The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-30 00:00:00

tab) intdiligence.

METROPOLIT A N COUNTY COURTS.
Sitting days appointed for the present week.
Winnumnit. St. Martin's-lane.—Monday, July 30; Tues-
day, 31; Friday, August 3.
BLoonagetr, Portland.road.—Wednesday, August 1 ; Than-
day, Y ; Friday, 3.
Cultism lOWA Duncan-terrace.—Monday, July 110 ; Wednes-
day, August I ; Friday, 3.
MARTUDOWL Portland-road.—Monday, July Tuesday,
31 : Wednesday. August 1 ; Thursday, 2 : Friday. 3.
SHOUDI!C3, OW-street-road.—Tuesday, July 31; Thursday,
August 2 . Friday, 3.
Bow, Faireeld.road —Wednesday, August 1; Saturday, 4.
WarricuAres, Great Praseott-eirset. Wednesday, August
1 ; Thursday, 1 ; Friday, 3.
SounfIIAJLIE, Swan-street, Trinftynquare.—Tuesday, July 31;
Thursday, August 2; Friday, &
Lam simi,Cansberwell New-road.—Tuesday, July 31; Wed-
needay, August 1.
CITY or Longs. Gaildhall.bnildings.—Mouday, July 30;
Wednesday, August 1 , Thursday, 2.

EQIJITY COURTS.—Jux 28.
(Before the Lent Chanoeßor.)

His Lordship was occupied during tho sitting with hear-
ing the further arguments in a part-heanl appeal in a calm
of the " Namur and Liege Railway Company v, Poaaford,"
which ia of no public interest.
Judgment reserved.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.)
THE LIVERPOOL BOROUGH RANK r. TURN-CL

The plaintiffs in this case sought to retablnh spinet the
assignees in bankruptcy of the firm of Mann. Lurty and
Co. a claim for advances made by them to the firm, which
advances were secured bye document purporting to be an
equitable mortgage of • ship, which was then registered in
the mint names of two out of the three members
of the firm and two other persons as owners. The
main point argued in the cue had reference to the
necessity for registration of such • document as
that upon which thin claim was based. The ques-
tion turned upon a minute and critical examination
of the different clauses of the recently-passed Merchant
Shipping Act. On the one hand it was argued that many
portions of that statute seemed to imply that a beneficial
advantage might exist in third persons other than the par-
ties actually on the register ; and that it might even be
that the legislature intended that unregistered ownerships
might exist now that foreigners were no longer prohibited
from owning vessels used in the English canting trade. On
the other Land, it was by the defendants urged that the
doctrine propounded by the plaintiffs went tooverturn all the
antecedent policy of the law in this matter, and that if such
were the intention of the legislature it must be shown to be
plainly stated, and not left to be inferred from the ambi-
guous expressions referred to by the plaintiffs, which were
capable of receiving effect, in accordance with the former
policy of the legislature, by being referred to transmitted
interests in the case of death, bankruptcy, and so forth.
Mr. Oiffard and Mr. Eddie were for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Rolt and Mr. De Gee for the defence; Mr.C. Hallappeared
for other parties.
The Vice-Chancellor, in the course of a long and elaborate
of

judgment, reviewed thi different portions of the Merchant
Shipping Act applicable to this ease, and admitted the
difficulties with which the question wu surrounded. He
would have been glad had there been any decisions giving
him some guide in the matter ; but in the only case belting
at all upon the point. " Hutchinson v. Wright" (25 Basun),
the Master of the Rolls had not thought it necessary to go
into this question. After a careful consideration of the
act the conclusion the Vice-Chancellor came to was this—
that so far as this point was concerned the defendant was
entitled to the judgment of the court.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

JULY 28.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

DS MORA AND MANNCQUIN V. CONCHA (BY HER GUARDIAN).
The case was resumed to-day. The argumenta having
been brought to a close his lordship, in giving judgment,
said the principal duty he had to perform was to decide
whether, at the time of making his will, the testator was
domiciled in England, or whether he had lost his English
domicile, and regained his domicile of origin, which was in
Chili. There warn no other place of domicile now in ques-
tion, as the Peruvian residence was given up; therefore the
question rested between an English and Chilian domicile.
It was impossible to avoid a suspicion that some portion of the
case had been studiously left iu the dark by both parties. There
was no evidence as to bow the testator acquired his largepro-
perty, nor any statement as to his reason for sending It over
to this country. Information upon these and other matters
might have enabled the court to form a better opinion upon
the question ; but all he could do was to form the best
opinion lie could whether the testator's domicile was
English or Chilian. This question was of greet importance
to the parties, because, although the will might be a valid
will if made by a native of Chili according to the English
law, still, if the will was to be considered as that of a do-
miciled Englishman, then the distribution of the
property would be very different, since, by the Chilian
law, he was not allowed no great • latitude in the disposition of
the property. It appeared, then, that the testator upon coming
over to England had had all his property transferred to this
country, and when he made his will he distinctly set forth
by that will that he intended to reside here, and there was
no evidence whatever to prove that he had any intention of
returning to Chili, or of changing his English domicile. He
made his will in the full belief that by taking an English
domicile he would, in the character of an Englishman, be
entitled to dispose of his property as he had done. He con-
sidered the statement in the will to be proof of his inten-
tion at that time, and though be visited France at different
times afterwards, there was nothing upon which he could
found a serious belief that he intended to change his domi-
cile. On theme grounds his opinion was that the verdict
must be in favour of the will. Each party, he thought,
should pay their °au costs.

A&SIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CHWlTlT.—Kunitrows, JCLY 28.

CIVIL flins.—(Before Lonl Chief Justice Cockburn and
Common Juries.)
FRLCJD T.

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged
breach of a contract entered into by the defendant with the
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Matthews were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Washington Friend, the
proprietor of the American panorama exhibiting at St.
James's-hall, and the defendant is the proprietor of the
Assembly-rooms in Hamierstrtet, Gravesend. It appeared
that in March but, a person named Edwards, who represent.
the plaintiff in his country exhibitions, was anxious to make
an arrangement for the exhibition of the panorama at Graves-
end, and he was recommended to the defendant, who was
the proprietor of the only premises calculated for such an
exhibition, and accordingly had an interview with hint.
After some prelinnuerie,e au agreement was entered into,
under which the plaintiff was to have the use of the rooms
for two nights for four guineas, and the town was placarded,
and the first representation took place on the 2nd of May.
The plaintiff, it appeared, was desirous of giving a day
performance on the following day, and airangementa w.ee
accordingly made by hint with that view, but shortly before
the commencement of the performance be received a note
from the defendant, informing hint that be should require
to be paid one guinea extra for the gas that was used at
the day performance, it being necessary for the purposes
of the exhibition that the room should be darkened. The
plaintiff refused to pay the sum demanded, awl insisted that
the gas was included in the agreement, and the day perfor-
mance did not bike place ; and it was for the loss he had
sustained in consequence of this that the present action was
brought against the defendant.
The plaintiff was called as a witness in the course of the
new, awl he stated, in answer to a question put Mr. Chain •
ben, that he was an Englishman, and that the name of
Washington Friend was merely a nom tie guerre. He also
stated that the receipts on the first night's exhibition were
about lsl., and, acconliug to his experielce, the day per-
formance afterwards was always more profitable than the
first. About :tai people were at the doors ready to go in,
when he decided upon not giving the afternoon perform-
ative, hut a good many orders hail been given.
Mr. Chambers, at the close of the case fo- the plaintiff,
retaliated that there was no evidence to go to the jury' as
there was nothing to idieow that by the agreement entered
into between the parties the defendant undertook to supply
gum for the day performance.
The Lord Chief Justice mid he was Of the 'IMO opinion,
anti he added that lie thought it was a great pity that the
parties had not corns to some amicable arrangement when
the real dispute between them was of so very trilling a cha-
racter, instead of bringiag ouch 0 cause down to the assizes
for trial. His lonbiltip then said that in onler to prevent
any further expense be thought the better wawa° would be
for the jury to express all opinion as to the thump the
plaintiff had sustained, so that it would not be Deceseratv to
have a new trial in case the ruling should be set stele.

The jury said they thought IW7 would be sufficient.
The Lord Chief Justice then directed the plaintiff to he
consuited, but gave him leave to move fora verdict for 10/.
in case the court should think that his view of the agroe-
meet between the parties was incorrect.
.tt the close of the assizes at Lewes, Peter Den-dney, who
was convicted of manslaughter, was sentenced to tee yenta
penal servitude.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Nonwren, JriX 27.
CIVIL SIM —(Befon the Lord Chief Justice Erie .aul a
Special Jury.)
OILLING/I r. NA N !ARM.

Mr. O'MaDrv, Q.e., and Mr. Cherry, appeared for the
plaintiff, and idr. Metcalfe for the defendant.
TM.' was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a
builder, against the defendant, the proprietor of n tra-
velling menagerie, for injuries mildewed by the plaintiff
during • public I.erformance in the defendant's cancan,
owing to the negligence of the defendant's servant.
The defendant was at Great Yarmouth with his menagerie
on the Slat of January twit, and the plaintiff went on the
seining of that day to see it. Among other at-
tractions was a performinoe called •' The Lion Hunt,"
which was conducted by /I negro named Macumo, who is in
the habit at going into a des full of bees, and mak* them