The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-08-06 00:00:00

T` I 1 11VARPOOL STANDARD.

THE OVERLAND MAIL.
The Bombay papers of ,the 25th June and the Calcutta
journals of the .15th lave reached London, ‘)y extraordi-
nary express, in advance of the overland mail. With the
exception' of the Nizam's dominions, which are in a dis-
turbed state, tranquillity continues to prevail throughout
our Eastern possessions. Sir Charles Napier will certainly
leave India in October : this long circulated rumour is
now published as a settled and undisputed fact. Inquiries
are to be instituted into the management of the Postoffices
at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, with a view to their
improvement. Mr. Stephenson and his engineering staff
have arrived at Calcutta, but finding the plan of the Ben-
gal railway agreed to by the London board and the Court
of Directors impracticable, have proceeded to examine a
new line, and to report thereupon, which mint be trans-
mitted to England for approval before the railway can be
commenced. Among the deaths recorded in the Indian
papers are Captain Newbold, one of the rrost celebrated
geographers in the East, and Doctor Larkworthy, whose
exertions in endeavouring to stop the ravages of cholera
•
are above all praise. The former had been unwell for
some time, but the latter was cut off by the disease, which,
in very many cases, he had been instrumental in eradicat-
ing or alleviating. Trade at Bombay was very dull, with
no appearance of change for the better. At Calcutta it
was a little active, but the charges were so low that
scarcely any profit could be realised out of the articles
sold. The heavy supplies of goods from England had
completely glutted the markets, which rendered their sale
not only difficult, but almost impossible, except at ruinous
prices.

LAW INVTLIAGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-JUNE 24.
RATLWAY CO IA PENSATION.

HILLCOATIL THE ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK AND CAN-
TERBURY.—Mr. Justice Allanle read the judgment of the
Court, as prepared by the, Lord Chief Justice, in this case.
The declaration was in (Aise, and consisted of two counts;
the first setting out that, by the act which established the
Liverpool and Bury Railway Company, that company was
authorised to become the purchasers of St. Matthew's
Church, Key-street, Liverpool, and a piece of ground and
buildings thereto adjacent ; but that it was provided the
company were not to interfere with the church without
the-consent of the defendants, upon the previous payment
of such a sum of money as they should deem fit to be paid
to the plaintiff as a compensation for the same, in ascer-
taining which sum regard should be had as well to the
'cost of rebuilding a church equally fit for divine service,
as to such part of the site as did not form part of the site
of the said church. The declaration then alleged a breach
of duty in the defendants for not having obtained and paid
to the plaintiff any compensation for any part of the
ground and buildings which did not form part of the site
of the church. The defendants pleaded not guilty. At
the trial, before the Lord Chief Justice, it appeared that
the value of the ground, &c. attached to the church were
estimated by the plaintiff at more than £l5OO, whilst the
company, who were in fact the real defendants, contended
that, as the ground had been consecrated, it was not
worth more than £3OO. No witness was called for the
defendants, and the jury returned a 'verdict for the plain-
tiff, with £1,540 damages. It did not appear to the
court that the statute did constitute the defendants' arbi-
trators as to the value of the property, and they therefore
thought the defendants had committed a breach of duty
in not paying the plaintiff the value of his land, as fixed
by the jury. The court considered there had been no
misdirection, for, as the act was passed for withdrawing the
land from spiritual to secular purposes, it was but
reasonable to suppose that under these circumstances
its value should be estimated, as for ordinary.
purposes. By the appropriation of property to spiritual
purposes, the owner voluntarily sacrificed its value in a
secular point of view; but when it was taken from him
against his will for secular purposes, it did not seem con-
sistent with justice that its value should be estimated ac-
cording to its appropriation to spiritual uses. The Court
were therefore of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to
the verdict. Rule discharged.

COURT OF CHANCERY, LINCOLN'S-INN, JULY 31.

WASON V. WATLING.

This was an appeal motion to set aside an injunction
granted by the Master of the Rolls, staying execution on
a judgment in an action on a covenant. It appeared that
in the year 1838, Mr. Charles Bird borrowed the sum of
£1,350 on mortgage of some houses in Windsor-street,
Toxteth-park, near Liverpool, for the repayment of which
the plaintiff Wason became surety. Bird died in 1839.
and shortly afterwards Mrs. Rowe, the mortgagee, sold
three of the houses for a sum of money nearly equiva-
lent to the mortgage debt. Instead, however, of appro-
priating the whole amount in reduction of the mortgage
debt, Mrs. Rowe allowed nearly £4OO to get into the
hands of the representative of the mortgagor. Some
time afterwards Mrs. Rowe pressed the plaintiff for the
deficiency, when he entered into a fresh deed for securing
the amount of the mortgage debt then unpaid and inter-
est, amounting to £577 10s. It was upon this last cove-
nant that the plaintiff was sued at law, when he applied
to the Master of the Rolls for an injunction to restrain
execution, on the ground that he had been deceived in
entering into a fresh security for the whole deficiency after
the mortgagee had allowed a portion of the proceeds of
the sale of the houses to get into the hands of the repre-
sentative of the mortgagor without his (Wason's) know-
ledge. The Master of the Rolls thought the case preg-
nant with suspicion, and granted the injunction now
sought to be dissolved.
The Lord Chancellor remarked upon the fact of Wason
being a solicitor, and said that could not therefore be
looked upon in the same light as an old lady who was
ignorant of the proceedings at law and equity. This fact,
coupled with the time allowed by Wascn to elapse before
coming to that Court, was sufficient to uisentitie him to
the extraordinary interposition of the Court by injunction.
The order of the Master of the Rolls must be reversed
and the injunction dissolved.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT—FRIDAY,
(Before Sir .1. K. Bruce.)

IN BANKRUPTCY : EX PARTE NEILSON AND OTHERS,

IN RE WILLIAM AND THOMAS EDMOND

This case, relating to the disposal of lis shares in the
Royal Insurance Company of Liverpool, stood over on a
former day, in consequence of a difficulty relative to proof
of notice to the office of the transfer of shares at a prior
date to that of the act of bankruptcy. These shares,
part of two hundred allotted to William Edmond, were,
during his absence in India, directed by his brother
Thomas, holding a power of attorney, to be sold by the
petitioners, as brokers, for the benefit of -the firm. 'The
commissioner held that, William Edmond not having
been duly registered as a shareholder, pursuant to the
conditions of the 26th section of the Joint Stock Com-
panies Regulation Act, 7th and Bth Victoria, c. 114', what
had been done relative to the sale of shares had been
inoperative, and that the same re Lathed in the hands,
and were the property of, the assignees, under the opera-
tion of the law of order and disposition.
His Honour said be was not aware of any authority
governing the point, and must, therefore, decide it as well
as he could upon principle. The Royal Insurance Com-
pany was a joint stock company, requiring and obtaining
registration under the 7th and Bth Victoria, c.llO. That
was done, although all the shares had not been allotted ;
and after complete registration, William Edmond re-
ceived an allotment of 0 shares, upon which the amount
required was paid, as also a subsequent call for a further
amount of £1 psr share. There existed no certificate, or
scrip, or any document, except the letter of allotment and
the bankers' receipts for the money payments. This
shareholder never executed the deed, and was never regis-
tered as a shareholder. He, however, by his agent, carried
his rights into the market for sale, and so disposed of
them. The question now was, if such a contract could
be sustained ? The act of parliament said that until
" duly registered" it shall not be lawful to sell, that all
such alleged sales are void, and the parties liable to a
penalty of £lO. It had been contended that this case
was not within the operation of the act, because the
registration bad been completed before the allotment of
these shares ; but it was affected by the policy of the law
and against it. It could not be held to be for the public
good that rights of this description should be treated as
negotiable securities. Whether or not it was immediately
struck by the terms of the act, he was of opinion that its
operation was adverse to the claim of the petitioners, and
he must so decide. If, however, the petitioners wished
to take the opinion of a court of law, he should notrefuse
the opportunity.
Upon application by counsel on behalf of the peti-
tioners, leave was given fora case to be submitted to the
Court of Exchequer, and in the meantime the petition
was directed to stand over.

LONDON INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, FRIDAY,
AUG. 2.—The Hon. Adolphus Frederick Charles M.
Cape!, whose case had been several times before the
Court, was now finally heard. There were more than 200
creditors on the schedule, and the debts were very large.
The application was made under the Protection Act, and
the case was adjourned, without protection, for extrava-
gance. The insolvent had an allowance of £6OO a year
from Lord Maynard, his father-in-law, and £3OO from
his brother, the Earl of Essex. He had been some
months without protection, but had not been captured by
any of his creditors. Mr. Bagley, as counsel for Mrs.
Woodhouse, now complained that after he had left last
Friday, the Commissioner had granted a protecting order.
The Chief Commissioner said he must abide the attacks
which might be made on him, conscious that lie had done
his duty. Addressing the insolvent, the Commissioner
expressed a hope that he would, by the exposure he had
brought on himself by his extravagance, say to himself,
" I have been a foolish man, I will be a fool no more."
The insolvent bowed and retired. He is now protected
from proceedings by any of the creditors on his schedule.
SINGULAR. CASE.—DUNCAN CAMPBELL PATTERSON
V. MRS. ELIZABETH RUSSELL, SPOUSE OF THE SAID D.
C. PATTERSON.-ThiS was an-appeal to the House of
Lords against two interculators of the first division of the
Court of Session in Scotland, which found that the re-
spondent was entitled to a decree of separation a menscl
et thorn from the appellant, her husband, and a suitable
alimony. The action was brought by the respondent in
May, 1844, against her husband, and concluded for de-
cree, by which she obtained a separation, and he was
ordered to make her an annual payment of .£3OO. The cir-
cumstances of the case were, that in July, 1843, Elizabeth
Russell was married to the appellant, who resided at
Lochgan House, in Scotland, the ceremony of marriage
being celebrated at St. John's Church, Paddington, Lon-
don. After being married about six weeks, it was alleged
that he conducted himself towards her in the most cruel
manner—lived in separate apartments, and failed to dis-
charge the duties of a husband. He neither spoke to her,
held any intercourse with her, nor permitted her to be at
any time in his presence, besides preventing all her rela-
tions and friends from visiting her. She never received
the treatment of a wife in any respect; and, finding her
life miserable and endangered, quitted her husband's
house on the 6th of April, 1844. Several letters written
by the appellant were produced, in which he states that
he was subject to depression of spirits, which caused him
considerable unhappiness, and that as regarded the re-
spondent, he never had affection for her, either before or
after marriage. Lord Brougham, who sat as Deputy-
Speaker, thought that the husband withdrawing from the
society of his wife, treating her coldly, and denying to co-
habit with her, though they might be painful circum-
stances, were not such as to justify the grant of a divorce.
The intercuiators of the court below were ordered to be
reversed, the question as to costs being reserved.
MRS. HALL'S DIVORCE BILL.—In the House of Lords
on Friday, Mr. M. D. Hill, with whom was Mr. Hall,
stated the case for the second reading of this bill. From
his statement, and from the evidence, it appeared that the
petitioner, Georgina Hall was the daughter of Mr. Tabor,
a gentleman of property residing in Bayswater, Middle-
sex. She met Mr. Henry Foley Hall at a party at the
house of a friend, and there ho proposed marriage to her.
She consented, and, without consulting her parents, she
met Mr. Hall by appointment on the 10th of Sept. 1848,
outside the house of a friend, and they proceeded to Han-
well Church, where they were marriedi ried n their proper
names, and the register of the marriage was duly attested.
The parties, with some of the persons who assisted at the
marriage, drove from the Church at Hanwell to Richmond,
where they spent the day up to eight o'clock in the even-
ing, and the petitioner was put down at the house of her
friend, where she had been taken up in the morning.
There was no consummation of the marriage that day,
and the petitioner never saw Ler husband since. He went
abroad, and in Brussels married another young lady,
Henrietta Batchelor, and has been cohabiting with her
ever since, treating her as his vife. On the ground of

adultery, Mrs. Hall had obtained s divorce a mew: et
More in the Ecclesiastical Court, and now prayed to be
wholly released from her marriage with Mr. Hall, &c.
The learned counsel said there Naere not many cases of
wives applying for divorce to their lordships, but there
were some quite in point, to which he referred. A great
number of witnesses were examined in support of the
statement.—Lord Brougham, at the close of the evidence,
said the precedents referred to (and which he himself had
suggested to the counsel in his opening), were quite in
point. There was no decision or intimation of opinion at
any time in the house against the relief sought for by a
wife in such case. What he would advise their lordships
to do here, was to order the evidence to be printed, and
postpone the second reading of the bill. Agreed to. On
Friday Lord Brougham delivered judgment in favour of
the bill being read a second time. He said he wished it
to go forth most distinctly that it was not merely because
bigamy or polygamy had been committed that this divorce
was granted by that house ; but that it was because of the
very peculiar circumstances by which the ease was distin-
guished—namely, that a young lady had been led into a
clandestine marriage with a young man who bad returned
her to her home and left her on the clay of the marriage;
that there had been no consummation of the marriage;
and that the husband had, without any further interview
or any further communication with that young lady, con-
tracted another marriage, thereby depriving his first wife
of all the comforts and all the enjoyments of domestic life
which a young lady in the marriage state had a right to
look for. If that husband had committed this felony upon
this instead of on the other side of the Channel he would
most undoubtedly have beentried, convicted , and punished.
Under this state of circumstances, then, he would move
that this bill be read a second time. The bill was accord.
ingly read a second time and ordered to be committed,
and was read a third time on Saturday. Lord Brougham
said, he ought to state that he had received a letter from
Mr. Hall, denying some of the statements which had been
made on the former occasion. At the same time he
would for himself say that the most essential facts the
husband could not by possibility contradict.