The Express.
London, England, 1850-11-08 00:00:00

Rain Et*'thyme,

EQUITY CO—URTS.—YEsURD +Y.
BOOM mu Loan Cmoomea.
Ounta OM Ra.tatao MATTIL.
The Roemer bawls' at tho sitting of the court tiled the
ore of " Neat.' Ptak,"
Sir F. Kelly reminded the Loed Chassidim of the appeal
motiou in Russell o The Bast Anglian Railway Coarsely,"
whisk wee opened before his lordship so ter sgo es Asyut
lut, and the a/samaras in which WHO reused ma the One
day of this term, when it was adjourned to this day.
The Lord Oinmaellor said it had boa his ictention to
appropriate parasols: days to particular
was of
WAGON, SOMA to
appeals, some to appeal mottoes, Me prestlas
the court. It appeared, however, to be the general desire
to depart from that rule, and hear oat sae matter until the
arguments were brought to a conclusion. Oa that under-
standing be had continued to bur the appeals in this cue,
which were opened on Monday ; and alter they were heard,
he would teen hear to the end the part-beard motion In
“Reletii o. The Bast Argils's Reilwa Company."
Sir F. Kelly, after confortag wiilt thy e amid " Neste
v. Pink," ssid, as it K. peered to be uncertain what time
that cue would yet take, he sossidered that be was consult-
ing the interests of kis clients to ask his lordship to let this
pert hued mintiest stand over till next Thuroday.
The Lord Chanoellet said he would take ears that nothiog,
except perhaps lunatic petitions, should interfere with the
hearing oat of the motion on that: day, and until the ergo.
tuna should be concluded.

losses Vieclitratettion Hours.
WARDS V. WLIIOI.--PsODUCTIOX or DOCUMENTS.
The bill alleged that upon the sale of certain relates coup
plied in the marriage settlement of the plaintiff, the had
Men induced by the defendant, her husband, to join in
releasing the estates from her jointure of 1,0001. per annum ;
and the bill sought to have a jointure equal In amount
secured to her spos other estates of the husband. To this
bill, the solicitor who had acted for the husband upon the
sale was made a defendant, us one of the trustees of the
marriage settlement. By his answer, be admitted the
possession of cues and .pinions and ther documents re-
[sties to the transaction ;in caution ; but submitted that
he was not bound to produce or dishes them, on the ground
that they had come into hie heads as the pronseienal adviser
of the husband, and were therefore privileged from C 01112114-
sication. It appeared that upon the (evasion of the sale and
release the plaintiff had not employed a separate solicitor or
counsel.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Dickinson, for the plaintiff, moved for
the producticn of tho documents referred to in the answer,
it not appearing that they were opinions and cease taken
or submitted either in the progress of the suit or with ref. r-
eau to it, Butte, T. Biodulpk" (4 Russell's Reports,
190). From the pleadings obeli was to be inferred that the
defendant had acted as joint aolicitor:of the husband and wife,
in which ease the doctrise of privilege could have no appli-
cation.
Mr. Beheld and Mr. Erskine sutra contended that there
wee nothing is the pleadings to 'how that the defendant had
Need as joint solicitor to the husband and wife That being
se the common privilege would apply to protect the duet.
meats from disclosure.
Mr. Messiter appeared for the defendant, the solicitor.
The Vice-Chancellor said it was with reluctance be bad
come to the conclusion that the documents in question could
not be directed to be produced. Putting the case fiat, as if
the plaintiff, instead of being the wile of the vendor, had
been sinsp'y a stranger, with a charge upon the estate pro-
posed to be sold. In that view of the ems the vendor, being
*but to sell, feels unharrtesed by the chugs of the plaintiff
Be then seta about to find how the estate can be dieeharged.
He consults a solicitor and takes opinions, and proceeds in
various ways by. negotiation and correspondence to obtain
the end in view. In that simple state of eintllll-
mantas no doubt We doctrine of privilege would
apply to the communications between the vendor and
his legal adviser. The rule clearly applies to matters
which become afterwards the subject of a suit. Would the
cue then be altered by the circumstance that the party
entitled to the charge had not chosen to employ a solicitor
of his owe? Re thought not, units it could be shown that
the parties were 'Pamphlet, a solicitor as their joint a Mellor ;
in which cabs there could be no professi Alai confidence
as between the parties. But unless that could be
shown, which it was not in the present use
, the
fact that the party entitled to the charge had
chosen to ;rely on the advice of the same party as the party
consulted by the vendor could make no difference upon the
question ot privilege. Did then the eiretmetance that the
plaintiff, instead of being a stronger, was the wife of the
vendor, sl.er the cae, ? Re thought not. There being
nothing to show that the solicitor was acting LS joint robot.
tor, he thought there was nothing in the case to disturb the
privilege claimed by the defendant, end that the motion
out therefore be refused.
MMUS. 9. Hawes.
In the report of this eon yesterday it was stated that the
exceptions to the master's report were overruled. It should
have been stated that the tiuptions were allowed, the Vies
Chancellor observing that in substance he speed with the
Master, sithoonh by an ominiou in the schedule the wawa
had been tendered tachscally insufficient

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YESTESDAT.
lemesee ra SANCO.-111,P01113 Low CANIMIKII, Ya. Japrics Cots-
au." Jarnat :onTray. um Ma. Juereci Eau
BVITTLOT V. G.lll.l.ol.—AcTion sllmoll Tell TITUS CON.

sinintow ACT.
In this este, which was a feigned Wee, the real question
turned upon the construction of the Tithe Commutation Act,
ea to whether certain lands in the district of Women, in the
perish of Keeler, in Lnleolottlire, were liable to the rector,
who was the defendant in the present action or to the vicar
who was the plaintiff, for the payment of tithes. The land-
owners had disputed their liability to pay any tithes at all,
and the Tithe Commissioner before whom the Me was
broefht decided that the whole of the lands situated in the
cietnet of Lanarroft were liable to pay small tithes to the
vicar, and that me tithes were due to Mr. Genet, the rector.
Mr. liumirey, Q.C., now moved on the part of Mr.
summons, and all thirst (rent proceetlioge in the ease, should
not be eat aside, on the around that the question eclaid not
be properly decided unlit" the landowners, who were the
moat interested persons in the attar, were ;bade parties to
the action, bemuse they denied their liability to pay tithes
either to the trect,r or to the vicar. The learned counsel now
said that it might possibly turn out to be the ease that after
the defendant tiellot had incurred the expense of defending
the present action, when the question came to be tried be-
tween him and the landowners, that he hail no right to claim
say tithes IrMiscror. Under them circumstance', the learned
tossed eahmitted that he wee entitled to a rule.
The court mated • rale niai.
BLAB a. ATTWOOD.—ALLI4IID BRIBIRT AT AN
ILLACTION.

In this ease, which was tried before Mr. Jostles Erie at the
lest maim, held at llarerich, a verdict was entered for the
annulus*. The actin" was to recover penalties for alleged
bnbery at an eleetion. It appeared that an election was
about to she time at tiarwicb, and shortly before a fisher-
man, named neaby, being a your, applied to one of the
friends of the defendant to assist him in redeeming a boat
which had been taken premien of by • Mr. Grier., as
secarity for • debt of 411. Beatty came to London and had
an intetview with • Mr. Rusk, • friend of the defendant,
sad promised to vote for Mr. Attwood at the approaching
election, which he did, his haat having been redeemed.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., now moved for a rule to show
canes why the verdict should not be let aside and • new trial
had, es the grounds of misdirection, and that the verdict was
the en knee. The learned counsel weal fully Into
a detail of the case, which have already been several times
before the pabhc.
The court said Mr. Justice Erie, who tried, was satisfied
with the verdict, and they saw no grounds to disturb it.
ILO* refused.

BAIL COURT.—YneranDAT.
Ton QUOIN O. JUSTICES or LINT (ix 77777 Ton
Bourn EASTSIIN ItiILWAT COMPAIIIII).
Ilir. nninini• Q.C., moved for a rule ailing spat the
judos of Rent to show MIN why they should not en4r
*Miasma and hear an appeal _ against • poor rata
for the parish of Minster, wismdey the South Rut=
aßailway Company woe rated tee thus miles of the
te branch, and one mks of the Deal breach,
at the rateable value of 6001. per mile. Against
this vote an appeal had been mewed is the you
1641, ma the ground that the rata was tasalieThis oppeal
was aboadosed upon an unasessal enteredlnto
humus Me aoliciton of the unapmee awl pariah, ly
whisk the rateable mho wu rabies' lesoll9l. per ails to
9001 cm the Rawest*, eat 1001. an the Desi Mani. This
agrammt was wand lam is esessesseee of this. beep a
ma meow la the Graft of Queen's Beek ebbe eat et
ed wbitL Mabee peessetel by the
a sem mis fps thee la die wei6hbouriscal=l,ol4
Des, the latesilea be that both parties skean be bread
by that Sense whisk weld tarn upon the quad= of
Whalers Om isampshield be rated (quell, dmeekest
the whsle Ilea. is Mash ease the rats wu to be emend
to Me pre Mk, sr whether it should be bed ape
the
be et poreedel renew, la whin an Is
' wee abe often es steel ahem. The enemy nee
' dared that this siemeat was to semis Is Mee sal the
Mtn be taken at the ewer Ogee mia the lodise to
that was was elm, bet the punt MOM SS Ili ISM
Jose, 1849, mad* a sow rate, whisk was demi ea the
7th Mem, eel panned ea Tat lispesalat, sad la
Malt the esepsay we vise rated st IMMO. per aUe,
Mt am mice of the Meage was elves Is them sad it
west all a demi its the sate was sale Ewa thooo,
ea the nth Omer, the they illessermi IL TM time
he 11.111111116 e is the scut usaisas aftesaer the peados of the
Isle lel Mee =eked, bet the m, sewn se appeal
at the salesquat mien, esse that they was
within "re sseelle time. The *tees, of berilei sa
objection by the peak allowed the appeal as he m
are, sad egesied the Melee is pet the &Mita of
the West Sere rem. Sem seespoadeassslieller theses* peell
Mem the selielles, W whin Me Illeri 611
wee soaksiod, Miami Is babes MM the pone weld
mama se west as Wenn the is" keen of ;ssiVi
hawser, d the seriess, la Oseborkei they mat
the book of the sismay, ma WRNS trial. II %
lam the era The, however, MI ft, SONS
till the 6th Dembor, so se as mans the mew te
apply he this smut. It was sow surteadlei that as sew eats
we me seem wise tele, awl Matte esmaM none
have he seise et Se Media of die OM alms_
_ls
asksMinnlM.; tee MI as wilIZ Tim,_
win Mes appeal tie they 6111; . saw
the justiesele the ilet sessess. elm aey allowed es
appeal to he some& hat Milled that part el the see,
MI send est wow »mune that_julauseat, and were
Meal to wet he the Midst la lice West Here elm
i Mr. Judos Pettom—Tes amet bon net de peak
nese was beast Is Ile yet Male et Me
ek intaliM