The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-22 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER -JAN. 21.

Sittings in Banoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Channel! and Pigott.)
SOWERBI r. COLEMAN AND OTHERS.

This was an action of trespass, and it now came before
the court upon a demurrer to pleas which raised the
(ideation whether the defendants were entitled to train
and exercise homes upon some land known as Lilly. Hoo,
near Hitchen. The defendants set up an alleged imme-
morial custom on the part of the inhabitants of Lilly and
the hundred of Mitchell and Perton to so use the land at
all seasonable times of the year. For the plaintiff it was
contended that this being profits prendre, it could not be
the subject matter of a custom ; and secondly, that even
supposing there was such a custom it was too large to be
upheld, inasmuch as it conferred on the inhabitants of a
district which was not co-extensive with the parish in
which the land was situated the right to go upon the land
for the purpose in question. In no case had it been de-
cided that the inhabitants of one parish could enter into a
district outside that parish and claim a right of this kind.
Sir Ceo. Honymaii, Q.C., and Mr. Archbold were heard
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Morgan
Lloyd for the defendants.
. . . . . . . . .

The Court thought the plena setting up the right claimed
could not be supported. The claim was too wide to be
reasonable, became the effect of it probably would be to
deprive the owner of the land of its beneficial enjoyment,
and therefore the demurrer would be allowed.

Judgment for the plaintiff.
Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and
a Common Jury.)

His lordship sat from II to half-put I. and disposed of
several cases, but none of them presented any feature of
public interest. These wore the second nisi pries sittings
in terni, and the list contains 21i cases, two of which are
for special juries. Mr. Baron Bramwell adjourned the
court at the early hour named to attend chambers.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—J . 21.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE TORIUNCE.

The bankrupt was a tea-dealer, of Omen uare,
Brighton. He came before the court with debts of 2, .
no assets.

Mr. Aldridge called attention to an important omission
in the bankrupt's accounts ; he bad not stated the consi-
deration for his debts.
An adjournment was ordered for amended amount..
IN RE ALPHID HOOP.

The bankrupt was described as a gentleman of King-
street, St. James's. the Salisbury Hotel, Fleet-street, and
numerous other addresses. Debts, 3,963/., of which 6001.
are on accommodation bills. Some of the debts am for the
hire of opera boxes, hotel bills, hats, clothes, and hire of
horses.

The accounts not having been filed in time, an adjourn-
ment wax ordered, and the bankrupt was directed to file a
cash account.

(Before Mr. Commissimer Coulburn.)
TRADER DEBTOR HUIIMONR.

In the CYO of a trader debtor summons, affidavit was
made by the debtor of a good defence. In answer to a
question from the court, he stated that he hod executed a
trust deed, which was a bar to the action of the creditor.
Mr. Reed, on behalf of the creditor, proposed to show
that the deed was invalid, several large creditors being
omitted.

His Honour held, on the authority of a case decided by
the Lords Justices, that he could not inquire into the
validity of the deed. The instrument itself was primal
facie a defence to the action ; its validity would have to
be tested at a future stage. The costs would abide the
event of the action.