The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-14 00:00:00

' ' NESS, THURSDAY EVENING NOVEMBER 14, igel.

kale Enttiltentcc.
EQUITY COURTB.—Nov. 13.
(Wore the Lad Chasedlor.)
IA2&ALL V. DAVIXPORT.

This was an appeal from Vice Chancellor Stuart. The
suit was instituted to compel the defendant specifically to
perform au agreement alleged to have been entered into by
him to grant to the plaintiff • lease of • farm at Tilston
Fearnall, in the county of Cheater. fur a term of fourteen
years from the 2nd of February, Lint, at the annual rent of
200/. and the keep of • dog. Although the agreement,
according to the plaintiff's own showing, was a parol one,
and therefore void according loth° Statute of Frauds, be
alleged that in part performance of the said agree-
ment he entered into possession of the farm, with the full
knowledge and consent of the defendant., and expended
more than 1.000/. in permanent improvements on it, and
thereby rendered the farm of the present annual value of
250/. In further part performance of the said agreement
the plaintiff alleged that he paid to the defendant the flret
and second half-year's rent at the rate of 200/. per annum.
The defendant deuied that he ever entered into such an
agreement. and gave the plaintiff notice to quit the farm.
The case, of cour,e, entirely turned upon the evidence,
which was very voluminous, embracing no less than 43
affidavits pro and non. The Vice• Chancellor made • decree
i• favour of the plaintiff, on the ground that the owe set
up by the defendant in his answer was inconsistent with,
and contradictory to. that made out by the affidavits filed o•
ma behalf. The defendant appealed, on the ground chiefly
that, as the evidence was contradictory, the case ought not
to be disposed of without having the witnesses examined
viva rocs.

Mr. Mauna and Mr. Martindale appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Turner for the defendant (the appellant).
The Lord Chancellor, having taken time to look through
the affidavits, held that the defendant ought to be com-
pelled to perform his agreement, affirmed the decree, and dis-
missed the appeal with coda

TALBOT V. STAN-WORTH.
In this ease, the object of which is to set aside • convey-
ance of certain estates in Cheshire by the reversioner, on the
ground of an inadequate price having been paid, the pm.
chaser being the tenant for life, the arguments, which have
occupied some time, were brought to • conclusion. The
(acts have been fully reported io our journal.
The Lord Chancellor postponed his judgment until the
beginning of next term, with • view to enable the parties
concerned to come to some compromise, • amuse which he
strongly recommended.

(Before Vice-Chaseellor Sir R. T. Kinder,'ley.)
HAIOII9 V. HARMS —HARM V. LIGHTFOOT.

The Vice-Chancellor pre judgment in this case, which
was argued several days ago. The circumstanece under which
the suits were instituted are somewhat singular. In Ja-
nuary, 1854, Mr. Oliver Harris, of Wootton, in North-
amptonshire, who was entitled as tenant in tail in remainder
to 1111 estate yielding 7.000/. a year, of which his father, Mr.
W. Hams, was tenant for life, married Sarah Dinkins, the
daughter of the village blacksmith. By her be had two chi,.
dren, a son and a daughter, and he died in May, 1861. By a deed
of settlement executed on the 24th December, 1853, and
to which Mr. W. Harris and Mr. Oliver Harris were parties,
Mr. Oliver Harris was empowered to charge the estates
with a jointure of 500/. a year for any wife he might marry,
sad this power be exercised, and he also charged the estate
with 15,0001. to be paid to his daughter in case his sou
should die before be attained the age of 21. Soon after
his death, his wife being desirous that the infant children
should be made wards of court, filed the bill of " Harris
v. Lightfoot," the defendant, Dr. Lightfoot. wbo was
formerly the incumbent of the parish, being a trustee of •
term under • deed which had bees executed for the pur-
pose of enabling money to be railed oa the estate by
mortgage, and in that suit she, as the mother of the infant
Plaintiffs, was the next friend. Oa the with of September
Mr. W. Harris died, and William Oliver Harris, the Nos of
Oliver Harris, consequently became entitled to the estate.
Os the same day the bill in the suit of " Harris v. Harris"
was filed, in which Dr. Lightfoot was the next friend of the
infant plaintiffs. The object of both suits professed to be
the same, namely, that the young heir should be made a
ward of court, and that • receiver should be appointed. The
suit of "Harris v. Harris," it appeared, was kept a secret
from Mrs. Harris, and is that suit the plaintiff obtained as
unopposed decree on the 4th inn, and it was not until that
decree was notified to her solicitors that they were aware of
the existeuoe of the snit. The question before the court
was, which of the two suits should be proceeded with, and
out that depended the question as to who should hare the
manapmeet of the estate during the minority of the young
heir.

—Tie Vice-Chancellor in giving judgment said all he bad
to look to was the benefit of the infant. There was not a
suggestion spinet the character of Mrs. Harris, and be saw
serums why she should be excluded. Under all the cir-
cumstances be thought that the suit of " Harris •. Harris "
should be stayed, and the suit of "Hanis v. Lightfoot," In
which Mrs. Harris, the mother, was the next friend, con.
termed, sad there must be a decree accordingly. The costs
of ell parties an between solicitor and chant to be p►id out of
the estate.

Mr. Bally, Mr. Glum, and Mr. Schonberg were counsel
its the case.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sill John Stuart.)
CLEGG r. GLAM.

This bill was filed for the purpose of obtaining adeclare-
tiaa by the court that the plaintiff was entitled to past{
pate with the defendants io the rents of certain coal mines
near Oldham, in Lancashire. The awe was totally devoid
of general intawit. and occupied the court almost the whole
of Monday, the whole of Tuesday, and nearly the whole of
to-day.
Mr. Bacon, Mr. Melina, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Little,
were counsel in the cies.
The Vice-Chancellor made a dimes declaring the rights
of the parties, and directed that ac► party should pay his
own costs.

Wood.)

.100 X O. GIL

-.-
This bill was filed by Colonel Knox,
Mr. (dye, the director of the Royal Italian Open
setting up a partnership hi the Royal Italian Open,
sad prayingthat the amounts betaken, that the pertamship
he dieaol, and the helium due from the defendant paid
to the plaintiff. To this bill the defeadant put in an an-
swer, admitting his obligations to the plaintiff, iuhnitting,
moreover, that a balance was due to him, but denying that
any partnership existed, and submitting on that account
that he ought not to be required to set out the ac.
mints asked. To this 'newer the plaintiff excepted as
insufficient.

air H. Cairn and Mr. Townsend were for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Molt and Mr. Martindale for the defendant.
The ViseCtsaacellor said it was vexatious that the time
of the court should be taken up with questions like this,
which did not advance the decision upon the real pointy of
the cam As, however, his judgment was asked on the
point, the conclusion he cams to was that thews accounts
ought to be set out. Ile could not say that this was a mere
fishing bill, or that the accounts would be immaterial to
the
allowed. plaintiff's ease. The exceptiona must therefore be

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Noy. 13.
Sittings is BIIDCO in Michaelmas Term.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Cockburn and Justices Wiegman and Blackburn.)

(illirN V. earns.-1:11IMINAL LNFORMATION.
Mr. Manley applied, on behalf of the Rev. Sidney
Cadge, for • rule calling upon John Bates, • bookseller at
Northampton, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed whist him for exhibiting in his window
two libels reflecting on the character of Mr. Codge, who is
the vicar of All Saints, in that town. The living wee
endowed in a peculiar manner. In the reign of Charles H.
an act was passed commuting the tithes for a sum of 1001.
per annum, to be levied on certain householders is the
parish in the shape of rate. In 1846 that act was repelled~nother, by another, by which all houses under 61. per annum were
exempted from the rate, and provision was made for levying
the rate annually. The applicant was appointed to
the perish in 1859, when he found that unhappy differences
bad existed between his predecessor and the parishioners
with reference to the collection of the rate, which applied le
about 1,000 houses. In cousequeoce of that state of
things he called • meeting of those who refused to pay the
rate, which was attended by about 150 pereans. He =-
praised to them his regret and sorrow at the form of the
provision which the legislature had made for the vicar. and
suggested that they should take the matter into considera-
tion. with • view to adopting some come which would pee-
vent further disputes. After a discussion which lasted twit
hours, they came to • conclusion that the Rev. Mr. Cage
was bound to maintain the rights of himself and his MN.
season, but that legislation had transgressed its proper
limits in imposing such a rate, and that they should not
pay. Some correspondence then took place, and the
result was that several parishioners paid, but others refused
to do so, and the vicar gave them due notice that if the
money was not forthcornicig by a certain time he should dis-
train upon their goods, which was the only remedy gives
him by the statute. Afterwards he issued • notice stating,
that es the parties objecting to pay the rate admitted their
liability but withheld payment, because they objected to
the purposes to which it was applied, if each of them would
give to the Northampton loniuy and the Victoria'
peoeary • sum equal to that for which they were respec-
tively &seemed. he would send them an acquittance for the
amount. Some availed themselves of that offer, but others
still refused to pay is any shape, and the ociosequesee
was that the Rev. Mr. (ledge, after due notice,
had the goods of several parties distrained upon. The
first libel exhibited in Bates's window was as follows :
" important Notice.—Annaal Bale, All Sinners' Parish.—A
variety of useful articles, ecesistiegot heron, shoes, chairs,
11114•11 l, counterpane, Its, being the freewill offering of the
parishioners. will be sold on Sunday morning next, imme-
diately after the sermon, in the chaseeL The gift can be
me on the altar during the morning service. Tla• vicar
will moist at the sale, assisted by his bailiffs. At the ere-
clonal She holy sacrament will be administered, at which
it is hoped all purchasers will communicate. During the
sale the *obi* anthem commencing ' I hate robbery for
buret offer's( will be performed !" The second libel cos.
sifted of a small placard costaioing a copy of • letter ad-
dressed to Mr. °edge, publielied in the National Reformer.
The priscipal peeragescongratulate you on your
adherent, to Jewish and Christian pruiciples as especially
summed in your sew attempt to spoil the lass resi-
dent is your pad*. I have received with rHdaction your

notice threateuingilibtraint on the goods of your perishionen
to enforce payment of the vicar rate. It is a fair evidence
tithe love you entertain for your flock." It then spoke of " the
edifying spectacle of the vicar, with the hotpot anal-pugilist,
carryieg off yoor widow's boom under one arm, a trader
o s 1111111 under the other, and between theme collection of
aids and ends, including a pair of bellows actually taken from
the residences of ladies whore character would entitle them
to rank among the thousand wives and concubines of
Solomon, king of the Jews. You are a good mad faithful
shepherd, doubtless. but you have more regard for the wool
than for the sheep. and have an open eye for the shearing.
I duo% complain that your coaled is underbid, or un-
worthy of you as a church of England clergyman ; it is in
the present day fairly understood that the church of Eng-
land is on Membrane., au the state, and that many of its
clerical member, are two-legged leeches, whose major men.
patiou consists in the perpetration of legal robberies on the
Wily corporate." It concluded by spew:log of an appeal to
the people of Northampton, "Whether their own vicar was
not the very devil. or gentleman in black at auy rate, going
about seeking whom be might devour."
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—The publication may be
com.itlered more an article on the system than on the vicar.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—lt is not a vulgar or offensive
atta:k, which would obviously carry with it its own auti-
dote.

Mr. Manisty submitted that it was a serious thing for a
elergymaa to he so attacked and held up to ridicule.
The court granted a rule.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall. —(nefore Mr. Jtuitice
Crompton mid a Common Jury.)

The court sat this morning at ten o'clock, and after ilia.
posing of two or three undefeuded causes, adjourned at a
tow minute, before eleven.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 13.

81 Mims In 13aneo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, and
Justices Williams and Bytes.)

THE INITD4Ii AND PORTION TANNING CONPANI V. DILJDA.,

ACT Oa /OR CAL Is.

This wax an action to recover 4/., an amount claimed to
be duo upon 50 shares in the plaintiffs company, allotted
under the following circumstances. The company having
been established, • private meeting of directors and share-
holders was held on the 11th April, at which it was re.
solved that, to reward the original shareholders for their
risk and expenses in establishing the company, they should
be allotted 5/. shares, in some iustanms, upon paying
2/. 10.., and in others upon paying 3/. 10s. each share. The
defendant took 50 shares upon the understanding that be
was to pay oely 3/. 10.. per share, but the body of the
sharehol&rs having rescinded the resolution founded
upon what passed at the meeting of the 11th of April. he
declined to pay upon the shares, and the present action was
brought to recover the amount of calls. The trial took
place before the Lord Chief Justice, when the verdict was
for the plaintiffs for 1251. The question now was whether
• rule to enter • verdict for the defendant should
be made absolute, upon the ground that be had
not become a shareholder at all. _

Mr. Collier and Mr. Hance to show cause, and
Mr. Muddlesion to support the rule.
On behalf of the plaintiffs it Mee submitted that the
question whether the defendant was liable to pay U. ur
only 31. 10a. did not arise. as in this action he was only
asked for has than 3/. 10a. ; and further, that the defendant
could not claim to have the shares at the lower rate, inas-
much as he was only to have then at that rate upon con-
dition of paying the 31. 10e. before May 31, which condition
be had not complied with.
For the defendant it was said that the claim had always
been for 5/. a share, and the defendant bad always been
ready to take the shares at 3/. 10s. It was submitted that
the arrangement to give shares at the lower rate could not
be carried out, inasmuch as there was no power to nuke it,
and therefore the pretended allotment of shares was void.
The Lord Chief Justice said that, according to his view
of the facts, they raised no serious question. What
was said at the private meeting did not bind the corpora-
tion at all. At a meeting in Juue the company) resolved to
peat the bonus to the original shareholders, but that reso-
lution came to nothing, because it was not confirmed by the
meeting held in October. The defendant had Lie &hares,
and, so far ea the company was concerned, was bound to
pay U. for them, although be might be disappointed of the
boons promised at the private meeting.
Rule discharged.

The accounts, priatre,l by Messrs. Hart Brotben and
itayles, extend from the beginning of 1860 to the date of
the failure, and .bow(l.-Ida and liabilities of 6,7.19/., with
ameta and preperty held as security valued at about
3,60111.
. . . .

The assignees requiring time to examine the accounts, an
adjournment was ordered.