The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-06 00:00:00

THE FXPRESSI WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 6, 1861.

DWI OP AN OLD OSICKBPER.

it 1. our painful task this week to record the
death of lfr. Alfred Jinn, which took place in London on
Friday last, from a severe attack of diabetes. He was in
hie :V.th year, and has left a wife and family to deplore Ilia
unexpected demise.

The cricketen of England will mad this announcement
with feelings of the deepest sorrow, sad more espy:tally
the few old veterans of Kent who now survive hint ; while
,dl ranks and claws will mingle their regrets with those
who enjoyed his private friendship, or were his companions
in many a Wird.fought field. As a cricketer, he was an
honour to his country—as a man, be was worthy of the
gremest e4teem.
He was born at Twisden Lodge, in the pariah of Loud.
burst, Kent, on the 19th of January, ISfi7. being the fourth
sun of the late W. Mynn, Eel., who was the descendant of
a highly respectable family, the two preceding generations
of which were IVDOWDIA for their gigantic stature and great
proficiency in all athletic games. 'Home gifte Mr. A. Myna
inherited in a pre-emineot degree, standing (Wt. lin., with an
average playing weight of 18 stone.—Soidk Easttra Gazette.

tab, Enttlliatnce.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.—Nov. 5.

Sittings in Banco in Michaelmas Term.—(Before Lord Chid
Justice Cockburn and Justices Wightman and Blackburn.)

BURGESS V. GRE.E2I AND ANOTHER.

This action was tried before Mr. Justice Williams at
Croydon, when the learned judge directed a verdict to be
entered for the defendants, with leave to move this court'o
enter it for the plaintiff.
Mr. Pearce, is now moving accordingly, mid the action
was brought by the plaintiff, as executor of his father, to
recover from the defendants, the treasurer and of
the Friendly Luau and Investment Society, a sum of 41.,
which the testator had steodiug in his name in the books of
that society at the time of his death, which took place in
January, 1860. The defendants pleaded never indebted,
except as to 61., which they paid into court, and which
formed the testator's share of the profits from the period of
his death to the commencement of the action, and they re.
sixted the rest of the claim in consequence of the default of
one of the society's officers, who had run away with its
money. The rules of the society, which were certified in
the regular manner, said that "if any shareholder shall die,
or wish to withdraw his money, he shall give four weeks'
notice."

Mr. Justice Blackburn—Do you read the rule correctly!
Surely a dead man is not required to give notice.
Mr. Pearce said he hail read the exact pbraaeology of the
4th rule. (Laughter.) Soon after the testator's death the
plaintiff, his eldest son, gave notice of his intention to
withdraw the 74/. ; but the defendants declined to pay that
sum and offered him 12s. in the pound, which, upon the
report of an accountant, they had ascertained wee the only
amount the funds of the society enabled them to grant.
The plaintiff refused this offer, and brought the
present action against the treasurer and secretary, who,
he contended, were liable. The defence was, first,
that there was a partnership between the testator and the
other members of the society, and 2odly, that since the
defendants made the offer of in the pound the re-
mainder of the funds of the society bad been spent, and
that there existed no personal liability on the defendants.
Mr. Pearce now submitted that inasmuch as in January,
1860, there was a sufficient sum in the possession of the
defendants to pay his client the whole amount claimed,
they were not entitled to deduct from it any other sum.
Mr. Justice Blackburn-1f a friendly society loses a con-
siikrable portion of its. funds, you do not say that the first
member who gives notice shall withdraw all, and leave the
rest nothing. Justice would require the funds, under such
circurnstanoes, to be apportioned amongst all the members.
Mr. Pearce-1 submit that the plaintiff is at least entitled
to the 121. in the pound.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—You were offered that, and did
not take it. The money has now unfortunately been lost,
and whatever remedy you may have against the society,
the defendants say you have no remedy against them as in=•
viduals.

The Lord Chief Justice—The defendants are merely
agents of the society, cud made the offer of 12s. in that
capacity.
Mr. Pearce said that Mr. Justice Williams thought the
dispute should be referred to the court, with a view to
settlement. His lordship added that there were two
questions of considerable difficulty to be decided, namely,
first, whether a partnership existed between the parties ;
and secondly, if not, whether the lass of money autos-
quietly to the offer of the 12s. did not take away the
deemdmatie liability.

The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that the verdict
should not be disturbed. It was not necessary to say what
was the position of the plaintiff in reference to the society
itself, or whether, in equity, he could enforce his claim
against all the members of the society, as a partnership of
which the testator was a member ; but when be came to
consider bow far the claim could be enforced against the
' defendants as merely officers of the society, he, for one,
entertained no doubt that the action would not lie. The
dealings of the deceased were entirely with the society,
and being a member of it, he shared its losses as well as its
prat& When the plaintiff refused the lib. in the pound
which the defecidanta offered asofflosn of the society, they had
no
longer any control over it, and it was again at the disposal
of the society to deal with as they thought proper, and it
udght be invested unprofitably and lost. The defendants
as agents were not originally personally liable, and they
led dams nothing in regard to the ogee to alter their port
lion in that respect.
The other judges concurring, the rule was refused.

Till WIRES V. TRAIN AND OTtII2B.—TRAMWAT WIZ/MON.
Mr. Garth moved for a certiorari to remove into this
court an indictment found at the last Surrey Sessions at
Kingston, against Mr. Train and several other persons,
members of the vestry of Mt. Mary, Lambeth, for obstruct-
ing a highway in that pariah by the construction of a tram-
way. The vestry were, by the Metropolis Local Manage-
ment Act of 114.55, aod by the Amendment Act of 18.58. made •
corporation for the purposes of those statutes ; and he had
affidavits to show that several questions of law would arise
apes the indictment. The questions were first, whether
the vestry had any power to give Mr. Train or any one else
power to lay down • tramway in the street ; secondly, what
wee the affect of the agreement entered into between them
and Mr. Train ; and thirdly, whether the members of the
vestry were individually liable, they having entered into
the agreement u • corporation.
Mr. Justice Wightman—At whose instance do you apply?
Mr. Garth—On the part of all the defendants.
The Lard Chief Justice—You can take • rule absolute in
the first isetanee.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 5.

Sitting at Nisi Prim, at Westminster.—(Before Mr. Justice
Crompton and a Common Jury.)
This was su action brought by the plaintiff, an eating.
Lowe keeper, against the defendant, his landlord, for un-
lawfully taking possession of the premises.

Kr. Kessed and Mr. 0. B. C. Harrison were counsel
for the laintiff ; Mr. futon and Ms. Kemp were counsel
for the t.
The plaintiff's case was that ha took the premises No. 4,
Little ipu-street, High Holborn, as an eating-house, for
six mouths, at a rent of 571. 41., the mosey to Ise paid every
four weeks. In August the plaintiff was in arrears and in
Ilierbet the defendant took possession of the premises,
goommitted the trespame complained of.
The defendant denied the traipses and pleaded leave and
Brews to take possession of the premises. The defendant
further stated that after he had takes posnessiou they
adjourned to • public.house near at hand, where the de-
fendant paid for some stout ; everything was settled be-
tweea them, and the defendant promised to take the plain-
tiff into his service. Unfortunately the plaintiff afterwards
met his cousin, who advised him to bring an action against
the defendant awl recommended him to an attorney.
The case occupied the whole of the day, and ultimately
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Le-
mages, 40s
Mr. Kennedy and Kr. Luton then applied on behalf of
their respective cheats for the judge to certify for ooste,
the former under the County Court Act and the latter
under the Common Law Procedure Act.

----- --- ---- -- - ---- ---
The learned Judge add be would consider the question of
costs.

Eckstedt—Robinson v. Robinson and Reed—Fuspharoon v.
Farquhanon—Kendell v. Kendall and Barron—ldeman v.
Rieman and Clowns—Willamece—Rdeall v. Edsall—Parker
v. Parker and Shadweil—Harris v. Hattie—Hensw.in v.
Haman and Derkeley—Newbon v. Newbon and Whitfield
—Clark v. Clark and Window—Clout v. Clout and Rolle-
hone—Taylor v. Taylor and Urquhart--Bodd v. Budd—
Crank v. (lank—Luckie v. Lucile—Hitchcock v. Hitch-
sock and Elford—Stevensou v. Stevenson and Collier—Bent
v. Bent and Footman—Milner v. Milner —Grinling v.
Gelnling—Willincton v. Willington and Dalrymple—Cahill
v. WWI and Din&y—Btanden v. Standen—St. John v.
Bt. John and O'Flahertisi—Dooby v. Dooby—Bridge v.
r&and Cutmell—Hack v. Haek and Holt--Clarke
ke—Pounaford v. Pounaford and Bulpin.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Nov. 5.
(Before Mr. Oommismioner Nichols.)
IN RE IMAMS MARGARET MARORATL

This inadvent, a lady entitled to considerable property
near Dublin, whose case was before the court on Saturday,
was further heard.
Mr. Dowse a for Mr. Kingchurch, a m
creditor ; Mr. Bicppeared ker Csarten, for a Mr. Lazarus ; aic:rtdlir
for Mr. H. Dinn, an attorney, the detaining