The Express.
London, England, 1868-05-11 00:00:00

TilE 31131WiVrr Eiteifer 1808
• • •

LAW INTELLIGUME.

...imeimel..••

KIMIOYOUTAX ODIFITY 00111141.
days ansolated for the protest week.)
Patilland-coat —liteaday, May 11 ; Tusk,.
—IP!. Xs" IL
Sofa OP qt 0 NWANWPWITAI=O:r.‘—; 11-1-Viahar roost , May It; Widnes-
-4%1.
lomat, 1
dakri=y, 15.
Oid-atraft-road.—Tursday, May 12 ; Thars-
day, 14
Bow, Dow-road.—today, May 14.
Groat Fraasotstred.—Wsdassday, May 13 ;
Tbureilay, 14 ; blip, IS.
soveswAim, Swam-sleet —Timidity, May 11 ; Thursday, 14 ;
Friday, 16.
LIMBERS , Oambersrall Naw-read.—Tossday, May It.
—Wedairaday, May IS.
VaPwliiim7.—Flsarsdaj._Uay 14.
Carr LONDOIO, wmasall-bsdldlaga.—Mcstday, May 1l
Taasday, It; Wednesday, 13; Thursday, 14: Friday, 15: Satur-
day, 141.
CL=CINWILL SClSlONll.—Matiday, May 11.

.—Monday, May 11; Widnes-

EQUITY COURTS.—Mir 9.
(Before Vice.Clianceltor Sir R. Malian.)
HODGE'S DISTILLERY COMPANT V. DOULTON, if P.
This suit was instituted by the company against the pro-
moters for the return of moneys which it was alleged had
been obtained improperly. The defendant not having put
in an answer to the bill the court made an order that a
sequestration should issue against him upon personal
notice, but all attempts to serve him having failed his
honour was now asked that notice to Mr. Doultou's soli•
after on the record might be subetituted.
Mr. &mei supported the application, and
The Viee-Ohaneellor made the order.

BAIL COURT.-MAY 9.

After Term sittings in Benno.—(Before Justices Leak
and Hannan.)

The court sat to-day, and took selected 011403 from the
crown paper.

THZ REV. JAIME BRONSKILL (APPZLLANT) V. WATSON
OLINPONDIRT).

TUN was n Cate stated by jUstiCell. The appellant Is a
clergyman, residing in Cumberland, an 1 he claimed to
pass through • certain turnpike gate without payment of
toll, on the ground that he was going to discharge his
clerical duties. He paid the toll, and summoned the re-
spondent before the magistrates, who decided that he
was not entitled to the exemption, and dismissed the
summons. It appeared that the appellant, who resided
in an adjoining parish, was • clergyman of the church of
England, and in July last the rector of Clifton, having occa-
sion to go to the sea side for the benefit of his health,
engaged the applicant to discharge the duties
of the parish during his absence. The arrange-
ment was made between themselves. No COllllll[l.
nication was made to the bishop, and consequently the
appellant had no license from the bishop, and there was
no verbal or written authority for his discharging the
duties of the pariah. On the 6th July he was about to
pate through the Clifton-gate, on his way to perform the
marriage ceremony in Clifton parish church, when the toll
wee demanded of him. He refused payment, but the col-
lector insisted on it. He accordingly paid the 2d., and
summoned the collector. The respondent's contention
was that the appellant was not legally entitled to the
exemption, and the magistrates, taking that view of the
case, dismissed the summons.
The court, after hearing the arguments of Mr. Hotton
and Mr. James, who appeared in the case, affirmed the
decision of the magistrates.
Judgment aimed.