The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-23 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 23, 1861.

Tabu intelligenct.

EQUITY COURTS.—MAT 22.
(Wore the Lord Cheatsllor and the Lora Justices.)

THE IIIiPEROII or AUSTRIA r. DAT AND ROSSETIL

This wad an aPpsal from Vice-Chancellor Stuart. The
matter eame on before the court at the instance of the
Austrith Ambassador, for an injunction to restrain the de.
fsoaaoto Day from Manufacturing for the defendant
Kossuth certain notes, purporting to be of the value of a
florin each currency of the kingdom of Hungary. The in-
junction having bees granted esparto, a motion was made
on April 15th, to dimly. it, and by consent during the
Marini that motion was turned into • motion for a decree.
The V ice-Clnuicellor domed that the defendants should
deliver up the notes to to cancelled, and he restrained by
perpetual injunction from further manufacture; holding
that the legal prerogative of a foreign sovereign with whom
the crown of Waled ts at peace, will by force of the law
of nations, which is part of the law of England, be protected
in the Court of Clammy. The present appeal was then
brought.
Mr. lt. Palmer, Sir H. Cairns, and Mr. Cotton. for the
plaintiff, appeared to support the decree, and urged that
the Emperor of Austria must be taken to be King of
Hungary.
Mr. Flacon and Mr. Wickens appeared for the defendant
Day ; Mr. Collier, of the common law bar, Mr. C. T.
Simpson, Mr. Toulmin Smith, and Mr. Westlake, wife for
the defendant Kossuth.
The arguments were not coecluded.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)
BMITH r. MIMI.

Mr. Bacon, Q.C., and Mr. De flex appeared in support of
a motion on the part of the soleness in bankruptcy of
Mr. Thomas Laurence, of the late firm of Streatfeild,
Laurence, and Co., to vary the oertiscate of the chief
clerk approving of a settlement upon Mrs. Laurence of
property which she took under the will of her father, Mr.
Smith, the testator in the CS We The actual value of the
property had not been ascertained, and depended io part
on dividends to be received under the estate of Streatfeild,
Limners, and Co., but according to the affidavits the
amount would be about 13,0001. or 15,0001. The chief
clerk had approved of a settlement embracing the
whole of this fund, and from this decision the
assignees now appealed. It appeared that on Mrs.
Laurence's marriage her father paid Mr. Lorna,
1,0001., and that the Linn of Streatfeild, Laurence, and Co.
were indebted to the father's estate to an amount of
20,000/., but it was stated that accommodation to this
amount had been given by the testator to them in considera-
tion of advancer to a much larger amount made by Street,
feild and Co. to two other firms in which the testators son
was a partner. In support of the motion they cited I
" Napier v. Napier "(1 Dr. and W.), and " Begshawe v.
Winter "(5 De Gas and Sinai.), and submitted that in so
MO where the sum had been so loge as is the present are
bad the court settled the whole fund, except in eases where
there had been a desertion of the wife by the husband, or
some other special circumstances of that nature, and which
did not exist in the present case. In answer to the Vice
Chancellor they said the onions. would be content to haVe
half the fund settled.
The Vice• Chancellor, withoutaL= on Mr. Mains, Q.C.,
Hetherington, MrHetherington, who for Mrs. Laurence,
or Mr. Kay, who appeared for treaties under the will of
Mrs. Laarenee's father, mid that all the arcumataroes of
the cases had been considers& smokily at chambers, and he
thought the income of the fund, which it was expected
would amount to 13,0001. or 15,000 f., would not be mere
than sufficient to provide a decent maintenance for Mn.
Laurence end her four children, considering that lady's
education and position in life. There was at pressot no
deed rennetrule se to what portion of a fund should be
settledr but every amass be decided on its own merits.
With rd to the ooetentiew that his wife had not been
deserted by treated with cruelty by the husband, be (the
Vice. ) thought that so far from being a maroon
for only part of the bind base settled, It was rather a rea-
son for LOIN*, the whole, as is many ereaasseerr,, snd as it
the present Mlle, the husband being an 11 tad bank-
rupt, the wife would, in addition to the maintoaree of her-
self and children, have to maintain her husband. The
motion must, therefore, be refused, but without costa. The
costs of the trades, to be costa in the cause.