The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE•

COURT OF7;IIANCERY-IVor. 23.
CAMPBELL V. MACKAT.—CAMPRELL V. CAMPBELL.
This matter came before the Court upon a petition in both
the above causes, praying that the sums of 21,0001. and
11,000 t. might be transferred into the name of the Account-
General of the Court. The petition was presented by
Charles Campbell and Colonel Horne, who, together with
Lady Dorothea Campbell, were the trustees and guardians of
the children of the lete General Campbell ; and the petition
had been considered necessary by the petitioners, in conse-
quence of Lady Dorothea Campbell refusing to obey the
order of the Court pronounced Some time since, by which she
was directed to bring the children from abroad, and reside
with them in this country. The trustees finding it impossible
to ascertain where Lady Campbell was now residing with her
children,. were anxious that the whole of the property involved
in the suit sle.uld be placed under the control of the Court, in
order that all responsibility might be taken off their hands,
and for that object they had presented the present petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after the case had been argued at
scare length, declined making any order.
WATSON V. MURRAY.
The arguments on this part-heard case were resumed to-
day. The case came before the Court upon exceptions to the
Master's Report, one set of which his Lordship overruled
yesterday. The bill was filed for the purpose of having the
partnership acounts taken between a gentleman named
Stalker and the defendant Murray, who were jointly interested
in the proceeds of a ship called the Devonshire. In the year
1809 an agreement was entered into between Stalker and
.Murray, the former of whom was the managing owner of the
Devonshire, and the latter was the commander, by which i:
was agreed that Murray %las to have two-thirds, and Stalker
Mac-third of tie profits made in the voyages of the vessel.
As ;he time the agreement was entered into, the vessel had
made two voyages, and was about to set out upon her third.
The parties, the agreement had been executed, disco-
ycred that its provisL:ne would not answer all eel ph
in-
tended by them, and in ors !er to meet ter all
they had in
vi, w, a memorandum was entioreCel on the agreement that if
either should die in the course of any of the prospective
voyages of the ship, then the executor of the one so dying
Should be entitled to all the benefits; he would have
had if he had lived, and if any lose was incurred
that he %weld bear his part of it. With this arrange-
ment the ship sailed upon her third voyage, which
she completed to the satisfaction of all parties. In
April. 1811, she started u;.'on her fourth voyage; previous to
this period, however, Thomas Sttlker being in a very ill state
of health, appointed his brother, Daniel Stalker, as his agent
to act for him ; and Murray also appointed him as his (Mur-
ray's) agent, to act for him, in case of Thomas Stalker's death,
with respect to all the affairs of the vessel. Thomas Stalker
died on the 16th of May, 1811, in the course of the fourth
voyage, and by his will he appointed Daniel Stalker, and a
gentleman named Watts, his executors, who proved the will.
Watts died in 1820, and in the following 7car Daniel Stalker,
in his character of surviving executor of homes Stalker, filed
the bill against Murray, insisting, amongst other things, that
the accounts of the first, second, and third voyages were upon,
and prayed an account generally of all the transactions that
had taken place. Upon the case coming on for hearing, the
Court declared that there had been a settlement of the three
first voyages ; but with respect to the fourth, the Court di-
rected a reference to the Master, to take the accounts upon
the footing of the settled accounts of the three first voyages.
The Master, under that order, had taken the accounts, and
made his report on the 31st of May, 1828. To that report,
neither party being satisfied, each took exceptions.
His LORDSHIP overruled all the exceptions but one, on which
he reserved his judgment.

VICE- CHAIV CELL OR' S COURT, Nov. 23.

BAIL COURT, Nor. 23.

THE QUEEN V. BLUNDEN.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 23.

SPARKS V. BARRETT AND ANOTHER.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WILSON.

The arguments on this case, alfich were commenced yester-
day, were re-assumed to-day. The case came before the
Court upon three demurrers, which had been put in by the
old Corporation of Leeds to the information filed by the At-
torney-General at the relation of the new Corporation of that
town. The object of the information was to obtain the decla-
ration of the Court that the alienation by the old Corporation
of Leeds of 6.5001. stock and 500/. secured by deeds on the
Leeds and Wakefield Turnpike Trusts was against the
spirit of the Municipal Reform Bill, and therefore that
those funds ought to be restored and placed under the con-
troul of the present Town Council. From the statements
of the information it appeared that the old Corporation
of Leeds came to a resolution on the 30th of May, 1835,
a few days before the introduction of the Municipal Reform
Bill into the House of Commons, that the sum of 6,5001.
stock and 500/. secured on the Tolls of the Leeds and Wake-
field Turnpike Trusts should be absolutely transferred
and alienated from the Corporation, and placed under the
controul of Mr. Wilson, Mr. Beckett, and another gentle-
man, upon trust, for certain purposes, to be provided for by
deed. The deed declaring the purposes to which those
funds were to be devoted was executed on the 29th of No-
vember, 1835, two or three months after the Municipal Reform
Bill became law, and the principal question was the resolu-
tion for alienating the property having been come to before the
introduction of the Municipal Act, but its object not being car-
ried out by deed until after the passing of that Act, whether
the old Corporation were justified in law and equity in the
course they had adopted. Among the different objects to
which the property so alienated had been devoted by the deed,
was 525/. to the Recorder of the Borough ; 105/. to the De-
puty Recorder ; 750/. to the Treasurer of the Leeds Infir-
mary ; 500/. to the Leeds Fever Hospital ; 2501. to the Leeds
Public Dispensary ; 1,000/. to the Incumbent of Christ
Church ; 509/. for building a gallery in another Church ;
1,0001. to the Minister ; and the residue was to go to the Fay-
ment of the debts of the Corporation.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, 1110 appeared fur some of the
partiost demurring, not concluding his address yesterday, re-
sumed this warning. The demurrer asserted that the record
contained no cas, upon which the Court, consisten ly with the
rules of law, could rrake any decree. No party or political
object ought to be cons:!lered in the case, and all the. the
Court 1t..al to do was to look 11 the principles of the law as
they existed before the passing of :lie Municipal Reform Act.
The corporation of the borough of Leeds had existed ever
since the time of Charles the Second, and :t was most singu
lar that that corporation now came forward to complain of
those very acts which they had sanctioned bett.ad. The
Learned Gentleman, after referring to the various purposes
for which the property had been alienated, said it was totally
unnecessary for him to take into consideration the sums
awarded to the Recorder and Deputy Recorder, as those gen-
tlemen, no doubt, desirous to avoid the turbulent waters of the
Municipal Reform Rill, bad declined to receive those gifts. If
that was not the ground o.i which they had refused to receive
those sums, he was at a loss to know what it was; as under
the provisions of the Nlulicipal Reform Bill lie was .sure all
who accepted such offices did it for the lonoria gralia, and not
for the lueri causal.—( Laughter.)
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE and Mr. BETUELL followed on the
same side. .

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

Tne SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Court in opposition
t the demurrer, but bad not concluded when the Court roce,
shortly before four o'clock. The further argument will be pro-
ceeded with to-morrow (this day).

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 23.
TILE QUEEN V. JONES.

This was a rule calling upon the defendant to show cause
why a writ of mandamus should not issue, directed to thu de-
fendant, and commanding him to deliver up to Thomas Mor-
gan, or some other person to be appointed by the Court, all
such records, papers, &c., as pertained to the office of pro-
thonotory of the late Court of Great Sessions of the counties
of Denbigh and Montgomery. Mr. Morgan was prothono-
tary of the Court, and Mr. Jones his deputy, and by the Act
of Parliament abolishing these Courts, it was enacted that
compensation should be made to the person filling the office
of prothonotary, and that the records, papers, &c., should be
kept by the sane person, and in the same place, as before the
passing of the Act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now appeared to spew cause
against the rule, and contended that the documents having
been previously to the passion, of the Act in the possession of
the defendant, an application for their removal could not be
sustained.

Mr. A LEXANDE It was heard in support of the rule.
The Court said, in point of fact the records were kept by
the same person and in the same place as before the passing
of the Act, and therefore the pre..ent application was quite
unnecessary. Thu rule must he discharged, and with costs.
CRIMINAL IN YORMATION.-THE QUEEN V. THE PROPRIETOR OP
TIIE CHESTER CHRONICLE."

Sir W. FOLLETT moved for a rule to show cause why a cri-
minal information should not be filed against Thomas Fletcher,
the editor of the Chester Chronicle. Ile made the application on
behalf of the Rev. Francis Nlansters, Vicar of Runcorn, in Ches-
ter, and his affidavit stated that the Rev. Gentleman was Vicar of
Runcorn since the year 1816; he was then a married man, but
his wife had died in IP-1, and after her death his sister kept
house for him. Among other servants in the family, there
was one named Mary Hinde, who attended upon his sister who
was in ill health. In the latter part of last year the girl was
delivered of a child, although no one had been previously
aware of her pregnancy. Tile child being found dead, a co-
roner's jury was impannelled, and a verdict of wilful murder re-
turned against Mary Hinde, who was committed to Chester
gaol to take her trial for the offence. At the Spring Assizes
following, a grand jury threw out the bill, and in conse-
quence bf these occurrences certain rumours were circulated
against the Rev Nlr. Alansters. The girl gas questioned as
to whether Mr. Nlattsters was the father of the child, but
she positively denied it, and proceedings were subsequently
instituted in the Consistory Court against Mr. Mansters. lu the
month of January the editor of the Chester Chronicle pub-
a paragraph relative to the rumours afloat about the sup-
posA father of the child, and on the 29:h September, the day
after the Consistory Court sat, an article appeared relative to
the proceedings therein (which the Court was aware were
strictly private), stating that the girl Hinde had given evidence
Against the Rev. Gentleman—that since the rumours had been
cii culated his congregation had dwindled down to a very small
number, a few Sundays previously there having been only 11
souls in the church, while the Dissenting chapels were
crowded. The article further stated that if such charges were
drought against a Dissenting Minister he would be at once
removed ; but things were differently managed in the Church
of England. where a long life of immorality was scarcely
misdeed. Now he (Sir W. Follett) held in his bands sill.
viii 4 totally denying all these assertions, and stating further
Chk.
___l(b&was addressed by Mr. Nlansters to the editor of
hat effect, which the editor refused to publish,
,ragraph over the leading article, denying that
my charge against the Rev. Gentleman, but
assertion that he was the father of the child,
isclosures had been made to which they would
lc. The proceedings in the Consistory Court

hlTi—tiit,.... 2 ,ON;
k-i *._--7=,gutatt.tertel
t:_i,.l C**F664lglabe
-0 VrrOat. °LOA
...• N'4't
___7l/.;-1 f,alb(2s:-..1
\SAz-.:.-1,A.,',...

bad not yct terminated, but Mr. Manstcrs distinctly denied all
the charges brought against him.
COURT—Take a Rule.
TNE QUEEN V. MUNT2 AND OTHERS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it, would -oblige him very
much if the Court would allow the case to stand over till to-
morrow.
Sir F. Ponnoric was willing to afford every accommodation
to his Learned Friend, but he feared if it was again postponed
there was little chance of its coming on that term.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the Court that his clients
were most anxious to have the matter heard during the pre-
sent term ; and it was finally arranged that the case should
come on to-morrow morning.

Mr. Justice lATTLEDALE came into Court at ten o'clock.

The following persons, with several other public func-
tionaries, took the oaths and subscribed to the declaration :
The Duke of Cleveland, Lord Hill, Commander-in-Chia;
Sir Robert Peel, Sir Henry Hardinge, and Sir G. Rose,
Privy Councillors ; Mr. Cittlar Fergusson, M. P., Ju:lge-
Advocate-General ; Lord Lilford, Lord in Waiting; Sir
Henry Parnell, Paymaster-General to the Forces; Lord
Fitzroy S imerset, Military Secretary to the Commander-in-
Chief; Sir Willoughby Gordon, Quartermaster-General to
the Forces; Sir John Hill, Superintendant to the Dock-
yards, Deptford; and Sir John Macdonald, Adjutant-General
to the Forces.

Sir Wm. FOLLETT reminded his Lordship that he had yes-
terday moved that a criminal information should be filed against
the defendant in thi3 case, the pat ticttlars of which were re-
ported when the application was made, and requested to know
what decision the Court was pleased to come to on the subject?
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE replied that he had considered the
subject of the application, and had come to the conclusion that
the rule could not be granted.
The COURT then proceeded with nisi prius causes, all of
which were undefended.

In this case the plaintiff has brought an action to recover
damages in the sum of 3071., for goods sold and delivered.
The defendants appeared by two different attorneys, and the
cause, which was set down for trial in Trinity term last, has
from time to time been protracted, the delay being, in some
instances, occasioned by the defendants taking each a different
course of defence.

Mr. RICHARDS, in the present sittings, obtained a rule, on
the part of the defendant Barrett, for further delay, and that
a commission should issue to examine, by interrogations, a
material witness, named Davis, who had gone to Adelaide or
elsewhere," in the colony of Australia, since a subpcena
wa3 served upon him to attend at the trial and give evidence.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE this day showed cause against the
rule, and read over the several affidavits for the purpose of
showing that the cause might have been tried before the de-
parture of Davis from this country, but for delays designedly
procured by the defendants. Although the cause was set down
for trial in June last, and was again in the paper for
the 16th of October, the defendants did not serve the
sulyi.eena on the witness, who was now represented to be so
material, until the morning of the 14th of that month, the
witness being on the point of sailing that day to Australia.
Mr. Rienaans replied, and went over the affidavits, con.
tending that the several postponements of the trial were
strictly regular, and unavoidable on the part of the defendants.
Mr. Justice BosANQuET—The defendants' affidavits only
state that Davis is a material witness to the defence ; but they
do not say that there is a good defence.—(A —( A laugh.) I have
bean looking for these words.
The Couirr having consulted,
The CHIEF JUSTICE said that the defendants, by acting se-
parat'ly, had contrived to essoign the plaintiff. By playing off
different modes of defence against him, first Barret, and then
Gillett, then Barret, and then Gillett again, they got him
completely upon the fork of an essoign.—( A laugh.) How-
ever, it might be hard that the defendant Barret, who applies
for this rule, should be compelled to pay his money, if he have
a good defence, the Court directs the Commission to issue,
on condition that the amount claimed (3071.) be paid into
Court within ten days.

Wednesday the Committee of Management chosen by the
Governors at large to direct the affairs of the Royal Free
Hospital, Greville-street, Hatton-garden, waited upon' the
LORD MAYOR, for the purpose of requesting his Lord-
ship's interference to procure the use of the Guildhall,
with all its present decorations, in aid of the funds of the
institution.

The LORD MAYOR said that the claims of the institution
appeared to be very strong, and nothing would be more
gratifying to him than the ability to forward the object the
Committee had in view. He, however, believed that to
aid the funds by granting the use of the Hall would be,
under existing circumstances, quite impracticable, as busi-
ness had been already very much impeded by the late pre-
parations.
Immediately after this application was thus negatived,
for the Committee would not undertake any project of
doubtful success, orders were given to dismantle the hall ;
and in a very few hours that most magnificent place began
to assume its old appearance.
A respectable man, who resides in the neighbourhood of
East Smithfield, applied to the LORD MAYOR for advice as
to the course he should pursue with respect to a female child,
about 'line or ten years of age, which he had found under
peculiar circumstances, the parish officers of \Vhitechapcl,
where the little girl bad resided with her mother, having
peremptorily and insolently refused to take her under their
protection, or give her any support whatever. The facts
were these : _ _

On the day on which her Majesty dined at Guildhall
the child was forced by the pressure of the crowd, from
her mother's side, near Temple-b ►r, and lost amongst the
crowd. The mother had been since that day wandering
about the City in a state of distraction, searching for her
daughter, and, notwithstanding the facilities of the police
communications, nothing appeared to be known of the
loss until very recently. On Saturday last the applicant,
as he was walking about a mile below Greenwich, met
with a little girl, and, being struck with her forlorn
and miserable appearance, questioned herr and learned
from her answers that she. had been lost, as above stated.
He brought her to London, hoping that the mother
might still be met with. By a notice left at the Lam-
beth-street Police-office he discovered that the mother
was to be heard of at a lodging-house in Essex-street,
Whitechapel, and on proceeding to the house, accompanied
by the little girl, he ascertained that the wretched pa-
rent had slept there from the night on which the child was
:ost, and had gone out every morning to look for her
child until Friday, since which day she had never returned.
The applicant had hired persons to search for the poor
woman, and sent written notices to all the police-offices,
but he had received no tidings of her ; but it was believed
that she was still in or about London, wandering in search
of her child, and the great object of the applicant in ad-
dressing the Lord Mayor was to obtain publicity to the
fact that the child was found, in order that it might meet
the eye of somebody who should see or hear of the mother,
who was described as a tali middle aged woman, having a
defect in one of her eyes, speaking in a broad Scotch accent,
dressed in a black velvet bonnet, small faded shawl, dark-
coloured faded gown, and without shoes, and having an in-
fant in her arms about three years old, dressed in a white
straw bonnet and nankeen spencer.
The LORD MAYOR recollected that a poor Scotch-wo•
man, named Ross, the description of whom exactly corres-
ponded with that given of the mother of the child, called at
the justice room soon after the Queen's visit, and complain-
ed that she had lost her child.
Mr. HOBLER said that the poor woman had been relieved
from his Lordship's private fund, and was no doubt the
mother of the little girl.
The applicant said that the child said her name was
Betsey Ross'--that her father, George Ross, was a native
of Glasgow, a private in the 7th Hussars, and had been at
the battle of Waterloo, where he had received a wound in
the head, and that he had died two or three years ago in
St. Giles's Hospital ; that since that time her mother had
supported herself and two children partly by washing,
partly by selling from place to place little books and
matches, and partly by charity.
The story of the child's adventures since she lost her
mother, was, the applicant said, touchink in the extreme.
She was now at the house of Daniel Sullivan, N 0.4, Essex-
street, Whitechapel, where the mother had lodged, and
was taken care of at the applicant's expence, the parish offi-
cers having scouted his application in her behalf.
The LORD MAYOR said it was scarcely credible that
parish officers could so completely throw off the feelings of
nature. _ _

Mr. HoncEa said that there was a premium for .casting
off humanity ; plenty of customers might he expected.
The applicant was again advised to solicit the parish,
and he said he would do so.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
J. Willis was brought b.:fore Mr. DYER, and Mr.
Couturov, charged with having stolen a carriage holder,
the property of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex.

. . .
He was committed.
John Gould was brought up for examination on a chargo
of having stolen 2501., belonging to a retired publican re-
cently deceased, named Jones.
The case has been already reported. The short facts
are that the prisoner's wife, Harriet, was engaged to nurse
Mr. Jones ; that Mr. Jones, a day or two before his death,
told his brother that after his death he would find 2501.
in bank-notes in a box, which were to be his. After the
death of Mr. Jones the box was opened, but only 20/, was
found. The prisoner and his wife were suspected and ap-
prehended, but they resolutely denied all knowledge of the
property.

_ . .
After hearing evidence the male prisoner was asked if
he chose to say where the gold was? He replied doggedly
that he did not see how it would Nalco his case better or
worse to say anything.

Mr. DYER should remand both prisoners for further
inquiry.

The male prisoner, who, up to the time of the robbery,
was in the service of the Honourable Frederick Villiers,
on being•rcmoved from the bar had an interview with his
master. The result was, that Sherwin, the officer, who
has been actively engaged in the investigation, went to a
place, pointed out by the prisoner, and found 9..09 so-
vereigns.

MARYLEBONE.
Wednesday a genteel-looking young man, named George
Gerard, Who said lie was a fancy cabinet-maker, was
brought up in custody, and placed at the bar before Mr.
AWLINSON.

Mr. Thomas Stout, landlord of the King William pub-
lic-house, High-street, Hampstead, stated that on the pre-
vious afternoon the prisoner entered his house, and called
for a glass of ale, in payment for which he threw down on
the bar counter a half-crown piece, which he at once saw
was a bad one, He returned it to the prisoner, telling him
so. The latter said he was not aware of it, and putting it
into his pocket, put down a good half-crown, out of which
lie took for the ale. The prisoner then left the house, but
witness, having some suspicion of him, followed him, and
saw him go into the shop of Mr. Miller, grocer. On his
coming out witness still followed him till he met with a po-
liceman, to whom he gave him in charge on suspicion of
being in the town with intent to pass bad money, and at-
tnr pting to defraud him by tendering a bad hall--...rown.
This the prisoner repeatedly denied, but witness being po-
sitive of the fact, the charge was taken, and the prisoner
locked up.
Police constable S 38 said the prisoner was given into
his custody by the prosecutor, when he denied the charge ;
and on searching, him at the station-house witness found on
him a purse containing thirty-six sovereigns, and loose
in his pockets, Bs. 6d. in silver, and Bd. in copper, all
good money.
The prisoner, who said he lived at No. 29, William street,
Hampstead-road, declared his innocence of the charge.
Mr. RAWLINSON remarked that there was no pretence
for the prosecutor making such a charge ; and he might
think himself lucky if the prisoner put up with it.
The money having been restored to him he was liberated.

T_EL UN, LONDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1837.