge said he appeared with the other lona
counsel for the defendants, but be understood there us
no prosecutor present.
The Lord Chief Justice said that being so the aal►
thing the jury could do was to return a verdict for the dr

fencllnts.
Mr. Coleridge said that notice was given yeaterdayi
lid:ohmic Valentin's late and prevent attorney that a W.
diet would be taken for the defendant if they did not se

pear.
The jury then returned a verdict of Nat Guilty.
The defendant Hall then surrendered to his reat
nisancea on two charges of felony, and he was takes ids
custody by the tipstaff. A common jury was then anew
nelled, and he was charged with feloniously forging 'off
of a record purporting to be a writ of capias apiad
or
Auguste Coulane before then issued out of the Court if
Exchequer.
No one appearing to prosecute, the jury returned a dr
dit of Nut airing.
Mr. Hall was then charged with feloniously prefusag
act under certain false processes of the Court of Ezde.
quer, viz., a certain paper purporting to be a copy els
writ of summons directed to one Auguste Coulane, sal
another purporting to be a copy of a writ of eapias spied
Coulanc, well knowing the same to be false.
No one appearing to prosecute iu this case,
The jury Acquitted the defendant.
ROSE v. KITCHEN.
This was an action for false imprisonment and far
malicious prosecution. The case arose out of proossdisp
which transpired in the case of " Spitty r. )(When," Wei
yesterday. The plaintiff had purchased Spitty'sbost wilk
the alleged government stores on board. The differed
in the nature of the charge against him was, that be WS
in the unlawful possession of government stores, and by
the statute the defendant ought first to have bad de
directions of the Board of Admiralty before apprehend*

the plaintiff.
Mr. Willem appeared for the plaintiff ; the SolicitarGs•
neral, Mr. J. Browne, Q.C., and Mr. Morgan Hawani
at
peered for the defendant, instructed by the Admirslti•
It was arranged between the learned counsel that than
should be a verdict for the plaintiff of N.,
certain Taints of law relative to the defendant not ba'
received instructions from the Admiralty, and the negative
of malice found by the jury in Spitty's case, which vs IS
be taken as having been found iu this case also.
Verdict accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prins.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Es
and a Common Jury.)
LETCHWORTH r. van) RAN V.I. IGH.
Two case was called on at the sitting of the omutl
shortly afterwards Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor GI it
Exchequer, entered the court, and took his seat oa the
bench by the side of the Lord Chief Baron. The
honourable gentleman, who was subpomaed by that
fendant, had also been in attendance during the Peel°
part of the previous day, but the case was not reached.
The action was brought by Mr. Edward Letchwortk,
attorney, carrying on business at Enfield, to Meet
9c.r. 4s. for money out of pocket and for professional's,
vices during Lord lianelagh's candidature for Middlesst
the conservative interest at the general election last 7e e•
The defendant pleaded never indebted.
Mr. Geo. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. Talfourd &Berke
the plaintiff ; Mr. iierjeant Ballantir.e and Mr. F. IL
Lewis for the defendant.
Mr. Denman, in opening the ease, said Mr. LetchrO.
the plaintiff, held several important offices in the &hut
of Enfield, being hon. agent of the Conservative Its
gistration Association, clerk to the magistrates, and dish
to the board of health and to the commissioners of wares.
In June last Lord Ranelagh became a candidate for Ll'
dlesex, and Mr. Smith. the agent of the Colwell'
Bye Association for the county, entered into negotiator
with Mr. Letchworth, with a view to his taking
the election as agent for Enfield. Aftet wards Mr.
worth saw Lord Ranelagh, and was told be hire that ),0;
must take his instructions from Mr. Smith, who woad
act as his agent in the contest. On the iith d:11Z
Ranelagh, Mr. Smith, and several other persons, •
all the local agents, met at No. 3, Victoria-steett,_,
Westminster, which was then the liesffiffiew
of the Conservative Registration Associatioe,
make the preliminary arrangements, and it el°,
then agreed that the retaining fee for each local.sfer
should be 10 guineas ; that they should each receive _
addition five guineas a day for their services, and a Nl'
ther sum of 10 guineas at the end of the election. le
cordance with the printed instructions of the London teur,_,,
mittee, Mr. Letchworth secured committee-rooms fat
district, as well as a local chairman, and worked hard al
and night in the faithful discharge ial
as local agent during the seven days Lord Itanelaith lift
the field. On the 12th of July he received a letter heel
Mr. Smith, stating that his lordship had retired,
ea°
requesting him to stop immediately all further
expire ex
{tareditere
in respect of the election, and send in hie bill
ral committee. This the plaintiff and .time time site'
wards he forwarded his own claim to Mar Smith, but VI
received the money. In September last he wrote t°
Ranelagh, expressing his surprise that while the orbs
agents had been paid his claim hail rmiained mintier;
His lordship replied as follows :—" 1 do not know
chance there is of your receiving your claim for the
dlesex election. I have had little or nothing te do
the expenses. The conservative party asked me to come 75
ward on the distinct understanding, that was Wpt s 5
thing. They took me away from Bodinte, where hoe
been put to any inconvenience. lam going
spending my own money. regret that you shoa
oat of
to,”,