The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-23 00:00:00

This case came before the Court upon motion for
a receiver of the personal estate and effects of the late
Mr. James Wood, the rich banker of Gloucester, whose
vast property has made so much noise in this country,
and given such profitable employment to the gentlemen
of the long robe. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Goodlake,
claimed to be the next of kin, or one of the next of kin
of Mr. James Wood who died in 1836, possessed of
personal property to the extent of upwards of a million
of money, and in that character she filed her bill, for the
purpose of obtaining an account of the property of
which Mr. Wood died possessed ; and also for
a receiver during the pendency of the litigation with
regard to the validity of the will. Upon the death
of Mr. Wood, Sir M. Wood, Mr. Chadbourn
Mr. Osborne, and a gentleman named Surman, produced
in the Prerogative Court two papers of the 2d and 3d De-
cember 1834, which they asserted constituted the will
of Mr. James Wood, and under the provisions of which
all of them were considerably benefited ; a caveat was
put in to the probate ; sabsequently another paper was
put in by Mrs. Goodlake, and also one by Mr. Helps.
On the case coming on before Sir Herbert Jenner, he
decided against the validity of all the papers, and from
that decision the parties appealed to the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council, and that appeal was at
present pending. In this state of circumstances, Sir
M. Wood, on the 27th of July, 1839, filed his bill
marked before the Lord Chancellor, that bill he subse-
quently obtained, and an order from the Court to
dismiss, and he then filed another bill, marking
it for the Rolls. There the matter rested
till November last, when Mrs. Goodlake filed
her bill. In the interval between these transactious
Mr. Chadbourn, one of the parties to Sir M. Wood's
bill, died, and the suit therefore became abated. No-
thing, however, was done to provide against that abate-
ment until after Mrs. Goodlake's bill was filed ; and
under these circumstances the question was in which
suit the receiver ought to be appointed, as being ad-
mitted on all hands that such an officer was essentially
necessary for the due administration of the property,
which consisted in a great measure of money in the
Funds, the interest of which was wholly unproductive.
Some short time since a motion for a receiver was made
before the Master of the Rolls, in which his
Lordship had not yet given judgment, ob-
serving at the conclusion of the arguments that
he doubted very much, on its being intimated
to him that a similar motion was apt to be made before
the Vice-Chancellor whether he ought not to postpone
his judgment till that motion was heard and decided.
Mr. WAKEFIELD who appeared in support of the mo-

tion, was proceeding to argue that the present was the
suit in which the receiver ought to be granted, when
he was interrupted by
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, who stated that as he un-
derstood the late orders, he was not at liberty to make
any order in the suit filed by Sir M. Wood, and if such
was the case, how was it possible for him to deter-
mine in which of the suits the receiver ought
to be appointed. His Honour thought that the
best course would be to let the motion stand over
for a short time, as he was determined, under existing
circumstances, not to make any order in the present
cause until he had had a consultation with the Master
of the Rolls as to his construction of the late orders.

If, upon the construction of those orders, the Master of
the Rolls should think there was no impropriety in his
hearing the present motion he would do so. His
Honour thought that he was bound to adopt. this course,
or he should be violating that respect which one Court
owed to another, and more especially so when the two
Courts formed part of the same species of jurisdiction.
The motion must therefore stand over, and in the mean-
time he would have a communication with the Master
of the Rolls, after which he would let the parties know
the result.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, DEC. 21.
THE MERCERS' COMPANY V. HUDSON.
This was an action to recover compensation for the
damage done to the plaintiffs' property, by reason of
the defendant having raised a building so high as to
obstruct the light and air which came to the plaintiffs'
windows.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir W. Follett supported
the plaintiffs' case ; and Mr. Thesiger, and another
Learned Gentleman, that of the defendant.
The present action arose under the following circum-
stances :—The plaintiffs were the owners of a certain
warehouse, No. 13, King's Arms-yard, which was let
on lease to a Mr. Nicholson, who had been in posses-
sion since 1815. In the year 1834, an Act of Parlia-
ment was obtained for the building of a new street, to
run from Lothbury to Finsbury. This street, Moor-
gate-street, passed close by the western side of the
plaintiffs' property. There was a slip of land between
the warehouse and the street, which the Corporation of
the City let to the defendant, upon condition of his
erecting a handsome frontage on it. The defendant
in the execution of his contract had erected one of
the most imposing, but at the same time the most ab-
surd, buildings to be found in London. Ithad a frontage of
40 feet, was four stories high, but was only seven feet
in depth at one end, and tapered away to two feet at
the other. There was not even room to turn round in
it. Of this building the plaintiffs complained, as it ob-
structed the free access of light and air to their pro-
perty, as it was several feet higher than the former
building.
Several witnesses were called, when the Counsel for
the defence contended that the Legislature in giving a
remedy for such a nuisance as that now complained of,
never contemplated that persons were to come to a jury
to gain damages for every slight change in the quantity
of light and air which they might enjoy by reason of any
new building built in their vicinity, for on that ground
people living on the one side of a street might complain
of houses being erected on the other side of the
street, inasmuch as they would deprive them of a por-
tion of the light they enjoyed prior to their erection.
The Legislature intended that the injury sustained
should be such a serious diminution of light as to inter-
fere with the carrying on of any trade or profession.
Lord DENMAN having shortly summed up, the Jury
returned a verdict for the defendant on the first issue,
and for the plaintiffs on the second, thus confirming the
plaintiff's right to all the air and light, but denying that
the defendant's building had obstructed the light or air

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Mr. Maltho, proprietor of the King's Head, public-
house, James-street, Covent-garden, was charged with
a violation of the Mutiny Act, in refusing to receive two
soldiers who were billetted upon him.

The landlady of the house, in the absence of her hus-
band, appeared to answer the charge. She admitted
that she had refused to receive the soldiers, her husband
being absent at the time, but said she had done so in ig-
norance of the law on the subject ; in consideration of
which the defendant was fined in the mitigated penalty
of 20s.