The Express.
London, England, 1868-06-26 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Mr. justice Willcs and Mr.
Justice Myles.)

TILE TES ET OP ST. PANCEAD, APPELLANT r. TROY" in.

PONDRNT.

The facts of this case were these :—The respondent, the
Rev. A. R. G. Thomas, was incumbent of the church of
St. Paul, Camden-square, and the vestry of St. Pancras
summoned him before Mr. Barker, at Clerkenwell Police-
court, to show cause why he should not pay 6931. 6s. 10(1.,
the estimated rest of making a new road and footway
round the land on which his church stood. The question
of the respondent's liability depended upon whether he
was "owner' of the church and land within the moaning
of the act of parliament. The churches in the pansh of St.
Pancru are under the management of a board of trustees,
and these gentlemen received the pew rents of the
respondent's church, and paid him his stipend out of
the amount so received. On the one hand it was
said that the legal estate was in the respondent,
but on the other hand it was contended that the posses-
sion of the legal estate did not necessarily imply an
ownership within the meaning of the statute. The
Metropolis Local Management Act defined the " owner"
as the person who received the rack rent. The ►ppellants
said that the respondent was entitled to vote for a
member of parliament in respect of his interest
in the church, but to this he replied that
he claimed the vote not as owner of the
land, but in respect of his interest in the benefice. Mr.
Barker, after hearing the parties, decided in favour of the
respondent, and dismissed the summons. The question
now raised for their lordships was whether he was right in
his decision.

Mr. Garvey appeared for tho appellants ; and Mr. Pearce
for the respondent.
The court held that the respondent waa not liable for the
claim which had been made upon him, and they dismissed
the appeal.
Judgment for the respondent.

BAXTER V. LANOLET.-" SUNDAY 19131108 702 Tgl

PROP."

This matter came before tiie court upon a ease stated for
the opinion of their lordships, and the question raised was
whether Mr. Baxter Langley by carrying on the "Sunday
evenings for the people " at St. Martin's•hall had rendered
himself liable to penalties under the provisions of the 21
Geo. 3, cap. 49.
Mr. George Denman, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. B. Langley appeared in person.
The bearing of the case was net concluded when our
report left.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN HE BIDDULPII, WRIGHT, AND CO.
This was a sitting for dividend under one of the separate
estates. The bankrupts were bankers, in Henrietta-street,
Covent-garden, and the failure occurred in 1841. There
have been dividends under the joint estate of 7e. sd. in the
pound on debts of 813,000!. The present sitting was under
the estate of Mr. Wright Biddulpli, on which there is a
surplus of upwards of 23,000/. ; and it was proposed to
carry over 21,000!. of this surplus to the joint estate.
Mr. Bagley appeared for the assignees.
Mr. Ibunmage supported a claim which had been
entered against the separate estate for a sum of about
4,000!. on behalf of the representatives of the Countess
Defo•nt, and asked that that amount should be reserved=
th!ftel'!`rate. estate. —. . . . .

Mr:Marsh (from the official assignee's office) produced
a statement of accounts, and showed that after 21,01)0!.
was transferred there would be sufficient left to the
credit of the separate estate to meet the claim above
referred to.

Ilia Honour made an order accordingly. The sum thus
transferred to the joint estate will yield a dividend of 7d.
in the pound, making a total dividend of Be. in the pound.
The dividend sitting, under the joint estate, takes place
on Tuesday next.