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 Evraordinary in the C.nrt Chancery, in
order to kad to the belief that some ip cat eontiderme
had been repos. d in him, when in fact there wes no such
necessary inferefice. Toe condixt of Mr. Smith through•
out the whole affair had been irregular Ile was too.cl
going to France, and there taking an affidavit out of th,.,
jurisdiction of the court, and for the purpse of avoiding
having so give security for costs, the plaintiff. Mr. Robin-
a.m, who made the affidavit, was represented as living at
Tonbridgo Wells, in the jurisdiction of the court, instead cf
at Boulogne, as was really the case. He (the Lord
Chancellor) had been very snxons to find an excuse for
Mr. Smith, and had read through his titatE;ment with
great care, but ho couiessed that he had not been able
to find that excuse for him. He should therefore order
him to be struck off the roll of attorner, without as-
signing any specific ground. He had many reasons for
doing so, and some of them ho bad now stated publicly.
This decision he would cause to be communicated .by
his secretary to the judges of all the courts of law.
His Lordship also intimated that ho should expect that
the solicitor of the plaintiff should explain to the Court,
ou a future day, by affidavit, the psrt which he had
had in this affair.

ROLLS' COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

_
HOGHTON v. HOGRTON.
The MASTER cf tbe ROLLS gave judgment in this case,'
the faots of which were Icily aetailed 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 Boid Heghton, to set aside a deed of
resettlement executed by the plaintiff immediately on his
attaining 21, under which the father derived large benefit.
The plaintiff contended that his F xecution of the deed
was obtained by misrepresentation, and that he was in
igncrance of the material provisions contained in it.
His IioNOVR, after minutsly and carefully going
through tbe teats, and the authorities applicable, stated
ho was of opition that the deed in question
was not a reasonable or proper mode of settling the pro-
perty, if the interests of the family were alone to be re-
garded. The evidence established conclusively that as far
as the preparation of the deed was concerned the
plaintiff had no professional adviser or assistance. Jr was
not alleged by Str Henry in his answer that the draft was
ever shown to the plaintiff,
him or or in any manner submitted to
to any person on his behalf for examination, and
the most attentive consideration that his Honour had
been able to give to the evidence, raised great doubts in
his mind whether the objectionable parts of the state-
ment were ever brought to the attention of the plaintiff. ,
Mr. Walker, the solicitor of Sir Henry, stated that the
operative parts were read over to the plaintiff at the
- time of execution, but that was insufficient to show the
plaintiff understood what he was doing. The mere
reading over of a deed would not be sufficient to satisfy
his Honour that the person hearing it read understood
it. To an unprofessional person, however intelligent,
and exerting the closest attention, the long and intri-
cate sentences and technical language of a deed were
often unintelligible ; and even the Court not unfre-
quaintly misunderstood the limitations and effect of
the , provisions of a deed read in open court,
when the gre cleat pains were taken to read
it clearly and intelligibly. Unless accompanied
with an explanation of the contents of the
deed, the reading it over to an unprofessional per
son was more likely to confuse than to enlighten him.
His Honour was of opinion it was proved that the con-
tents of the deed were not prop• sly made known to the
800, and that he was left without the essietance and in-
formation which was,necessary to enable the Court to
maintain such a frac section. The subsequent '.cts of
the parties 'did not vary their rights. Tee delay in
sling the bill was explained by the tact that
proposals for compromise had been pending, and
if the correspondence which in the arguments
had been referred to by the counsel for the defendant
bad contained (which in his Honour's opinion it did
tot) any admission affecting the plaintifi'd rights, he
should have disregarded such admissions made solely
with a view to a compromise. He regretted those pro-
posala had failed of succese, end that the painful duty of
deciding such a case should have been cast on him; but
obedience to that duty he vres compelled to decide
that, according to what he considered the principles of
equity applicable to the facts and evidence, the deed
seas void, and Sir Henry must deliver it
UP to be cancelled. His Honour then went
-through some minor points of the case, and
concluded an elaborate judgment, which occupied an
'hour in delivery, by pronouncing a decree declaring the
''deed of the 7th July, 1843, to be Void, and ordering it to
be delivered up to be cancelled, but the bill must be
dialnieled so far as it sought a declaration that the mort-
gages on the Heghton estates w. re subsisting mort-
gages. He should be glad in a case of this nature to be
relieved from the necessity of giving any directions
respecting the costs.
Mr. BETHELL (on behalf of the plaintiff) was very
happy to say that his client bad authorised him to state
be did not desire any directions on the subject of costs.
The Court then proceeded with petitions.
The Chancery courts will not sit to. morrow. It is un-
derstood that all the Chancery Judges are to meet the
Lord Chancellor on the subject of the Chancery Reform
Bill.

QUEEN'S BEN CH.—(THIS DAV.)
(Sittingi in Belief), before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
.. Ile.'Sustice WIGHTDIAN, Mr. Justice ERLE, and Mr.
Justice Ceorarrox.)
Mr Frederick Tbesiger was sworn in as her Majesty's
4ttorney-General.
QUEEN v. IRONSIDE.--CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
In this case a rule nisi had been obtained, calling upon
14r. Ironside, the well-known railway proprietor, to show
cause why a criminal information Anted not be»iled
against him for a libel which he had published in the
Sheffield Free Press, upon Mr. Barwell and the officers
of the Midland Railway Company.
Mr. IRONSIDE now appeared to snow cause against
the rale, and contended that it was impossible that the
complaining parties could have been injured by the
Published letter, because it contained no names nor any.
thing else to indicate to the world who the parties were.
- But it was .aid an anonymous letter was sent to the
chairman of the company, in which Mr. Barwell wss
distinctly pointed at as the party referred to in the com-
munication published in the Free Press. Now that letter
might or might not have been forwarded, but
of this he could assure the Court, that he knew
'nothing whatever of this letter, nor was he in the habit
of writing anonymous letters either to newspapers or
,Private individuals. On the contrary, it was notorious
that it was his practice always to attach his own name
to the matters which he occasionally felt called upon to
put in print, and he therefore hoped that as this letter in
to way mentioned names, the Court would not teal dis-
posed to make this rule absolute, the more especially as
the party who made this c tisplaint stood in the position
Of his own servant, and had refused to render him an
account of his stewardship when he called for it.
i The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested to Mr. Macau-
-43.3', who appeared for the other side, that he had better
bench
the case, as there was a new Judge on the
who was not present when the rule nisi was
Meted.
Mr. MACAULAY said he was quite ready to adopt that
cour,e, and he begged to inform their Lordship) that on
Li termer occasion he obtained this rule on behalf of Mr.
Barwell, a director of the Midland Railway, and a magi,-
!ate et Northempton,under the tollowine circums nets:—
te! ground of that application was a libel published by
"eler e Yoe nsirle on Mr. Barwell in a newspaper called the
r9.;:e
rtft; /at . Free Press and Rotherham and Barnsley Adver-
111 reference
behalf a charged Mr. Barwell with corrupt cououct
the to large contracts made by the directors on
Midland to a very biro Company. The company contracts
like, chitfly for
near 400) 0u
amountth for articles of clothing and the
amount of of the secants, and this to an
connected with the . 00/. a year; and the circumstances
that periodically, isel7seT' libel were these:—lt appears
Lice to advertise for I:Pres:nes are vaunted, it is the prac-
articles. L is. also to tender for the different
a practice
talc parties known to the directors
issue circulars to ter-
it FlFP3ars that in the year as likely to tender;
occasions upon which tenders were received
there
were
three
were made, and relative to which arree7ived and contracts
tained in the libel. It appearstnasthefirshtC statemente eons
came to the directors of any e
c"arge 'Dilatation which
wee was c nteintA in an anocyroo„„ leg,dtleust Mr. Bar-
-' • tie 5 tit of November, 1851, on which day ..,r received on
e.., 'the board of direct 1 aepears that
a.. .., _ etch member of , orN who
tvt..ud
' meeting held at Derby, received a similar letter, eed a
es ,
' Mr. Barwell himself. This letter was in sub s -zee"
' ,
.''',..,.' ' same as the libel afterwards published
—r• arenaide
se 1 to items and figures with the . •
and it is identical as he .1.
," e k
A It cherged that Mr Barwell was interested in cart.
ill
: i made by the stores conernitt
e• : , contracts which had been .
nee the contract e ~l
't . . and that his nominee had obtained
theretor 3.4-a.
~'• - . ' 'fair •
prices., This anonymous letter e clearly
- • ' charged Mr. Barwell not only with an interest in the.
intEHLIOU to make gain
contracts, but also with a corrupt . t
let
ter,. it heir g
by them. No notice is taken of
December.
1851.
there is
,Itnonymous; but on the 2d of
another meeting of the directors, when Mr. J,ihn Ellis,
tit.
-
chairman of the nom ,n and Msmt" (-)
1 Parliani
receives a communication from Mr. Irons:d&e . I read
from the affidavit of Mr. Eihs and the letter is--
"Sheffield, 1851. Dec. lst,
"Dear Sir,—A copy of the inctosed letter will aprar
(I expect) in several journals next Saturday. I cannot
Bhapase the board would openly sanction such .conduct,
hilt their vigilance is necessary. I can wait patiently.
but I know my plan of publishing contracts would have
been by tar the best. It lam called on I can give the
Times of .he director, his partner, and the two clerks.
Pray adjourn the matter of letting till you have ievesti-
etted it. ' Yours feethfulty,
' • " Isaac IRoNSIDE.
"John Ellis, E=q., M.P., Chairman of the
Midland Railway Company."
And this letter inclosed a printed slip identical with
What afterwards appeared in the newspaper. The Secree
toy therefore wrote this letter to Mr. Ironside:—
" Midland Railway, Seeretary's Office,
Dec: 2', 1852.
" Sir—The board concludes that you would not bring
the serious charge contained in your letter of yesterday
having
Upon . any anomous commueicAtion, and without
-, satisfied ny
yourself of the resptctabily of your in-
t:ri„tmant and being prepared to suastantiate the charge.
The stores committee are prepared to piece all books
4" Papers connected with the contracts before yeu, and
to give you assistance in investigating the subject upon
• Your giving the name of your informant. The committee
meet to-morrow, but if that day is inconvenient to you,
' they, it ill meet t gain on Tuesday. the 16th inst. Mr.
Cobbs has insti =tines t . ,nee 3.011 a peas.
"I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
"J. F. BELL, Secretary.
"Isaac Ironside, Esq., Sheffield."
ale reply to this Itar. Ironaide writes:—. - .
" Sheffield, 11Yo. O. 1f 51.
" Dear Sir,—l go home early from business and got
5154ra this morning. It denotes a fvregone conclusion,

...

?4.

.p.
;~:,~
'r `

s .
kos:
.41
:

• .

i ,

.