The Express.
London, England, 1868-12-04 00:00:00

*Mt AMISS, PRIDAY ,DXCE - /Mt

LAW INTlalell4l7ll.

OMIT OF APPEAL—Dsc. 3.
(Bekre the lard Chaaostior.)
some, v. Wm.
This was sa appeal ea the siebjest of en alleged Wrot-
e= *Mr. Boyars patent tor grinding own. The owls
wasiroci=seentatiye ono, sad was dedisided by a Lerida
!Mild it) dispute the pant ha
epreatioa. VicoMissaselloe Wood had diaidedlhat the
oradnyanose used b ties iishadsat is his mill were as Is-
t, and Gordan treated ea isjunetion sod an
to demon
arts osoapiod the court natal its Ashes.
(10” 44c„. lir. Oreysh
,se Al.*. T. NO" s9lths
HAMM appear

•
EQUITY COURTS.—Dso. 3.
(Before the Wester of the Bons.)

MAZE C. =am
Hie Lordatip said la
C. agile the been in this (the
Hampstesd-heath) cam
onday tad. .

(Before Viee-Clieneellor Sir Jean Stuart)
non v. sore—agora sr. camera.
These suits now came on is be bud as • motion, on
behalf of the plaintiff he them. The object of the
motion wee to obtain an war to enema the defen-
dants, Admiral Serails Thaws Carnegie and Lane
!Libertine, his wife to Whiteercionest Prison fir ma
tempt of court., by'reaeon el their net haying ebbed
erase of this court, made en the 96th Jerre leel,
those defeudante were restrained hem " flosartaa
lag, continuing, or neseenan any procaine Is
the kingdom ot thi Zlemde, or asswitere,
in respect of the movable or perusal estate late of John
Adrian Hope,. the LUAU is them eases," aid frees in
any manner mtereaddlut with the aid seta% " and,
in particular, from allowing a elan seam, dna the
b April, NM served on the amegere and
M for the said estate in the Methanol, en behalf 2"sl
admiral and his wife, to remain en:evoked; " and free
taldng any proceedings in pareeemes of the said nodes,
in the Netherlands or elsewhere. The Inset_ elf
shove fait of "Home v. Hope' was to ailUdeter the
Mated the late John Addeo who died peissesed
of onolikeable real and aide, beli Ibis
and in H TM anal etiniebation
dares bad been made, bat Mrs. Carnegie, he was a
deleghter t tenter, basted the wi did not
idled • poroftion he
of the setae Udellthat was in Se Weiser-
lanti, sad instituted a suit there in respect of it,
main the Umbel • party
amounted and
In
far beard • oonsiderabb
the! date of things the order of the 26th Jo -1811, wee
made by this coat ; bat lfre. Carnegie, in of that,
west oa with the foreign suit. When this motion Bret
came to ter bearing the admiral undertook to do all he
add to stay the proceectioe taken by his and in
order to prevent bar going-
on with them his
name has her wait, and refrained from paddle.' her
with mangy. She was, however, being separate boa
him, and although he had disowned all the etas she bad
taken, it now sneered that he could do no more to otei
the attar of the 21th Jou mat. On the Mk July, 1888
am agate ale bed bees mode for substituting service
tsetae of this onion en Ma. Carnegie. with the law of
tekkiag the plaletiff te pressed with the suit ben, and
:mutate liziyneeeseary) some of her separate property
Mr. Dickinson, Q.C., and Mr. 0. W. Hemming ap.
for the plaintiff, and appealed the motion l
; can. =g that it war only by obtaming the order now asked
for that the plaintiff could properly administer the estate.
Mr. Bunke, Q.C., and Yr. F. Waller for Admiral
Carnegie, insisted that be bad done all he could to obey
the order in question ; and after reading •• mum of as
'pendency between him and his wife to show that snob
was the case, concluded by urging an the court that $
would not commit him to prison for the " tartan " acts
of his wife.
The Vice-Chancellor having, in the course of the 'mu-
tant, intimated that the proper oeuree for the parties to
have adopted in this case was to have obtiunod an order
directing the admiral and his wife to appear separately,
and not, as the fact was, by the same solicitor
jointly, said it was of the greatest importance that
obedience to the order of this court, operating
in pareonn.m, should be properly enforced. Suck
an application as the present wee, however, one that
was fortunately very rate. With respect to the admi-
ral, it did not appear that be had personally been guilty
*ay contempt of the court ; and so far the motion must
entirely fail. With respect to his wife, she clearly had
committed a contempt of this court; but saw &brad.
The exparte order of the 26th July was wrong in two
respects: It was served oa a married W 00132, and it was
an order for service of notice of • motion, which was quite
irregular. That order must therefore be discharged ; hut
as the whole embarrassment and difficulty involved in the
present motion had arisen from the improper joining of
the admiral and his wife on the records of this court, the
correct order to be now made would only be—after dis-
charging the improper one of Jul—to give liberty to the
Plaintiff, and the admiral and his wife, or any or either
of them, to apply at chambers ea they might be advised,
with reference to the separate appearance in this suit of
Mn. Carnegie ; and each party must bear their own costa
of this motion.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir B. Zajac)
TIZ WU. or tax 0. TUR 11017171 WALE"; 10217:11AL

ZAILIIAY 00XPANT,

This was a motion for the sole of the defendant's rail.
way, in consequence of the non-payment of the purchase
money of certain property which the company had agreed
to buy, and of which they had obtained poseosaion. In
1868 they. agreed with the Earl of Jersey for the purchase
of a portion of the Briton Ferry Estate for 1,36131., and
part of the lands comprised in the agreement being leased
to Beam. Penrose and Evans, coal workers, the company
contracted to purchase their interest for 8001. The put..
chase was never completed, and in March, 1862 the (earl
baring died in 18.39), an agreement was entered
into with the Countess Dowager, to the effect,
that on payment of 6001. in addition to the
1,2601., the land should be conveyed to the company.
In 1864 the company contracted to purchase
other parts of the estate for 696/. ; but neither that sum
nor interest upon it being paid, a bill was tiled for the
specific performance of the two agreements, and a decree
was made for payment by a certain day. That day being
past, and the money remaining unpaid, the present motion
.

Mr. Cotton and Mr. Kekewich supported the motion.
Mr. Ayrton, for the defendants, submitted that as the
Earl of Jersey was chairman of the company at the time
the contract was made, and as his property had been
greatly benefited ly the railway, the tabs should not be
enforced till a reasonable Vane—say three months—had
been allowed for payment.
The Vice-Chancellor, upon the authority of " Wing v.
the Tottenham Railway,' held that in a sale of land to a
railway company, just as in a sale to an individual, the
vendor had a lien for unpaid purchase money, and a pur-
chaser could not be allowed to retain both land and
money. tinder the special circumstance' of this case,
however, the defendants were entitled to some indul-
gence, and therefore the order would be for the payment
of the money on or before the 3rd of March, and in case it
was not then paid the railway must be sold.