The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-10 00:00:00

SAW 3inteiligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDET.
Esrey Two LOOM 'MUMS OI ArrTst.
IE IS THE NoZWICE TAKE COMPANT—EI. PARTE THE
EAST OF EEO!. TED DANILITO COMPANY.
At the conclusion of the argument for the appellants in
this cue, the facts of which appear in the Ezpreu of
yesterday, Lord Justice Knight I;ruce said that he and his
learned brother were of opinion that the materials befii7e
the court did not enable thou to &Tide with satisfaction to
themselves. or with any reasonable certainty, upon the ques-
tion whether there was or not a &IA slue to the appellants,
which could be made the subject of a proof in the
Waster's office. The consequence, therefore, was that the
artier of the Mister of the Rolla, so tar as it disallowed
a rear under the winding-up acts, and SO far as it related
to the costs of the application at the lOUs, would stand. ,
The order, however, would Le varied as te the terms in
which i.. directed a legal proceeding to be taken by the ap-
pellants to establish their debt. The only question was
whether that part of the order at the 'tolls directieg that en
action sh uld be brought ageing the official manager, was
properly exprelMed or not. Subject to what might be urged
tkv the sespondent,,, they were of opinion that it ions nor.
The qtv Aims whether tne banking company should I_ at
liberty to bring an action or actions against any person or
persons whomsoever, or whether there should be an issue
or issues, or what should be done, might &nem considers-

lion.
Lord Justice Cranwortli said he concurred in what his
learned brother had said. Whites-et. tu'ght be the result
Of an ulterior proceeding, he thought the nutteria:s before
the court were not sufficient to eitablish a claim
at all. Tho quest; m whether tiara was a debt
Or no debt, must be tried by a court of law.
Their lordships then intimateil that an issue or issues could
col) be directed at the request of the appellants and with
the e.se at of the respondents ; and ultimately an order
arm by which that part of the order le•low, whirl, re-
lated to the legal proceedings to be Liken against the ulna el
mansipo, was directed to be struck out ; and a directinn
sub.diteced in its stead, that unless the appellants should
ask for an issue or issues, they (the appellaat.) should be at
liberty to bring such action or actions aTainst such person
or persons as they might be advised ; need that the motioa
should -turd over till further order, with liberty to the par-
ties. or any of then,. to An' ly.
/twills it was d.reided thet the mot:on should be s.t
dour. tote spoken v, nn thi.lay next, when the apnel'..mts
were to declare 'Actin y would require au issue or
issues to be directed or uot.

/13,0 as P ra.
r.,..4V.:110110 AND AN,,TRI Lit t. ITOLDEIt
IFNI, E. 117411 ALEN 1N1,1:11 M*GFACIIEY ALLETNE.—TI:E
T CAMS or CON,I.IItACY.
" ' " •

Mr. Cairns Moved ex party for an injunction to restrain
the deb odeints (w:to, it will be in the recollection of our
readers, were tried in the Court of Queen's Beech, and
convicted on the 3rd inst. of a conspiracy to defraud Mr.
Robert llair Kennedy of a large sum, upon fraudulent
bets) from neeiving from the hankers of the partnership
beta-en the plaintiff's and the two defendants or otherwise,
and from disposing of or intermedelling with, any of the
monies ur t frets of the partnership, and from drawing, ac-
oeptiu,r. or ni gotieting any draft, bill, or note, in the name
of the p irtnirship firm, or ph ilgin; or using the credit or
name of the partnership. From dr. Cairn's statement.,
and the affi !writs in support of the motion, it appeared that
having obtained latirs patent for shaping
woo. I, became partner. with the defendants, u and from
Febro ey last, in a cooperage and in nicking casks accord-
ing to the invention, with • large paid-up capital under a
deed of partnership. It alai appeared that the defendants
were indicted together with T. D. It D'Arcey, for nevi:-
ing to defraud Mr. Robert Keune,iy of 7,304/.
refers eau to betting on a mare called I'igeoa, sod ;hey
were armed on the god and 3nl of Dec, tuber, 1831, ilia the
Covet of Que.'. 'tenth, before the Lord Chief sturdier and
• special jury, nod sent-need James I loolcr Allesne to two
years' imprisonment, eel .11e c tat r NM:madly Alleyne, to
am months' imprisonment, :ind that, then upon, time two
defend .eta dais. It epee appeared that the
litt-ltered into nemonizanees W appear on the
ineintmeht, which it was alleged they hail foneited by
absconding, and that a writ had been bawd by Mr. Ken-
nedy ieroinst the defendant, to recover the sum. of moue,
from loon fur deft him, of which they hail hcen cons
rich el. It was also raggesteil t 'mat the defendants had nu
iessilible honors, nod that they would be able fur the
pa rpm. of their private demands, to make and negociatu
bilk in the partnership name, and to pledge the paruice-
ship credit, which it we, alleged they were not entitled to du
sind,r the partnership articles. It elm appeared that the
plairtelT Itmenhirg hut roe, art LI letters from each of
the defendants from Calais expressive of great distress of
mind, and 4-apeman: an intention of not returning to En:-
land. "I he plaintiff Rosenberg deposed that up to the trial
he was entin.ly ignorant of the tr wartime, in which the de-
fentLa'. bat In, eugar.;• if with Mr. It. 11. Kennedy. The
plaintiff Itoseulcirg, considering a dissolution of tho part-
'meshy neeemiuy as, a condition to any arrangement, un the
6th of December sent a special messenger to Brumehi to ob•
lain the re of a deed with provision fur whaling up
the partnership hp the detendant., sad in the &to twilit of
yesterday he received a letter from Cie messeng, r, inform•
mg lion that the defendant. ware vast in Itruwel.. Under
these pressing circumstances the plaintiffs filed their hill
preying for a dissolution of the partnership and fur an in.
junett a in the terms now stored.
Tbe Vice-Chancellor granted the injunction in the terms
of the motion.

nava* Vore.etwwwttec It's Knrossiury.
SULTAU V. DE 1111 LO.— ItISOINo or CNcew BELLS.
—HUMAN CATOOLIL eiAriu.st.—ltruzmr-

10711-ST VATII

This ewe was originally to have tome on upon motion for
i=est I. restrain the defendant, who was pried of
the catholic chapel of the Ittilemj torist Fathers at
Liara, from tulhng and final)); the bells of the chapel
insanoyance if the plaintiff and the persons living in
the neighbourhood. Siocc the notice of motion, however,
the defendant hail ;nit in • demurrer for want of eguil
to the plaintif. hill. The demurrer, the re fire,
SOW cams) on for hearing. In mac the demurrer
fa diulloweil the injunction will be applied for..
The bill stated that previously to the 'Lath of March, Isl 7,
the late Lard Teigiimouth resided in a maneinn-house, with
plensure-groends, &e., situate in l'ark-read, Clapham, then
called Aceedane, net which, after Lord Teignosoutheeascil
to ri side there, was converted into two dwelling-houses,
but without there being any party-wall between them;
that on the 25th of March, 11417, the plaintiff, William
Nihau, lamanso the purchaser of one of these houses for the
residue of a term of 6U years, at the yearly rent of !JO/. ;
that the plaintiff had ever einee resided in this house with
his family, consisting at the present time of three daughters
and the. e grand-dasithteis, his eon, and eervants ; that the
adjoining noose, which was so separated from his, was oc-
cupied, between the period of 114T7 and 1818, as a place of
residence; that in July, 1,48, this last mentioned
house war purchased on behalf of a religious order
or society of persons, professing the Roman ca-
tholic religion, called the Redemptorist Fathers, and
they determined to set apart • jortion of the building
for religious worship, and accordingly appropriated the
ground-Moor to that purpose., and appointed the Rev.
Frederick tie fled, the defendant to this suit, to officiate as
priest, and to exercise the rites of his religion. That since
the month of July, 1849, the house was called St. Mary's
Catholic Chapel ; that in Aurrust, ISIS, the said Frederick
de held, or WON other par-tan superintending the perform-
ance of religious worship in this chapel, caused a wooden
frame to be erected on the roof of the house, and suspended
a bell thereto ; that such bell was tolled and rung ter lire
daps in the week, five times every day ; that it was ruler
sit times on Saturday, and on Sunday the ringing ordi-
narily commenced as early as five o'clock, and continued
for ten minutes, or thereabouts, to the great easeomfert and
annoyance of the plaintiff and the other members of his
family that on the 12th of October, 13111, the
plaintiff wrote to the superiors of the establish-
meat on behalf of himself and hi. neighbours,
requeeting that the nuisanee might he abated in coteie-
quence of the serious annoyance caused therelry. That no
answer was returned to this letter, and in Nov. 15 19 the Re-
demptoriat Fathers ritIMII a nether to Le given under the
proveiuns of the 31st of Geo. 111., Oat this house •as in-
tended to be used as a Roman catholic chapel, uud it was
accordingly registered a. directed by the act. 'that not-
withstanding the pluint.:rs remonstrance, the bell of this
chapel was continued to Le tolled and rung, and thereupon
the plaintiff end his neighloure wrote to Dr. Wiseman upon
the sulqeet and had an interview with his solicitor, who
stated that the bell was never rung on any but public pur-
poses, that is to say purposes interesting to the catholic
population. That such public purposes, during live days in
the wick, were as follows:—thrice the angelus bell, as no-
tice to ail catholic. to utter a prayer in honour of the virgin,
and 41 EICIIIOI7 of the incarnation which the angel au-
nouneeil to her; and twice in the day the bell sounded for
mass. It was further stated that tho early bell should be
in future postponed front five o'clock till six, but no other
comm.ion could be Made to thhe wishes of the neighbour..
The bill then stated that iu the month of May last a church,
capable of holding lOU person., was erected °nth* ground
attached to the premises so used as a chapel aunt religions
establishment, and such church had ever since been used
for &vise services, and a steeple or tower, about 100 feet
high, was built as part of the church, and in March last
six bells were placed in the staple, and en the occasion of
the church being opened, the bells were rung nearly the
whole id the day. That this church was CZild the church
of our Immaculate Lady of Victories; that the bell in the
chapel, and the peal of bells in the new church were rung
daily at the times beforementioned, and on particular days
they were rung at intervals all day through. That when
the peal of hells was run; the noise was so great that it
was impossible for the plaintiff or the members of his family
to read, write, or convene in his dwelling home. That in con-
sequence of the grievance suffered by the plaintiff, he ap-
plied to the defendant to desist from tolling and ringing
these bells so as to occasion any annoyance to him
and his neighbours; but this request having been
refused he hail brought an action amunstthe defendant in
the Court of Exchequer to recover damages for the nuisance
committed by means of the benire-mentioned tolling and
rifting of the hells. The trial came on for hearing, and
the plaintiff obtnined a verdict with 40s. damages and costs
cm the 13th of August, ISil ; that the bell attached to the
chapel was sonic time after the commencement of the action
removed from the roof to one of the sides ; and that subs.-
qweatly to the 13th of August last until the of Novem-
ber somber the bells of the church nor that of the chapel
wen rung, but ou Sunday, the 9th of November last the
sishadaat owed the said bells to be tolled or nog as (el-
bow% : ono hell at • quarter before mins in the waning, for

tit minutes ; one bell at twenty minutes past ten o'clock,
for the same time ; three balls at a quarter before eleven,
for the like a; ace of time ; vac bell at half-pest ids in the
levening, for tie: minutes ; and three bells at tea minutes to
seven o'clock far nee minutes ; toil the bells had since
been continued to be rung on Sundays for the same
perbd at the same hears. The bill charged that the
defendant threatened and intended not only to continue
tolling or rinsing the said bells every Sunday in the mane
ner thereinbefore mentioned, but he also thrcateaca all
intended to ring peals of the six bells, and also to till sal
no on week days. The bill then charged that the weight
of the peal of sis bells amounted altogether to 28 cwt.
2 qrs. 4 lbs., the largest bell Icing 9 cwt., snit the i: sine in
diameter amounted to abaut 3 feet each; that the ringingl
of these belts iu the manner they were now rung canoed
considerable annoyance to the plaintiff and the members oel
his family, and during the time when some of the more
weighty of the said bells were rung or tolled, it was impossible
for the plaintiff to read or C.,llVtile without great difficulty ;
that the plaint:if had a daughter who for several year, lied
been in a delicate state of h,alth, and during the period the
defendant caused the bells of the church to be so
tolled and rung, previously to the commencement of
the action, that plaintiff was obliged to remove
her to a more quiet plume of residence ; that }dein-
tilf had, since the action, brought back his daughter to
her home, but if the bells were now continued to be rung,
he would be obliged agaia to remove her on account of '
the injury which her health es oulil sustain by reason of '
such ringing and tolling. The hill charged that the ring-
in - of the hells would cuaeilerahly diminish the value of
th:plaiatifrs house, and he should be obliged to lease it,
and would have great clifliculty in disposing of it, except
at a considerable pecuttiury sacrifice. It was also stated
that the distance cat the plaattiff's bedroom front the bells of
the chapel and church, did not emceed 20 yard+. The bill
prayed that the defendant, and Gil persons acting under
his directions, might to restrained by injunction from
tolling or ringing the bell of the before-mentioned religious
tannic or catholic chapel, and from tolling aid riming the
bells belonging to the Roman catholic church aljuining the
said chapel, called the Church of our Immaculate Laity of
Victories, or any of such bells.
Mr. Campbell appeared in support of the demurrer, and
submitted that the tuundatioa cn which the pleintiff rested
his ease was, that the telling and ringing of the hells on
Sundays, at the times speteeed in his- bill cenetituted an
annoyance to taco, and also a nuisance to'his neighbours
and the public at large; but he did not state a special
instance of annoyance to himself more than would be put-
tered by all his neighbours. In the letter addressed by
him and tie neighbours to the authorities of the chapel, he
complained on the part of Liinveli and his neighbome, and
the parish generally, and requested the nuisance might be
abated. There they all suffered and complaiaed, and ell
signed the notice. .fhe case stated was, therefore, public,
and the remedy was, consequently, by. information filed by
the Attorney-General on behalf of the public. The ques-
tion was one of legal right, welch this court could not de-
cide. The grievance now complained of was different from
that upon which the action was brought. The plaintiff by
Lis bill stated that he had been absent from his house upon
two occasions for minty year.", which would lead vie to
suppose that the poneseion of the house was not of
so eery much importance to him. The old Van
on which the action was brought, was, that the belle com-
menced ringing at five su the morning, and continued
nearly at day. Now, the case was very different, they only
rang three times on Sunday moraine:, for six minutes each,
and twice, in the evening, for flee minute', being but 23
minutes during the whole day. It was not stated that the
peal of belle in the chapel had been rung since August, that
was brought in only by way of threat. Then there was
111111.11J,i011 to the illness of his daughter, whom ho had
been obliged to remove Item his house on account of the
nuisance. That charge was of very little consequence, as
the case of a weakly person weehl always be an exception.l
It was eater that the hello woe only 2) yards from his lied-
room; that was answered by the Cut that the bells did not
now COIIIIIIkIICJ till 9 o'clodi, waalt was very different to
what took place when the action was brought. 'I here
were three grounds of nuitance, public, private, and a
combination Cl both. In the first ease the Court of Equity
wuuld only interfere when the Attorney-General prosecuted.
In a private case it was not so, tut in the third case it was
one by an information mat bid. This was only a bill be-
tween a single plaintiff aria single defendant, although the
pleintilf stated that it affected the whole neighbourhood.
iu maintain this bill the plaintiff Lust establish that lie
was the only pereen injured, end this could scarcely be, es
it would neeesearily be a nide ism • to others as well ns the
plaintiff. Tne ere ern would bins ail, an 1 the principle was
eetatiliebed to preveht a multiplicity of legul proceeding'.
if (tie plaintiff could maintain (hi.. +ID could every in-
hie:tent maintain a similar bill. TM- was nue ground tur
the demurrer. The principles were elementary. They
were laid down in " Ma. townie's tamirne ntanc s," vol.
p. 219. This matter wee coesidere tie the case of " lvizny
v. Moore (Comptes iieports, p. Aa;, where it was held
that an action would not lie tor a general nuisance where
a particular damage was charged. In this case the
plaintiff might isueeibli have ware inconvenience, but
could have no nears damage thou what was public.
Lord Ite,leedale's book, p. 141, was also referred to, and
shines v. Baker" (Amleler, 13.4. and 3 Atk., 730). The
next case was "Crowder v. Trinkler " eI9 Ves., 617),
where an injunction was granted on the ground of inn-
, parable injury to preperty in the leanufacture of gunpow-
' der. In the case of " Madsen v. Muldison " (12 Sire, p.
lie), an objection was allowed on the ground that an Jailer-
matent was mot riled by tee Attorney-tleneral on behalf of
the public. The caws of mere private nuisance were so
common that it was unnecessary to ruler to them. In the
eme of "The Attorney. General T. Brown" the nuisance
was public, an injunction in that case was refused to re-
strain the building of the Foundling lloapital. The nest
point was that assuming this proposition to bo incprrect,
and that the plaintiff ha I a ainglo right to come here
against a public nuisance, then that lie had no right to
come here until he had established his right at law. It
was clear that the cormilaiet was not a meanie° such as
would enable the plain:id to maintain his bill. Thu ques-
tion decided at law could have no etr.ct upon the present
can.. It was admitted tie former method of ringing was
a nuisance, as it continued at most inconvenient periods
during the day, and very frequently, and the court of law
it to be a 111114.:ACC ; but new the case was
simply taut of ringing five Caro on suadays only.
'the Vice-Chancellor aqua, d to the threat that the peal
of belle would be rung, sad that they would be rung dur-
ing the week.
Mr. Campbell raid this was not a greater nuisance than
was occasioned by every parish church on every Sabbath
day. At the church whit,' the learned counsel was in the
lbeeit of attending, the hells were rung fur the untied of two
hours aituaether during the day. saw, the defendant had
here end, :teetered to suit the ringing to the convenience of
the plaintiff. The object, however, with piniatitf was to
stop the ringing entirely. TLIO pu.intitr alleged that the
ringing was as annoying to the ears a, to the feelings,
showing clearly that religious feelings were concerned.
The Nlee Chancellor stated that there wae no allusion to
religious feelings. It might mean musical feeling,.
Mr. Campbell assured the court taut these were the
sweetest bells in London, therefore the plaintiff's musical
feelings could not be much Inset; he was aladel that reli-
gious feelings were much more interested here than any
other. This was very clearly shown by the two last words
used by the counsel upon the hearing at law—these words
were " pupal aggression."
The Vice-Chancellor—Those words were used upon ad-
dressing the jury, that was a very cliff,reut matter.
Mr. Bagshawe, on the same stile, said. iu this case there
was a variation between the Brayer of the bill end the
terms of the injunction applied for. l'he prep r was—
filet, for a general injunction; and, secondly, a modified
injunction; hot the miunctioa was es restrain ahsolutcly.
It was laid dusk aas law by the come n-law jedee, that the
Itoman esthetics and every other eet had permission to
ring bells whenever they pleased, and Homan eithe.ic=, as
well as any other of her M..jesty'a eubjects, algae ring bells
for religious purpotes, so long, of course, as they ciid not
create annoyance to ether people. Now, with meant to al
public annoyance, the bells throughout Lonaon might be
supposed to be inconvenient to some person,' feelings—
thuee, petters, who were of a nervous tempertiewnt, or
were in an ill state of health. Toe ringing of b:i.3 was
one of the rights which the public hit, and ate iuld not be
considered a nubile nuisance ; the consequence WAS
that this must be proved to be a private nuisance.
Every one who had live .t near a parish churea would and
that the bell' wee.: rum; quite as often as these belle. The
bells were rung Mr the three 111:13,5,s in the morbiue and
twice of an evening. It was eviuent that these tele,. were
arranged to snit the neighbours. Nothing more could have
been dune for their convenience. It this cm:evils nuisance
it was a very ditlarent nuisance from what was decided
upon the trial at law.
'The learned counsel was hero stopped by the court at its
rising. The further hearing will be cantinued to-marrow
(this day).