The Express.
London, England, 1857-07-16 00:00:00

The hither ronsideratiun of the ease was then adjourned
till the nut day.

JOLT 14.

The whole day wee occupied with the reception of dom.
mentary evidence on the part of the petitioner. The only
vied 'coos whams was Mrs. Hibbard, the mother of Bertram
Arthur, the keened, WhDailitad that John, the sixteenth earl,
and all kb badly were always of opinion that the next heir
to the title was Earl Talbot. The further proceedings were
adjoarusi to Tharelley mornlair.

EQUITY COUItTB.-IuLT 16.
(Stdor• the Lord Chancellor.)
YAZD= L YANDSN.

This perttheird case was seemed and concluded. It was
sprel trom s decree of VicerChanosiler Kindersley.
The plaindff and defindsnis were brother and sisters, and
the snit was Melindad to set side $ neortecthed charged
en a hew Mats at Aideriey, mar Kew which the
plibatiff held under • devise Iran his father by which a
saw at 1,6001. wee rained for the benefit of his three sisters.
They were rely entitled to $ atm of 600/. between them
lender the will, mad It was alleged that the plaintiff hod con-
embed to mime the ems of 1,4001. on his property, in crier
to mks a gift of 600/. each to hie sisters. The ground
cm width the deed wen soreght to be on amide wee that the
=dirmg a nan of wish intellect, and entirely illiterate,
especially ignorant of figures and arithmetic, and that
he wee utterly unaware of the nature of the inianuuent which
he woe saeestlap. Tit green wasztp. of fact and
evidence, sad wee of interest only to the comemed.
The Vies--Chancellor dismissed the bill with cats,
end the present appeal was brought.
The Lead Chancellor was of opinion that the &chic. of
the comet below we. quit. [WM' • the decree was Winters
affirmed, and the appealdisrmissek.

(Before the Lords Judean of Appeal.)

V. TKV

COMPANY.

The plaintiff' in this who were trustees of the St.
Pancras Abaco= lastitaeon, purchased in January, 1652,
certain node 4 Kontieh Tons, for the purposeof building
endtonns with • stipulation that the central
rink* of the containing the hall, library,
mod roar fee vs Wenn, &could be wetted
within tiro years, They accordiogly completed the
contzel portion of the bend upon the pina agreed
mom by Jul', 1854, and their intention wes to coon-
pleb the building by the addition of two wings to the portion
orenad. On the 16th of July, the defendants
than with notice of their requiring to take under the
provisions of the Undo Cisme Consolidation Act, a portion
dike lend span which onset the wings would stand, if the
design of the bdWiug were cosapieted, bat they refused to
con* with the pl.ietlfr rintend, that they should take
thenheb oltds"he load puninesd by the =Ze,
in
who
the
in-
And tint posed of the lend
wins fanned pot of the boon they bad built within
the of the Ned section of the Lauder Churns Con-
solidation Act, which provide, 0 tint no pony shall at any
Men be rondred to sell ce convoy to the pronoun of the
undeneitiogl rendrnee the lend, a part only of any house, or
ether asiaise or wamakaaary, if such party be willing sad
obis to mil sad nem the whole thereof." A motion was
made • law days eben Wore Vico-Chsneellor Wood, for an
injunction to mind& the tishedsate from putting in force
the =pygmy powers at the est in reference to the land
comprised- is their nodes when, am amnia by the repot of
the motion in our cohnno, ids Honour refused to accede to
the application, bolding that the portion of the land In
wanton was not put of the house built by the plaintiff
within the mating of the 92•4 section of the act.
Mr. Wflkock, Q.C., and Mr. Torriann, now appeared in
support of ea appeal bon tint decision ; Mr. Speed (with
whom woe Mr. Halt, Q.C.) appeared contra
. .. .

Their Lonbadge -mkt lisoiingular way in which the set
was worded had certainly given nee to queetione so to the
true meaning of the word "hones" need in the Wad section,
and whether it well not to he eowetrued in a more limited

nenee itruku;ai Ii which at law it had been generally un-
derstood. They were of opinion, however. that the authori-
ties had Wiled that the word home was need In the ffnid
section in its ordimuy and legal erne.; and being of that
opinion it appeared to theta that, in the prment mar, although
the company might not be actually taking tho building of
the plaintiffs, they were taking a part of that which, in the
legal seem of the word house. was part of sink house. They
therefore granted the injunction.

(Eldon the Muter of the Roll■.)
WICK O. PAIIKTK.

This came was continued to-day.
After heating Mr. Palmer and Mr. Beaman for the ile-
fendanM his Honour said that he would read the affidavits
before calling for a reply, but intimated that he doubted
whether theevidence was eufficient, and whether it might not
be necessary to direct an ieoue. and sa the amount in question
waa very small, suggested that it might be adviseble for the
plaMtit to submit to have his bill dismissed without rate.

PPPPP HERUICE V. ATTIVOOII.
This was • snit to establish the priority of the plaintiff's
. for 15,0001. upon an estate of aiair. John Attwoul,
...7Zrylands. The principal *nutter claimants were the
truster vadat • will and a marriage settlement, who had ob-
tainer( $ prior agreement for a mortgage, sad the sisters of
Mr. Attwood. to whom a prior legal mortgage of • term had
Item mantled for 30,0001. The plaintiff contended that theme
ought to be poponed, se the title deeds had been
ertrhe 'Mn
of the mortgagor's solicitor. There were
several neat inennibrancere, the total amount of the
charges king about 100,0001.
Mr. Palmer and Mr. Dillard were for the plaintiff; Mr.
Bagshawa, Mr. Follett, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Beek,
Mr. Key, Mr. Fooks, Mr. Elderton, Mr. Deuce, and Mr.
Morgan for the various defendants.
The mum was nut concluded when the court rose,

K indersky.)

LEGGII UAW'S.

This was a supplement al suit, which came on upon motion
for decree. It wan propeed no part of the evidenco to read
an affidavit made by the defendants in the original suit, and
which was referred to in the defendants' answer. To this
the plaintiff ohjected, on the ground that the sithlavit in ques-
tion was not comprised in the list of evidence accompanying
the notice, of motion.

Mr. 31riuse Bailey, Mr. Glans, Mr. Tripp, Mr.
Hackett, sad Mr. Kerslake apried fur the parties.
The Vim-Chancellor i o'n the plaioLra okiaction e
sufficient one, and directed the mistier to eland over that
police wigbt be emit.

(Before Vloo-Cloaoellar ft W. Pogo Wood.)
LEDMINATER CANAL COMPANY V. MIDLADANCMY AND

HEY►./'UYU RAILWAY COIII'ANI.

Thin was a suit for the specific performance of an agree-
ment by the defendants to purchaes from the plaintiffs their
canal. The canal company was established by an art of par-
liament peered in the 46th of Oeo. 111. In ROG the Shrew.-
bury and II !retied Railway was projected, and the an for
the plaintiff. wan, that the defendants agreed to purchase the
canal, the canal company agreeing to obtain an act of parlia-
ment to authorise the purchase. The alleged agreement was
contained in a letter from the solicitor. of the railway com-
pany to the solicitors of the canal company. The railway
company now refuee t. purchase the canal, and the question
before the court wan as to the validity of the agreement.
The Vice-Chancellor metered his judgment.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—JULY
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goolburn )

IN RI TI! LONDON, HAIMICII, AND CONTINENTAL STEAM

FACIA? CIMPANT (mistral)).
A petition had been thod by Messrs. Linklnter on a former
day, praying for en order under the 70th section of the
Jetut•Stock Companies Act of hat .wion, fur the winding
up of this company.
To-day had b en appointed for the company, or any mem•
bare thereof, to show calm against the order.
Mr. Guatard, tho solicitor to the company, consented, and
the order was accordingly mad*. A day was appointed for
the proof of debts.

LNSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.-JuLT 15.
(Before the Chisfeonuniseioner.)
IN RI !AMER NRWeiffialt.—AN ALLEGRO "OkIIROTTR"
itionnene.
Mr. Bicker CrArum applied for a rule for an •Bowanee
Been the detaining creditor, for the nupport of the insolvent,
who had been adjudged by the judge of the York County
Court to an imprisonment of two years for making away with
property. The alleged robbery was of 181/. in money and a
silver watch, worth 31, by three men, when the insolvent
was garrotted" near hie own house. The lure was treated
se • "fiction" in order to defraud the creditors and hence
the judgment of two you.. The insolvent in bin affidavit
declared that the robbery was a true account. He was, with
his wife end two children, in poverty, and they were " can-
didates " for parochial relief.
The Chief Commissioner declined to grant a rule for an
allowance. The insolvent could apply to the county court
for a rehearing.
Mr. Bicker Caarten remarked that the adjudication was for
tanking away with, awl not foe concealing the money.
The court refused the application.
(Before Mr. Cos:minimum. Murphy.)
IN RI WILLIAM I)LItLIT.—A TRIP To AI:ATRALIA.
This ineolveat, a baker, who had lately returned horn
Australia, applied under the Protection Act.
Mr. Sherrsed, a miller, opposed, and elicited that in 1854
when he owed him about 1001, the insolvent sold his busi-
ness. from which he rallied 1204, and went to Australis.
He had about 801. when ho left, and expected great things
from a person who invited him to amine over. He owed about
2801., and repaid to have wade money to send over to pay
his creditors, but had been disappointed, on which ho re-
turned to England. His wife, whom he left in this country,
had get into • " washing" bagasse, which oho had disposed
of duos his return ; and ha admitted that be had been looking
out for a businere, and, as a preliminary, wiehed to get re•
tiered foto his ineambrancee in the shape of former debts.
When he Maned he had about 401, which he had given to
his wife.
Mr. Cannahicaer Motility considered that this was not •
ease for a protection. The insolvent, like cohere, hod a
" film" togs toAnstralia, and, instead of ppaaying his creditors,
took the money which would him paid • dividend,
sad had spent the whole.