The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 9.
Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.

LORD WARD V. THE OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOL•

TERHAMPTON RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a suit by Lord Ward and the trustees of
settled estates, of which he was tenant for life, for the
specific performance by the defendants for an alleged
contract to purchase for 5,500/. part of the settled estates.
It appeared that the purchase money had been intended
to be paid by means of a cheque drawn by Mr. Rufford
as chairman of the board of directors, and two other di-
rectors of the company, and made payable at the bank
of Messrs. ißufford and Wragge, of which Mr. Rufford
was the active partner. The cheque in question had
been delivered to Lord Ward, by whom it had been
held over for two months, at the suggestion of Mr.
Rufford, at the expiration of which period the bank of
Rufford and Wragge had become bankrupt. The prin-
cipal question in the cause was whether Rufford, in di-
recting Lord Ward to delay the presentation of the
cheque, must be taken to have acted as tho agent of the
company, or whether no such agency had existed.
Mr. Roundell Palmer and Mr. Renshawo appeared for
the plaintiffs; and Mr. Ropell, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr.
Bovitl for the company.
Their Lordships were of opinion that Rufford, in
directing the vendor to hold over, had acted as the agent
of the company; and that even if he had not, still the
transaction had since been ratified by the conduct of the
financial committee of the company, of which Rufford
had been the principal and most active member, and
that, consequently, there must be a decree for specific
performance upon the principle, that no payment or
satisfaction of purchase money had as yet been made by
the company.

(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
RENSINGON V. BOUVERIE.

This was a demurrer put in by a mortgagee to a bill
to redeem upon the ground that no offer had been made
in the bill to pay off the mortgages made previously on
the property. It was contended that under such cir-
cumatances all mortgages upon the estate should be
cleared off, or offered to be cleared off, at the same time.
The plaintiff (Lord Kensington) had mortgaged the
property to the extent of 20,0001., and the present
plaintiff had applied to be allowed to pay off a sum of
5,7004, which was an intermediate mortgage upon the
same property. , The defendant contended that this
could not be sanctioned by the Court, as it would be a
waiver of his right o❑ the legal estate, and he had there-
fore demurred to the bill.

Mr. R. Palmer was counsel for the plaintiffs; Mr.
Wilcocks for the defendant.
The Master of the Rolls allowed tho demurrer.

QUEEN'S BENCH—Nov. 9.
}KIPLING V. INGRAM.

This was an action arising upon the construction of
two local Acts, the 50th Geo. 111., c. 149, :and the 2d
W. IV., c. 13. By the former of these Acts, several
streets, lanes, courts, &c., in the neighbourhood of and
abutting on the City-road, were to be paved, watched,
lighted, and improved, but the City-road itself was not
included in it. The 2d W. IV., c. 13, imposed rates
upon such streets, lanes, &c., as had been paved, lighted,
and improved under the previous Act. The City road
itself was kept in repair by trustees appointed under a
different Act, out:of tolls taken on the road itself where
a turnpike was established. The defendant's premises
abutted on the City-road, and he contended that he was
not liable to the rate, which had been imposed by the
Commissioners of Paving of St. Luke's, as he insisted
that the City-road was not lighted by them under the
authority of either of these Acts, and as their right to
impose a rate depended on their authority to light the
road, they had no claim to impose the rate in question.
Mr. Crowder (with whom was Mr. George Denman)
was heard on the part of the paving commissioners; and
Mr. Watson (with whom were Mr. Lush and Mr. Haw-
kins) for the defendant.

Tha Court expressed a clear opinion that the paving
commissioners had no authority to light and impose a
rate for lighting the City-road, which was not included
n the Act, and as the one rate depended on the other, the
rate now sought to be enforced could not be maintained.
Judgment for the defendant.

BAIL COURT—Nov. 9.
REG. V. RICHARD SILL.
Mr. Wilde moved fer a rule calling on Mr. Richard
Sill, one of the attorneys of this court, to show cause why
bo should not be struck off the roll of attorneys, on the
ground that he had been convicted at the Central Crimi-
nal Court of a misdemeanour in ob►aining money by
false pretences.
Rule nisi.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—Nov. 9.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Law.)
IN THE MATTER OP REUBEN MICHAEL.
This insolvent, who was opposed by Mr. Nichols and
Mr. Dowse, appeared for judgment, on which occasion
Mr. Lucas appeared for another creditor. Mr. Cooke
(with whom was Mr. Sargood), supported.
The facts showed that the insolvent, who was now
described as being in no business or profession, had been
a bankrupt, and twice before discharged under the Act.
He now owed upwards of 8001. His wife, under her
father's will, had the interest of 20,0001., producing
about 7001. a year, out of which she made him an allow-
ance for pocket-money, but he still got into debt on the
discount of bills, and renewing old debts. An offer had
been made by the insolvent's wife to pay 1001. a year for
th© present creditors, but it was refused. The insolvent
alleged that he had been charged large sums for the dis-
count of bills, and that when it was known that his wife
had the fortune, money was almost forced upon him, end
bill discounters urged him to take money and give them
hie bills in return.

His Honour pronounced judgment. He was of opinion
that the insolvent, whose wife bad a large income which
could not be touched, ought to have exercised prudence,
seeing that he had been a bankrupt and twice betore
insolvent. In his opinion debts bad been incurred with-
out reasonable expectation of payment. Under the dis-
cretionary clause he adjudged him to five months, and
for contracting debts without reasonable means, concur-
rently, to six and nine months' imprisonment.
MIDDLESEX SESSIONS—Nov. 9.

David Dalton, 26, James Turner, 19, and George Bent,
23, were indicted for unlawfully breaking and entering
the house of Franklin Joseph Baker, with intent to
steal.

From the evidence given there could be no doubt that
the prisoners, three expert and well known thieves,
had contemplated carrying off from the prosecutor's
shop every available article of value; but, fortu-
nately for him, they were foiled, discovery having
taken place when they had proceeded no further than
forcing open the door. The prosecutor is a watchmaker,
carrying on business in High-street, Hounslow. Ho
lived at the Nag's Head, and used to lock up his shop at
night. On the afternoon of the 2Sth of October, he left
his shop for a short time and locked the door; but
shortly afterwards ho received information which in-
duced him quickly to return, when be found that the
shop door had been forced open. Observing the pri-
soners Bent and Turner cross from the pavement to
Ship-lane, he followed and saw them get into a cart
which the other prisoner was in charge of, and they at
once drove off rapidly. Bent waved his hand in triumph
at their having, as he thought, escaped, but the prosecu-
tor got a chaise and pursued them. He gained on them
so much that, finding it hopeless to get off that way, they
turned into Hanworth-lane, and jumped out of the cart
and ran across the fields. Bent separated from hie com-
panions, and was captured by the prosecutor in a ditch.
Dalton was followed to Hanworth, where he was taken
by a constable and a Mr. Hiscock, to whom the chaise
the prosecutor had taken belonged, in a ditch, covered
with thorns, and up to his knees in water. Turner was
found concealed amongst some broccoli.
The prisoners were all found guilty, but sentence was
deferred.