The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 28
WARBURTON V. EDGE.

Mr. K.' BRUCE, with whom was Mr. ANDERDON, support,
a petition for a reference to the Master as to the nature and
extent of a solicitor's lieu on papers relating to an intestate's
estate, and that he might be ordered to deliver the papers to
the Receiver, subject to the lien, under the fellow ing circum-
stances :—The bill was filed originally to establish a large
pecuniary demnd against a solicitor narn,d Edge. Edge
died intestate, and the suit was revived, and a decree obtained
against his administratrix, who was one of his daughters, Mar-
garetta Cordelia Edge. That lady, the Learned Counsel
stated was at present rrsiding in the dominions of his Majesty
the King of the French, where she set no great store on the
order of the Court that she should pay a certain 1,000/., and
costs. She had, in fact, carried away with her by far the
greater part of Mr. Edge's estate, which was sworn under
30,0001. A Mr. Steadman acted as her solicitor in the suit,
and had in his possession several documents, particularly a
policy of insurance, which might enable the receiver who had
been appointed after Miss Edge's disappearance, to collect
some portion of the estate. The present petition against him
was founded on two late cases of Baker v. Henderson, and
Bell v. Taylor. The plaintiff only desired to have it ascer-
tained what was the extent of Mr. Steadman's lien, with a view
to his being paid out of the intestate's estate, in a due course of
administration.

Mr. JACOB and Mr. TORRIANO opposed the prayer of the pe-
tition as unprecedented.
His HONOUR dismissed the petition. But as Mr. Steadman
had led the petitioner into the informality under the impres-
sion that no objection would be made upon technical grounds,
he would not give costs.

BAIL COURT, JAN. 28

THE EDINBURGH AND LEITH RAILWAY COMPANY V. DAWSON

In this case a motion had been made and argued to compel
the Edinburgh and Leith Railway Company to give security
for costs.

Mr. Justice PATTESON, in giving his judgment, said, the
first ground for the opposition to the demand for security for
costs on the part of the defendant was, that it was made in
bad faith, inasmuch as in all the affidavits it did not appear
that the demand of the plaintiffs could not be resisted on trial,
and tie defendant had made no affidavit of merits. But in a
motion for security for costs it was nat necessary to have me-
rits. The action knight he got rid of on some technical ob-
jections, and it could not be said that, then the defendant
would not be entitled to costs. Hcre the had faith was the
not having merits, but his Lordship said he had never heard
that it was held necessary to make an affidavit of merits
in such cases. Another objection to the motion respected the
property of the plaintiffs in England, it having been asserted
on their parts that they had money and Exchequer bills at
their bankers in London, Prior to the late Act, neither
money nor Exchequer bills could be taken in execution—at
the present they could. The money and Exchequer-bills of
the Company in this case was therefore property to be taken
in execution. Sill it was not property of that description re-
quired as a security for costs, which meant something more
permanent, and tot so readily passed away from hand to hand.
In this instance also the objection to the ground of application
failed. The third objection was that the application was too late
after the party had had time to plead with agreement to take
short notice of trial. This objection his Lordship also over-
ruled, and ultimately decided that the rule for security for
costs should be made absolute..

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, J4N. 22

V. OASTLER,

This was an action on a promissory note, and also of detinue
for deeds, brought against Mr. Richard Oastler, who has Re-
quited some notoriety in Yorkshire; the venue had been laid
in Middlesex.

Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY applied on behalf of the defend-
ant for a rule to show cause why the venue should not be
changed from Middlesex to Yorkshire. on the grnuud that all
the defendant's witnesses were resident in Yorkshire, and that
the expense of trying in Middlesex would be very great.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, lex. 28.
DEFECT IN TIIE BAIL CAUSE.—The Hon. and Rev. Fre-
derick Emanuel Curzon (a son of Lord Teynham), applied
to be liberated on bail until his hes, ir:g ; he was confined in
Derby gaol, and was not required to be in attendance.
he'l proposed sureties were questioned by the Learned
Chief Commissioner. They stated that they were not per-
sonally acquainted with the Rev. Gentleman, but had been
solicited by a customer of theirs to become bail for his ap-
pearance at Derby.
The COURT accepted the sureties, and they entered into a
recognizance in the sum of 851., to produce the insolvent on
the 20th March before a Commissioner on his circuit at Derby.
In country cases very few perst.ns are admitted to bail, as
the sureties are obliged to attend the Court in London.. The
Commissioners have regretted the omission in the Act enabling
them to take bail in the country. That humane provision (as
a ♦Morning Contemporary very justly remarks), has acted
almost as a dead letter in country cases, from the great ex-
pense incurred in coming to London to justify. It is to be
hoped, among the amendments expected to be made in the
measure, the bail clause will not be overlooked. Several
persons in London prisons were liberated today on bail.

POLICE ;NI'IMLIGENCE.

WORSHIP-STREET.

- -
DESTITUTION. —Yest .rday John Jones, senor, and John
Jones, junior, aged twelve years, were placed at the bar before
Mr. BROUGIITON, charged with stealing two pairs of trowsers,
the property of a Jew salesman, of the name of Marks.

G 7, Seijeant of Ponca!, stated, that having been told by
Ihe•elder prisoner that he had a Nile, with six children, who
were almost in a starving state, and from the representations of
Roper. he coMmunicated the circumstances to Mr. Macie, the
superintendent, who immediate v directed the inspector( Robin-
son) toinquire into the case. , The inspector on Sunday morn-
ing proceeded there, and found the state of the family as du.
scribed by the officer. There was neither bed, chair, nor
table ; though a substitute for a bed had been contrived for the
three younger children, and which consisted of dried potatoe
peelings. The inspector promptly made a statement to the
superintendent, who directed the inspector to acquaint the pa-
rochial authorities of Shoreditch with the destitute situation of
the family. In the evening the inspector again went to the.
prisoners' room, when he was told that Mr. eoste, the relieving
officer of Shoreditch had left 2s. with them, and had directed
them to come to the workhouse the next day.
The wife observed that they had been struggling hard
against adversity, and had pledgeereverything but what they
stood up in, to support existence.
The constable was ultiirmely ordered to take the wife, with
the prisoners, who were discharged, to the workhouse, which
having done, be returned and stated that they were at once
admitted.