The Express.
London, England, 1857-05-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
THIS DAY.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
pine in Banco.—Before Lord Campbell and h.*"
Wight and Crompton.)
A rut Id Arm OP cOPENAN AND ANOTHER, IN A PLAINT
Dy viz Notrotat COUNTY CoUßT.—JUitleDicTioN OP
TBt runog.—.lvoottrair.
Lord Campbell said in this case the
equeetion was whether
Wedge topthe county court had juridiction to commit the
agogant rima try warrant one judgment summon issued
▪ rthe County Court Act, 9 and 10 Viet., chap. 95, after the
goo had obtained a valid order of discharge under the
wpm& Debtor's Act, comprising the judgment debt in
ova d which the judgment summons was tamed. This
garldra wee that brought to • decision in the
d Ashley o. Dale, and aneweroi in the
Agorgesi in ths exprems words of the statute,
tug the manifeet injustice of making a debtor
a▪ ggiteaesmement for not paying a debt after the law had
jelso SW from him all his property, and also of making
*ORM to be imprisoned for misconduct by the heel-
moiritvacnneingtiOnerty, d
u. tOothbeeregAiDon
the same
feeem mencciscon. dalt
court judge, or liable to be acquitted by the one
ae• same charge. It appeared that the court had
Or **most, in tAdney r. Dale, on what they
to be the exprems words of the 102nd
low 9th and 10th Vict., which provided
▪ ne eitilerthe
granted by the Comet for the Relief of 'cool-
est DOM should be available for the discharge of any
aillanne *OM a commitment on any order made under the
Mk amt. The law thus declared in that ease being so mani.
fkaruipo, end, he might say, absurd, the legislature, by the
ogneninith Vic. c 10S, had repealed the 102nd sect. of the
ROM Caney Caiirt Act, on which Adney v. Dale depended,
egg t woe dam to the court that the legielature had thereby
lismioilit=idan evil which had more than once been
gle1111:11.1%* red and they thought that they would be
to such Intention by saying that en order
eg abelmege granted by the Court of Insolvent Debtors,
onagehig a judgment in the County Court, did take away
Rom *Mt wart the power to commit to prison the defendant
by • wratremt or a judgment summons issued on the
re=of that debt. They thought that as soon ea
tdiseharge waa proved to the satisfaction of the
arinty court ja, Ins jurisdiction to commit wets at an
med. It foliowed, therefore, that the prohibition should
bees against commitment, and accordingly the rule
wlikk bad been punted would be made absolute.
Bale absolute.
Et RR TORN WILLTAMiIitNIPE.::AN ATTORNEY STRUCK

Mr. Garth moved te:;;;lve;;:sremSde absolute which bad
been grented to strike Mr. John W. Knipe off the rolls
of attornies practising in this court for misconduct. He
Mated that the circumstances, in respect of which the rule
bed obtained, had been referred to the master for inveetiga-
sion, and hie report wee now in the heads of the court.
Muter Turner then read his report, which entered in de-
tail into all the circumstances, and tended to show that Mr.
blpe had been guilty of serious misconduct in relation to
e 1101 traveactions in which be had been swaged on
MINN of a person resident at Worcester.
Mr. Knipe did not appear to show cause against the rule
either Is parson or by counsel.
Lord thatpbell said, after the very careful investigation of
Oe soldset by Master Turner, and his very elaborate and
WI mart, it appeared to the court that Mr. Knipe woe not
• fflrmeses to remain longer on the rolls et the court. The
ntis be strike him off the rolls must, therefore, be made
1611611111.
ECM 'isolate.

Ellll MINER (ON TNN PROSECUTION OP THE BANE OP
LONDON) V. WILLIAM COCIBURN.—ALLEGED
In this cue a rule had been granted, calling upon the
defendant, who ia an advertising agent, to show mime why a
criminal information should not be filed against him for
ring an alleged libel calculated to effect the credit of
ilalinit el London-
Mr. Bodkin now moved to make the rule absolute.
Mr. Cockburn,the
_defendant, appeared in person to show
comer and Complained that he was entirely ignorant of the
qedicenj which was made against him.
Mr. said it appeared that the defendant bad never
applied for copies of the affidavits which had been fled by
the seeessabw.
Mr. Justice Wightman suggested that the defendant
should bare time allowed him to see the affidavits.
Mr. Bodkin had no objection to that mama
Mr. Cockburn said it was his wish to hare the matter
postponed in order that be might bring up the men who
wrote the article complained of. He had himself no guilty
knowledge of it.
The rule was then enlarged until nest term, and the
defendant wu told that be must file affidavits in reply four
days before the first day of term.
LIST C. LEATRER.—PATENT TOR WOOLCOMRINO.
In thin patent case, which has been repeatedly before this
court, in which • judgment was delivered a few days ago in
favour of the plaintiff, an • application had been made under
the Common Law Procedure Act fora right of appeal to •
Court of Error.
Lord Campbell intimated that, with regard to one point of
law which *roes in the aim, the court would gore liberty to
appeal, but they thought, after the finding of the jury, it
would be inconsistent with the due discharge of
their duty to do so in reference to the other
raised in the coarse of the arguments.
rlrpOinem t was whether it was erroneous to hold that the de-
fendant'a machnte was an infringement of the plaintiff's patent
by remora of the um de subordinate part only of the combina-
tion described in the specification, if the part so used wee new
material as stated by their judgment, though the
other parts were old. Hie lordship. said that though there
were many cues to support the view taken by the court,
it wee an mWingly important question, and, as far as he
knew, had not yet been decided by a court of appeal.
Liberty to appeal granted accordingly.
AN UNKNOWN SUITOR.
An aged labouring man, wearing • smack frock, preeented
himself on the floor of the court with a bundle of papers, and
said he wished to make an application to their lordihope.
Lord Campbell—What is the nature of your application?
The applicant—l wish to have a now trial.
Lord Campbell—When was your ease tried?
Applicant—ln 1841. (Laughter.)
Lord Campbell—We have no power-now to grant you
law Ist&
The applkwat seed if he was to be robbed sad have
redress.

Lord Campbell—We eau do nothing for Ti%ci
mood.
The applicant than retired in a very t

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Wilily fa Baaeo.—Before Lord Chief Boron Pollock sad
Barons Kart* Bramwell, and Channell.)
TOO HOW EITEI COMPANY T. THE LAND TAX CON
BISSIONEMA OE GRILLE ANWELL, IN W

JODCIMENT.
This was a vide' mes, raising the question whether,
finder the L•ad-Taa Act, the New River Company was
liable to be assessed to the land-tax of the county
of Rattail, to respect of so much of the New River
as peseta through the parish of Great Amwell, and else
in cusped,of a imall plot of ground in that
parish, belonging to the company, and two wells, the produce
of which the company hold at Great Amwell. The
plUntirs' contention was that on the true construction
of the 67th section of the Land Tax Act, the
company was expressly made assessable in the London
district alone for the whole of their property. As
the wells, the argument was that they stood tr.
land, in respect of which the land tax had been rediereWl,
and wen not, therefore, liable on that account, to be included
in the assessment whenever that ought to be made. For the
defendants it was argued that the company might well
liable both to lie assessed in London and
the parishes through which the river passed ,
and that the legislature could never have meant
to benefit London at the expense of Hertfordshire, the land
of which woo taken to produce the profits, in respect of which
the land tax was chargeable. As to the plot o'•
ground which had been addled to the original property,
was submitted that that was clearly asseasable to the loailit;
hi which it was eituated if unredeemed. As to the wells, '
wu admitted that if they stood in land which had been
deemed the company would be liable in respect of them.
The Chief -Baron now delivered the judgment t
the court. The question was whether the New River
Company were liable for the land tax in Great Am-
well in Rerts. It appeared that sloes the year 1798 the
company's land in Great Ainwell had been made
eiseessable in London and the court was of opinion
that nothing had been shown to them to justify them
in altering that course, but as to land which the company
might subeequentl have had they would be liable to pay.
Judgment • ly.