The Express.
London, England, 1868-01-29 00:00:00

' -- I:A.W INTELLICIENOL
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
Dittirr V. LORD PARKER.
is was 2 demurrer to a bill filed by Ann Druiff against
1° that a bill of exehange, dated the
,1
might be rectified by striking her
!'enter,
s,uPibera, ilir igfitih,
out of it; and to restrain the defendant from alleigiag,
.ctiou which she had brought upon the bill, that she
.‘,,int drawer of the same. The ctrcumstancies were
peculiar. The plaintiff was the widow and
..tritris of Wm. Druiff,late of Newport, Monmouth-
b k who in March 1866 advanced to Lord
1,21T11 ro er, ,
.•• I 2,d Frederick Granville, of Croft House, Fairford,
e•terhl,ooo/. on the security of two bills for 500 i.
itrh% rith March, 1866, and payble three months
: • .itda e
to the drawer's order. One of these hills was
• ~n hy 51r, tirancille upon Lord Parker, who accepted
it ea,. endorsed by Granville to Drell!.
and c
ite
it upon Grauvilk, who accepted it, and it was
.1.;...;e1 but :moville to Druiff, who accepted it, and it
' • ' lured by Lord Parker to Druiff. Singularly
tt in both hills, just above the name of the
wa: in..erted the name "W. Druiff," for what
1 did not in any way apper. Druiff died on the 15th
The bill were not paid at maturity and were
• (*lion the occasion of such renewal the two new
. •,, vett, lawn out by Mrs. Druiff's daughter, with
...ks for the signatures of the drawers, sad she, as the
through mietake or misadventure, put Mrs.
name in the place where the drawer's lama ought
i„ thi respect exactly following the form of the
•e; it: which William Drain name Wall sultril
..ther respects the bills (which were
...pe...‘.tivelvtliellth and 25th of September) exactly ram-
Tnehill of the 14thSeptemberwis drawn by
.1211,11,. that a the 25th by Lord Parker, each was
llcy the other drawer, sad both were indorsed
. nac,i to Mrs. Druiff. The bill alleged that it never
.
tbc intentioa of either Lord Parker, Mrs. Druiff, or
-.jr. that Mrs. Druiff was to be liable as •
, nor ins fact was she one of the drawers, and Lord
• : wan misled by the signature of Mrs. Draiff,
• . 11..luced to believe or in fact ever did believe
w. .s one of the drawers, or was jointly liable with
over. The bill then went on to allege that when
.• I!I of the 11th Sept. fell due Frederick Granville was
.1..• found, and Lord Parker was applied to. A COT-
:. 't
took place, and in March, lliG7, his lordship's
i• o tote to Mrs. Druiff to say that the bill of the
• •', • •-;,ptc tier (the one accepted by Granvillel having
:an I.y her, it was quite clear that Lord Parker
. not liable to her upon it. Mrs. Druiff there.
..itociiced the action, to which Lord Parker pleaded
„!cab set out the bill in its exact form, and averred
. • • A. Druiff, in the said bill mentioned as and
.1. 'l"n l..I•To n the drawer
ttllelrgfc un ;f ijthee,
ill not draw the bill, and that her name was in-
,• •,..! in the same by mistake. Rejoinder and stir-re-
..'..1. were filed, and on the 12th of December Mrs.
•• this bill, charging that her signature would
- .....I probably defeat her right to recover at law,
• could not safely proceed to trial ; andpraying
):r. I•• M. I.iffard, Q.C., Mr. Quin, Q.C. (of the cam-
and Mr. Montague Cookson supported the
• ~a, on behalf of Lord Parker. Their contention
r -Ile was, that there was nothing in the case, as stated
which could not be fully and fairly tried in
tion at law.
)Ir. Amphlett, Q.C., Mr. Fischer, and Mr. Henry James
• common law bar), supported the bill. They argued
, here a plaintiff at law sets up an instrument as con-
_n_ a contract upon which he relies, but claims not to
by some part of that instrument, on the ground
. it is not competent to bim at law to go into
.ace to vary the terms of tile contract as it appears in
o-trunient.
Mr. Gitfard was heard in reply; and his Honour re-
o vol judgment until this morning.
'file Vice-Chancellor, after stating the facts of the case,
• ~...1 that the circumstance of the defendant having
.tll home in the action, instead of demurring, made no
• ore, inasmuch as it had been admitted that even
•• judgment there might be a motion in arrest of judg-
..t, if the plea should turn uut to be a good plea.
. pendently of whether or not there was • good
nee at law, it would certainly not be creditable
,• the course of justice, if a court of competent
.oliction were to part with a case without doing com-
p: te justice between the parties. But upon the cases
r:, .t had been cited, especially by Mr. Quoin, his Honour
t it pretty evident that • court of law would not
limit this sort of defence. No doubt there had been
..scs at law where a defendant had been allowed to
" Although my name is here, it is not my agree-
+, nt, the agreement bare appearing is not the
• g which was agreed upon." But there had
1..n0 instance whore a defendant at law
.d been allowed to bring forward an instrument
say" This contains the thing agreed upon ; but this is
.. correctly drown instrument." Here what the plaintiff
....At was, " This bill purports to have two drawers. It
r has not two drawers, the name of one has been
1•. upon it by misadventure." That consideration
.• • e would warrant this court in overruling the
r.nrer. Rut there was another ground on which
plaintiff was entitled to relief, which was
this that the parties hadagreed to have bills which should
1. renewals of the former, and which therefore should
.• tartly resembled the former, but free from all
.1 ..h.t and ambiguity. The bill, therefore, must not la.
• • ••oeed ; the demurrer must be overruled ; but the coats
a...thl he reserved till the hearing, unless the bill were
• er dismissed, in which case they would be costs in
tl,, coos. A month's time would be given to answer.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
in Ilanco.—(liefore the Lord Chief Justice and
Justice Lush.)
TIIE QEEEN r. THE ARCHDEACON OE EXETER.
!Ir. hit said their lordships would recollect that in this
two rules and writs of mandamus bad been issued to
. .A the parishioners, two churchwardens. In obedience
• th.• first writ the Archdeacon of Exeter had admitted
*.; Ware, churchwarden of the parish of Hatherton, and
• . cowl writ was to compel him to admit Mr. Clarke,
• , p ,hioner, other churchwarden. Hisapplication now
st the archtleecon should be compelled to pay the
the first mandamus.
Lord Chief Justice—Why should you cast on the
on the coats of a squabble going on in the parish!
.I.lf-- llecause tho archdeacon had taken into his
• . holds a matter which he ought not to have done.
lord Chief Justice—He has admitted one man—one
,i,plhll to be admitted.
,aid the subsequent conduct of the archdeacon
„,1.1 to the other churchwarden elected by the
t• was such as to negative the bent fides of the
lie waited two months before obeying the
1a.0.,1.,m5, and then, instead of obeying the spirit
of I fi..e.laiuus, which clearly was to recognise the
Ow parish to elect two churchwardens, and
it, he admitted that one he first refused
~u 1 refused now to admit the one he had
• consented to admit, thereby putting the
to the coats of the second mandamus which had
: rented.
lord Chief Justice said the dispute was whether
urchwarden should be elected by the parish and one
~..ted by the clergyman or both elected by the parish.
said the archdeacon well knew from the first
•• t the dispute wag the right of the parishioners to elect
I, churchwardens.
The Lord Chief Justice said he thought there was no
rtence for the application.
Application refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
POLLEYE r. HILL ASOTIIIIL
The plaintiff, a journeyman carpenter, brought this
.ction against the defendants, his former employers, for
serious bodily injuries alleged to have been sustained
through their negligent construction of s floorcloth manm
factory at Deptford, which was blown down by a severe
gale. which prevailed on the I.ith duly last.
Mr. Wilbs was counsel for plaintiff, and Dir. Serjeant
P.,rri counsel for the defendants.
The defendants were contractors for the main portion
the building, and at the time of the occurrence some
.ther contractors were engaged in enclosing the sides with
t‘ rrugated iron. When the structure fell the pleiatitf was
"Ti the ground floor, and he received an injury to the pelvis
el•ich brought on fits, and was likely to be of a permanent
dare.
'rue defence was that the building was properly con.
,tructed, and in accordance with the plans and specifics-
Lens, as well as under the superintendence of the district
sniveyor, and that the fall of it was to be attributed to
the removal of certain struts by the other contractors, and
to the effects of the gale itself.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up. said the defend-
ems would not be liable if the plaintiff knew of the dam
-rous state of the building, and did not take proper pre-
cautions for his own safety.
The jury. after being looked up a short time, found a
ivrdict for the plaintiff—damages, 3504