The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 20.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
SMITHSON v. POWELL.

(Before Sir Geo. Turner.)
CALLOW V. WOODBRIDGE.
Mr. Co tterill applied ex parte for an injunction to re-
strain the defendants ,from parting with, defacing, or
destroying certain contracts which were stated in the
bill which had been filed in aid of an action at law, pray-
ing for the production of documents. The case stated
in support of the motion was, that the plaintiff, with
two of the defendants, had entered into a contract with
an Australian company, for the grant of a tract of land
for mining purposes, for the sum of 24,0001. The
grantees had subsequently as to sell the benefit of
this contract to some of the defendants for 30,000/. ;
5,000/. were to be paid within forty days after the date
of 'assignment ; 13,000/. within sixty days ; and the re-
mainder as soon as the certificate was received from an
agent in Australia showing that possession had been
given. The deed of assignment, with the original con-
tract, had been handed over to the defendants, who,
having themselves entered into a contract with the com-
pany, the original lessee, it was alleged, had declined to
complete the contract.
His Honour refused the ex parte injunction, on the
ground that there was no evidence, by any overt act, or
by any communication, of an intention to injure or des-
troy the documents, but allowed notice of motion to be
given for next week.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Stuart.)
IN TUB MATTER OF BRITON (CARMARTRENSHIRE) FRIENDL'

SOCIHTY.

This was a petition by the officers of a friendly society
established at Llanegwad, in the county of Carmarthen,
to enforce the payment, by two of its members, Mr.
Jones and Mr. Davies, of a portion of the funds alleged
to be in their hands. The petition alleged that in 1850,
a resolution had been passed by a general meeting, that
the society shouild be dissolved after the funds were col-
lected and dgtributed proportionally. Some of this
money had been placed in the hands of the respondents,
and by them placed in the Carmarthen Bank. The peti-
tion alleged that the amount had been drawn out, and it
sought repayment. The principal question was as to
the proper remedy under such circumstances.
Mr. Bevir, in support of the petition, stated that as
this society had been formed prior to the statutes 3d and
4th Vic., c. 73, 9th and 10th Vic. c. 27, and 13th and
14th Vic., c. 116, they afforded the members no remedy.
It was asked that the Court would now interfere under
the 10th Geo. IV., c. 56, sec. 14, which gave jurisdic-
tion to the courts of great session in Wales, or the
Kinky side of the Exchequer in England. The latter
jurisdiction had been transferred to the Court of Chan-
oery. The act required proof of the enrolment of the
ales of the society. This was proposed to be afforded
by the production of the book of rules of the society,
signed by the clerk of the peace for the county at the
sessions, when such enrolment had been so attested.
The Vice-Chancellor made the order for payment, ob-
serving that there seemed to be no doubt about the jus-
tice of the case, or of the jurisdiction of the Court, ac-
cording to the construction of the act of 10th Geo. IV.,
to which reference had been made.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH--SATURDAY.
COBBETT V. HUDSON.

In the early part of this term, Mr. Cobbett moved in
person for a rule to show cause why a new trial should
not be had in this case, on the ground that the learned
judge had improperly refused to receive his evidence at
the trial, he having acted as his own advocate. This
rule was subsequently argued by Mr. Watson, QM., for
the defendant and by the plaintiff in person.
Lord Campbell now delivered judgment. The court
were of opinion the rule for a new trial should be made
absolute. Their lordships were fully aware of the many
inconvenient consequences which would follow from allow-
ing a party to be at once witness and advocate in his own
cause, and did not hesitate to express their strong disap-
probation of such a course ; but they could not, as the law
stood, disallow it. Before the recent law of evidence the
right of a party to an action to conduct his case was un-
doubted ; that statute permitted a plaintiff or defendant
to be a witness on his own behalf, but did not infringe
upon his antecedent right. It was stated at the trial
that verdicts had been set aside on the sole ground that
parties had acted both as advocate and witness, but on
closer examination it did not appear the cases laid down
such a rule. One of the cases arose where, upon the
trial before the Sheriff, the attorney for the plaintiff hav-
mg addressed the jury as advocate, was admitted as a
witness. Mr. Justice Patteson, on the motion for a new
trial, said such a Mine was not proper, and that the
vidence ought 'lot to have been received. But there
the evidence had been received after the defendant's case
was closed, and after .his advocate had replied, and this,
in truth, was the ground of the decision. In another
somewhat similar case, where Mr. Justice Erle
had granted a new trial, the point turned upon
the circumstances of the case, and no general rule
was laid down upon the subject. The "King v. Price"
(6 Bar. and Ald. 606), also cited, was an indictment in
which it was decided the prosecutor should not address
Although the jury, the court observing a prosecutor was generally
a witness. But there the• King was in fact the plaintiff,
advocate.
andi v oca thete .
take upon himself the office of
question was, whether a private and un-
qualified 2
3, might l
u soohb,
tj objectionable
interfere,el
aer edl ed
o,h
jar ba then
t butte
authorityt h e law
the court found there was no rule
real
akslon could
against a party acting both as witness and advocate,
their lordships were clearly of opinion that in a case like
this there was no necessity for such a course. The plain-
tiff had had counsel assigned to him,
mode at the trial on the other side to postpone it until
and an offer was
the attendance of that gentleman could be obtained. If
Practice gained ground the legislature
in them, might make an order whereby the present rule
judges under the authority vested
judge at
allow
ntisihe
plaintiff to be examined as a witness, after addressing
instoreofititinhge
a jßulury.
e absolute fora new trial accordingly.

OURT
LiC an °
(SittingtoCOMMONlupon
0 n
at Nisi Prins.)
is was
PLEAS.—Nov. 20.
a bill of exchange for 245/ ,
yisn-nit V. scTALDs•—GAMBLING IN THE ARMY.
drawn by one Chapple
six months, and indorsed to the
dated the Ist September, 1845,
The defendant pleaded that the bill was given
for money won at gaming and that the plaintiff took it
puraoin7Ltiffhe. defendant, at
with :notice of the fact and without giving value for it.
Mr . Sergeant Byles and Mr. Lush appeared for the
Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Collier were
Mr. Charnbere said that in consequence of the form of
the plc adings he had to be
gin with the case of the defendant,
and he would therefore state that his client was a lieu-
tenant: in the 77th Regiment forpla itnhti 3 iffGleafenn adManrt..
eFo2oott,hwAhuicghuswt,aspllasymt
Plymouth
stations dat Plymouth. On
races we •re run, and about that time there appeared in the
town a. 1. lumber of persons assuming to themselves the
name o C of
th
" The Bath and Bristol Club ; but to speak
plainly, Ire believed that they were nothing more than
black-lei V. They started a roulette table, but as it re-
quired st une precaution to evade proceedings by the ma-
gistrates, this club never earriednn play two nights in
successioi iin the same house, so as to prevent their
being cat tght while they were at work. On the second
or third n ight, they opened a room at a livery stable
keeper's n amed Hex, and it was the misfortune of his
client ant / some brother officers to go there on that
occasion. It was after mess when he went, and he
(the learn( d counsel) understood he was sober ; but, as
usual, ther e was every pttention paid to gentlemen who
wanted to rse the roulette table, and champagne was
thrown abc m t for their use. The consequence was
that Lieut ant tnt Ronalds became -elated, and having lost
the 15/. w hi,el t he had in his pocket, he played on credit
until he h ad b )st about .500/4 and an I 0 U for 501.,
and the hat cal question, were given on account of part
of this su This I 0 U was afterwards handed over to
another off .cer who had won'; but he, however, went the
next night and lost it back again. When the bill became
due a lette r was written' applying for payment, on be-
half of tin "Town and District Banking Company;"
and an int imation was given that if it was not paid, the
case would be laid before the Commander-in-Chief. The
commnnic ation was not answered, and another was sent
enclosing ; a copy of a letter which had been sent to the
Command, fir-in-Chiet and subsequently the action was
brought. If he proved these facts, he apprehended it
would be i 1 wumbent upon the plaintiff to show how he
bees*? e pe4 3sessedur this bill for so large an amount, ac-
cepted. by young officer, and which, upon the face of
it, mist hm ye had a very suspicious appearance to any
man c busin

Mr., John. .Hex, livery stable-keeper, of Plymouth,
spoke as -to big knowledge of the "Club," being at Ply-
mouth, laq year?! Re was requested by the officers of

Seventy acres of land near Keighley, in Yorkshire,
were bought by the defendant at public auction, for
1,8901. In the advertisement it was stated that there
was a " vein of coal under the land, worked in an ad-
joining property ;" but no mention of coal was to be
found in the particulars of the sale, which took place in
July, 1850. In those particulars it was, however, de-
clared that if the buyer did not, within a month after the
delivery of the abstract of the title, raise an objection to
it, he was to be held as accepting it. The abstract was
delivered accordingly, and in it there was a clear state-
ment that the right to the mines and minerals was re-
served, because there was a reservation of them in the
original lease, granted in 1786. The defendant, notwith-
standing this reservation, took possession of the land,
erected new outhouses, and made no objection to the
title within the stipulated month ; but in Decem-
ber following, when called on to complete his pur-
chase, he asked for compensation, on the ground
of not being able to dig the coal under the land, or
that he might be relieved from his purchase. The ven-
dors refused, and filed a claim for specific performance,
while the purchaser also filed a claim for compensa-
tion, At the hearing, the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce dismissed both the claims without costs, and left
the parties to their legal rights, holding that the plain-
tiffs had been guilty of culpable negligence in not stat-
ing, as they ought to have done in their advertisement,
that the right to the coal under the surface was reserved,
and holding also that the defendant had been guilty of a
neglect and delay, which shut him out of relief.
The Lord Chancellor, before whom the case came on
appeal, now gave judgment. His lordship could not see
how such compensation could be estimated ; but being of
opinion that the purchaser had no right to complain, and
being also of opinion, with the Vice-Chancellor, that the
sellers ought to have been more particular in their state-
ments as to what they had to sell, he dismissed both ap-
peals with costs, and advised the purchaser to complete
his purchase without further litigation.