The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
THE QUEEN V. HANCOCK'S PATENT.

The arguments in this case, which relate to a technical
point as the practice now in existence relative to the
granting and extension of patents, occupied the Lord
Chancellor the whole morning.
(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)

BTURGE V. THE EASTERN UNION RAILWAY COMPANY--

JUDGMENT.

The Lords Justices gave judgment to-day in this ap-
peal, which was argued before them at the commence-
ment of the last month. The case came before their
lordships upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor Wood granting an injunction to restrain the
defendants from declaring or paying any dividend upon
the general shares of the Eastern Union Railway Com-
pany, before first satisfying the claim of the plaintiff.
Several acts of Parliament had been passed, giving
the company powers to grant preference shares, in order
to enable them to carry on their works, and in 1847 and
1848 the plaintiff purchased between 1,200 and 1,300 of
these preference shares, which were to pay 6 per cent.
Up to June, 1850, the dividends at the rate of 6 per cent.
had been regularly paid to the plaintiff, but after that
period he had received no interest for his money, and in
August 1853 the Eastern Union Railway Company ob-
tained an act of Parliament enabling them to redeem the
Preference Stock. In February 1854 the Company
Paid the redemption money to Sturge, with interest
upon it, at the rate of 4i per cent. Sturge, upon this,
banded over his shares to the Company, insisting at the
same time that he was entitled to the payment of 6 per
eent. The defendants repudiating that claim, Sturge
filed his bill for an injunction and a declaration of his
rights. The Vice• Chancellor, upon the motion before
him for that purpose, granted an injunction, and from
that judgment the parties appealed. Upon that
appeal coming on before the Lords Justices
it was arranged that the appeal motion and the cause
should be heard together, and upon them the Court now
gave judgment. Their lurd3hips, after going at con-
siderable length into the case, dismissed the appeal
motion, with costs, and declared that the plaintiff was
entitled to his claim for 6 per cent. interest up to the
time at which the Redemption Act passed in August,
1853 ; observing that the course adopted by the com-
pany as a body was not creditable to them in rendering
it necessary for the plaintiff to institute his suit, and to
that suit setting up such an unconscientious defence.

The defendants have therefore failed in their appea
and in their opposition to the suit, and have to pay al:
the costs.

QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BURGOYNE V. MARRYATT.

Mr. Boville applied for a rule, calling on the defend-
ant to show cause why an attachment should not be
issued against him for not answering certain interroga-
tories, required by a learned judge, under the 51st sec.
of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, which re-
quires the interrogatories sought from a defendant to be
delivered to a plaintiff within 10 days, and in default,
without sufficient cause be shown, the person so
neglecting should be considered guilty of con-
tempt of court, and be proceeded against accordingly
The defendant, to whom the interrogatories were ad-
dressed, had made five or six applications to the Court,
and obtained extensions of time on the ground of ill-
health, but there was every reason to believe that he
could answer the interrogatories without his health sus-
taining any injury. _ _

Mr.-Justice Coleridge asked if this was the case when
Mr. Justice Erie refused an application for a further ex.
tension of time.

Mr. Bovill said he believed it was. The action was
for the recovery of 450/. on two promissory notes, and
the answers sought were material to the plaintiff's case.
Rule nisi granted.
FRENCH V. WIGGINS AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Robinson showed cause against a rule obtained
for a new trial. The action was brought by the plaintiff,
a farrier and veterinary surgeon, against the defendants'
haulier at the Great Northern Railway, to recover an
account for work and labour done and materials sup-
plied in shoeing, roughing, &c., the defendants' horses
during last winter. At the trial, before Mr. Justice
Coleridge, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The question in dispute was whether the word " rough-
ing" was used at the time of making the contract (which
was a verbal one), or not. The plaintiff contended the
contract was to shoe and doctor the horses up to the
knee, at is. 4d, per horse, whilst the defendant contended
it was for roughing also.

Their lordships directed the rule to be made absolute,
the costs to abide the result of the new trial.

REID AND SON V. SOSKINGS.-SUDGMENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant for an alleged breach of a charter party in not
sopplying the defendant with a cargo of wheat from
Odessa. The defendant pleaded he was prevented from
doing so in consequence of the declaration of war with
Russia, and their lordships' decision was for the de-
fendant.