The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).

COURT OF CHANCERY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not sit to-clay.

THE LORDS JUSTICES.
Their Lordships were occupied the early part of the
morning with the case of Maxwell v. Maxwell, but
r)se at one o'ciccic. The decision was postponed.

VICE-CH A NCELLOR'S COURTS.
Their Honours had no business of any public interest
before them this morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.

REGINA V. SIR JAMES BROOK.
Mr. Crowder, Q.C., appeared to movo an arrest of
judginent given upon a trial upon scirefacias determined
before Lord Campbell, on the 19th of July last, when
one count was found for the Crown, and one for the de-
fendant. The facts arose out of a grant of lands iu
Borneo and Latium), made by the Sultan of Borneo to
the Eastern Archipelago Company, which was incor-
porated by royal charter. The provisions of the charter
required that a deed of settlement should be prepared,
one of the covenants of which was that the deed should
be lodged within a twelvemonth, and that one half of the
capital, viz. 1001., should be paid down. The former of
the two provisions had, according to the finding of the
jury, been complied with, but with regard to tho latter,
their verdict had been for the Crown, and accordingly
that the Crown was in a condition to abolish the charter.
He contended, however, that there was nothing in the
scirejacias to secure that right.
Lord Campbell—Then do you mean to show that the
payment of the money was not an imperative necessity?
Mr. Crowder said that unquestionably ho did, for the
whole terms of the charter showed that it was not, and
his lordship would recollect that iu this case a petition
had been filed by tho Attorney-General on the ground
of fraud, and fraud, too, upon the Crown. What he
contended for was, that the whole of the proceedings
must exhibit fraud before the charter could be cancelled.
In the event of this application being refused, the letters
must go before the Lord-Chancellor, be done away with
by the Great Seal, and there would be an end of the corpo-
ration. But the fact was, that if there had been any decep-
tion at all it was committed before the charter was granted.
So that, even supposing that the issue as given against
the Corporation were correct, still it did not amount to
a forfeiture of the charter. Had the non-lodging of the
deed been given against the company, no public body
whatever could be safe, for this company had for four
years been in constant communication with the necessary
officials, and even with some of her Majesty's Ministers
themselves, as had been proved upon the trial; and yet,
during the whole of that time, the Crown had not only
acted upon any presumed right, but had even refused to
interfere; then at last came down Sir James Brook, and
others, and caused this scire facias to be issued. It
should be recollected, that whatever the company had, or
had not done, all occurred with the perfect privity and
consent of officers of the the Crown.

A long conversation o❑ the legal effect of the terms of
the charter, then ensued between the Bench and the
learned Counsel, the result being, that in the event of
this application being refused, the Crown was constitu-
tionally compelled to revoke the charter.
Lord Campbell—The point appears to us new and im-
portant. Take a rule to show cause.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
CROSBIE V. MAINE.

This was a writ of icquiry to assess the damage in a
case of libel, in which the defendant had allowed judg-
ment to go by default.

Mr. Whitmore appeared for the plaintiff and the de
fondant was represented by an attorney. _ .