The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-16 00:00:00

Gazette and through the newspapers, that Mr. Some-
body had been appointed by the Lord Chancellor a
Master Extraordinary in the Court of Chancery, in
order to lead to the belief that some tpccial confidence
`had been repos•Al in him, when in fact there was no such
-necessary infereece. The conduct of Mr. Smith through•
out the whole affair had been irregular. 11, was found
going to France, and there taking an affidavit out of the
jurisdiction of the court, and for the paps'. Of avoiding
having to give security for costs, the plaintiff. Mr. Robin-
'am, who made the affidavit, was represented as living at
Tonbridge Well!, in the jurisdiction of the court, instead of
at Boulogne, as was really the case. lit, (the Lord
Chancellor) had been very anxious to find an excuse for
Mr. Smith, and had read through his statement with
great care, but be confessed that he had not been able
to find that excuse for him. He should therefore order
him to be strueit off the roll of ottorneyz, without As-
Signing any specific had many rea•on-s for
doing so, end some of them he had now stated puelicly.
This decision he would cause to be communicatc.d by
hts secretary to the judges of all the courts of law.
Ilia Lordship also intimated that he should expect that
the solicitor cif the plaintiff should explain to the Court,
on a future day, by affidavit, the part which he had
had in this affair.

ROLLS' COURT.—CrIIIS DAY.)
HOGHTON V. FILOGLITON.
The MASTER of the ROLLS gave judgment in this case,
the facts of which were fully detailed in The Sun at the
conclusion of the arguments, about a month since.
The bill was filed by Mr. Henry Hoghton, against his
father, Sir Henry Bold Hoghton, to set euide a de. d r.f
resettlement executed by the plaintiff immediately on his
attaining 21, under which the father derived large benefit.
The plaintiff contended that his execution of the deed
tie's obtained by misrepresentation, and that be was in
iamorance of the material provisions contained in it.
His HoNotra, after minutely and carefully going
thiroagh the facts, and the authorities applicable, stated
he was of opinion that the deed in question
Wa a not a reasonable or proper mode of settling the pi., -
pet qty, if the 'interests of the family were alone to be re-
gal %led. The evidence established conclusively that as far
as the preparation of the deed was concerned the,
pis intiff had no professional adviser or assistance.lt was
not alleged by Sir Henry in his answer that the draft was
eve t. shown to the plaintiff, or in any manner submitted to
bin s or to any person on ais
the most attentive consideration that his Honour had
bee oa able to_ give to the evidence, raised great doubts in
mindhis whether the objectionable parts of the state-
La:. at were ever brought to the attention of the plaintiff.
. Walker, the solicitor of Sir Henry, stated that the
°PE cativo parts were read over to the plaintiff at the
to of execution, but that was insufficient to show the
plaintiff understood what he was doing. The mere
a
ding_ over of a deed would not be sufficient to satisfy
hie 'Honour that' he person hearing it read understood
it, To am unprofessional person, however intelligent,
egad: exerting the closest attention, the long and intri-
a
sentences and technical language of a deed were
to unintelligible ; and even the Court not unfre-
Cad, misunderstood the limitations and effect of
provisions of a deed read in open court,
Lea
it , the greatest pains were taken to read
wit
iotearly and intelligibly. Unless accompanied
4,4; an explanation of the contents of the
sona,whe reading it over to an unprofessional per-
tats „sos more likely to confuse than to enlighten him.
tan,lopour was of opinion it was proved that the coit-
ion': the deed were not properly made known to the
forilland that he was left without the assistance and in-
% ation which was necessary to enable the Court to
411tain suchthei a transaction. The subsequent acts of
did not vary their rights. Tne delay in
litaeas" the, bill was explained by the fact that
if "ale for compromise had been pending, and
the
bad been
correspondence which in the arguments
bad
co referred to by the counsel for the defendant
aft anntained (which in his Honour's opinion it did
the any affecting the plaintiff's rights, he
*all have. disregarded such adtnissions made solely
00414 a
,view to a compromise. He regretted those pro-
deehti 'lad failed of success, and that the painful duty of
Itober such a case should have been cast en him; but
thR,
eL_eacta to that duty ho wee compelled to decide
tut,. eura
Ina to what he considered the plinciples of
he applicable to the facts and evidence, the deed
pP to"id and Sir • Henry must deliver it
through be -cancelled. His Honour then went
ritelmed "me miner points of tee case, and
der_Put al eetln elaborate judgment, which occupied an
ietivery, ay pronouncing a decree declaring the
L_ll, deayeae 7th'July, 1843, to be void, and ordering it to
loatiisaared up to be cancelled, but the bill must be.
.44tla as far as it sought a declaration that the mot t-
on the Hoghton estates were subsisting mon-
teheym Rf should be glad in a cash of this nature to be
taiDeeh, from the necessity of giving any directions
h 4..113 Inc, costs.
h‘liey to4TaaLt. (on behalf of the plaintiff) was very
°did ~,OaY that his client had authorised him to state
The ea," desire any directions on the subject of costs.
The a'",e_rt then proceeded with petitions.
i:oaatead"ti%iticery courts will not sit to-morrow. It is un-
tiir,a at all the Chancery Judges are to meet the
Chancellor on the subject of the Chancery Reform

,401 t ,D,
at. ""'-'4IN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
44;4 , Balle", before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
'l4Sti -81`e° WIGHTMA.N, Mr. JUitiCe ERLE, and Mr.
Sir pe6 CROMPTON ) '
Ati,ir rederick Thesiger was sworn in as her Majesty's
4114Y-GEneral.
Zr,
td v. IRONSIDE.—CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Ztlr --mTuic a rule nisi had been obtaiued, calling upon
—sae I,7ll—me, the well-known railway proprietor, to show
hias"? a criminal information shou'd not be. filed
Wiemo,r,,°3 fora libel which he had published in the
111. ts -"*.cree Press, upon Mr. Barwell and the officers
Ai: kidland Railway Company.
the hililloNfanu now appeared to show cause againsth
toltpla';lmd contended that it was impossible that the
I)liblkfitt,lg parties could have been injured by t.
.hthiog pieu Letter, because it contained no names nor any
°Utit-,.." to indicate to the world who the parties were.
!haise," said an anonymous letter was sent thes
`listice7,4 of the company, in which Mr. Barwell
0w,..
lOtisie;.7 Pointed at as the party referred to in the c en
kighs—`l°ll published in the Free Press. Now that letter
of this °r might not have been forwarded,h knew
licithiisn,B 110 could assure the Court, that
of wri s. Whatever of this letter, nor was he in thee habit
Privet:4lls anonymous letters either to newspapers or
St its individuals. On the contrary, it was notorious
'0 the wa' bis practice always to attach his own .name
put in Matters which he occasionally felt called upon to
40 is Print, and he therefore hoped that as this letter in
Poet Y mentioned names, the Court would not teal dis-
the to make this rule absolute, the more especially as
Dart
Of his Y who made this complaint stood in the position
acso awn servant, and had refused to render him an
ttilit of his stewardship when he called for it.
Itty"LLORD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested to Mr. Macau-
te.stW" appeared for the other side, that he had better
btil'ate the case, as there was a new Judge on the
...larsslte°l;:lio was not present when the rule nisi was
, m
fd.r
ton, ACICLAY said he was quite ready to adopt that
one, and he begged to inform their Lordships that on
142,1ner occasion he ebtainrd this rule oo behalf of Mr.
t,,7 /ell, a director of the Midle.nd Railway, and a magi,.
7w.r.e. ...t Nortnampton,under the t ollowing circuass anu.s:—
.4.., k ~,,,. mull of that application was a libel published by
Sheffield Freeelc", Mr. Barwell in a newspaper called the
tiser ; and it Chatgldankdd Rotherham and Barnsley Adver-
tiser
reference to large court. Bat well with corrupt concoct
behalf of the Midland c 041.acats made by the directors on
articles
The company contracts
4 very large amount a
eke, chiefly for the use ofyteh,:ere.l
seeaarao:ftsclothing and the
„_Cott t of near 400,000/. a
the nd this to an
",',,oneneted with the present litsel'w4e ts:,,reinstances
tTat periodically, as supplies
issue for 0c to advertise
ret:bea tdifferent
Prraaer-s
ItiZeles. It is also
lid la
to t p rtaheet idirectors t o
ser-
aa parties krOwn .
the year 1851 there, a
nwde
cons
e tt
rhareet ea
~, It app3ais t
7,:ionti upon hricihntenders were receiv
ts7.l._
.ar!ade,andwrella'tivo to which are the etc etiaZ
ars that the first intimation wlz'al.
rZ_stl in the libel. It apv:
any •
ccarge against Mr. gar
h
1,-*" to the directors of
we*" '• an anonymous letter received 011
the was contained 1111
1851, on which day it appears that
6 ath
eat of Novenaber,
r4Zaseraber "olthe board of directors, who attended ~
aas similar. letter, except
fir'
held at Derby, receivecl
in substance the
%Iv_ ziarwellbirnself. This letter
We 4.- .published by Mr. Ironaide,
ted • 3 the libel afterwards
with the hissl.
li;,,k is identical as to items and figures
interested in certain
coin arßed that Mr. Barwell
seki raets whicbsbad been made "h the. strs..sceotmsmatittusoo,.
hi. that' his nominee had obtained the u"
L''' Pri f re clearly
llesttseltiwErelliiss,
t'Urr.,„;43...3* This anonymous letter thereto
re
ear. Barwell not only with an interestmik eingtabine
Dy th-aes) but also with a corrut intention to r
it beiug
41.1°1. No notice is ' taken of that
4114:11;131"5; but on the'2d of December,
olsei,," Meeting of the directors, when Mr. John
re man oftlie company and Member of Parliament,
h'es a contmunication from Mr. Ironaide. I read
the affntavit of Mr. Ellis and the letter is—
s< Dent " Sheffield, 1851, Dec. Ist.
(I.ex Sir,.=-A copy of the inclosed letter will appear
lopp L'ect) in several journals next Saturday. I cannot
kqt t4c.the board would openly sanction such conduct,
bltt their he
is necessary. I can wait patiently.
hetu Ito* my plan of publishing contracts would have
mssbi tar Y
the best. It lam called on I can give the
A of director,' .
eay ". 'he his partner, and the two clerks.
Ike urn the matter of letting till you have investi.
d it.
" Yours faithtulty,
ti j
" ISAAC IRONSIDE.
A °}lll Ellis Eq , M.P , Chairman of the
tici ?die d' .Railway' Company."
/Pllll4 this letter inclosed a printed slip identical with
41'y tis erwards appeared in the newspaper. The Secre.
qerefore wrote this letter to Mr. Ironside :—.
"Midland Railway, Secretary's Office,
ii s.
c. 21, 1852.
4N seiriv??..he board concludes. that you would not bring
I,POII i„.. " charge contained in your letter of yesterday
!`ttiii..'"-7 anonymous commusication,. and without
pktGirliatided.yourself of the respectabily ofycohur in.
4he sto?nd being prepared to sulsstantiate the arge.
,Oti pt:ea committee are prepared to place all books
`° giv ears connected with the contracts before you, and
lotir eI:011 aSS'stance in investigating the subject upon
'gest `itg the n_ame of your _ tilt I°-roorro inconvenient to you,
informszt. The committee
Yit iii w, but if that day is .
t)hb. . meet again on Tuesday, the 16th inst. Mr.
u" inatinctions to eive you a pass.
"I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
~,.
14 lEttats jr • "J. F. BELL, Secretary.
ter to "sides Egg., Sheffield."
this :,...r. Irons c 1 _e vir,...s:._. i, ,
" Shsifisisl. Dec. 3 I F 51.
NI "at Sir 1
1.5 thi, ,-- go hose early from business aud gOt
7 1494i11g. A denotes •. foregnue.molusion.