The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-09 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nor. 8.

BUSK V. BEETHAM.

This case came before the Court upon motion to dis-
charge an order pronounced by his Honour the Vice-
Chancellor, making absolute a rule nisi for dissolving
an injunction, restraining the defendant from proceed-
ing with an action-at-law against the plaintiff, for the
recovery of a sum of between 3001. and 4001. It
appeared that the defendant, Mr. Beetham, was the so-
licitor and agent, in 1835, of a projected Company, to
'oe called the Metropolitan Central Railway Company,
the object of which was to have branches, from some
central situation in London, to every railway in the
kingdom. After considerable negotiations with the pro-
prietors of the land over which the different lines were
to extend, an application was made to Parliament for an
Act to enable the parties to carry the project into effect.
That application was unsuccessful, and ultimately the
defendant, Mr. Beetham, delivered in his account
to the Directors of the Company, to the amount
of nearly nine thousand pounds. That amount was
settled in a recent account between him and the Com-
pany, but afterwards he delivered another account for
further business done, to the amount of upwards of
300/. That account the defendant refused to pay, on
the ground that Mr. Beetham was indebted to the Com-
pany. The defendant then brought his action for the
recovery of the amount, to restrain him from proceed-
ing with which an injunction was obtained, which was
ultimately dissolved by the Vice-Chancellor ; and to
discharge that order was the object of the present ap-
plication.
Mr. WIGRAM appeared in behalf of the application.
Mr. WAKEFIELD and Mr. KEENE opposed it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give judg-
ment to-morrow (this day).
The Court did not rise till nearly half-past five
o'clock.

ROLLS' COURT, Nor. 8.
COLLARD V. ALLISON.
The MASTER of the ROLLS, in the course of the
day, gave judgment in this case which was argued on
Monday last, and which came before the Court upon a
motion to restrain the defendants from an alleged in-
fringement of the plaintiff's patent for an improvement
in the construction of piano-fortes. His Lordship
thought it was a matter that ought to be tried at law,
but refused to grant an injunction. The motion was
therefore postponed till the action could be tried,
and the defendant ordered to keep an account in the
meantime.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. S.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY

COMPA NY.

In this case a rule had been obtained calling upon
the defendants to show cause why a writ of manamus
should not issue, directed to them, and commanding
them to make a certain turnpike road, the Oldham and
Rochdale-road, twenty-four in width, with two footpaths
of ten feet wide each, and also to lower the footpath to
the level of the road.

Mr. CRESWELL (with whom was Sir Wm. Follett)
now appeared to show cause against the rule. It ap-
peared that the railway, of which the defendants were
proprietors, crossed the turnpike-road, and it was ar-
ranged that the road should be lowered gradually, and
not exceeding one foot in fifty on one side of the bridge,
and not to exceed one foot in a hundred on the other
side. It was admitted that that had been duly com-
plied with, but there were two complaints against what
the Company had done—one was that although they
bad lowered the road and made it twenty-four feet
wide, they had not lowered the footpath, which
was now nine feet above the level of the road
and, secondly, that they had not made a good road.
It was also alleged that the footpath was now very dan-
gerous, inasmuch as there were flights of steps down to
the road, and there was no railing to protect persons
from falling down into the road. Now the complaints
made in the affidavit showed how injudicious it was to
make applications for mandamuses, while works were in
progress, because, if the road was now inspected, it
would be found to be in a perfect state of repair. 'With
respect to the footpath being nine feet above the level
of the road, if it was lowered as required by the writ,
very great injury and annoyance would be inflicted upon
individuals. There were several cabins and cottages on
the side of the footpath, and if the road was so lowered,
the doors of these houses would be nine feet above the
level of the 'road. There had been also a strong and
handsome iron railing put up along the edge of the foot-
path, so that not the slightest danger could occur to
any one. But to remove all cause of complaint the de-
fendants were ready to do anything that a respectable
engineer thought they ought to do.
Lord DENMAN inquired if that was not a fair propo-
sition, which must satisfy the other side, and prevent
further expense.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr.
ALEXANDEIi) observed that the greater part of the ex-
pense had been already incurred, and he feared the ob.
jet of the trustees would not he obtained by his
Learned Friend's proposition. The Learned Gentle-
man then proceeded at some length to argue in support
of the rule.

'rue COURT said they would look into the affidavits.

COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 8.

CREWE V. SEWELL.

Mr. MANNING stated the case. It wis an action
brought by an old man against a respectable tridestrian
for an assau c. The only witness that was examined, a
lad of 17, stated that tie plaintiff had brought some
sticks to the house of witness's master for sale. Defen-
dant had seized him and shaken him by the collar. It
came out on cross-examination that Mr. Sewell declared
at the time that plaintiff had stolen the sticks from his
lad.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOCRD was for the defendant, and
ridiculed the case as quite trumpery. The old man had,
it was clear, sustained no injury, or it would have been
proved. The plaintiff had not dealt fairly with the case,
for he had not produced other witnesses who bad seen
the affair, and also knew the circumstances, which would
have given a different colouring to it. It was plain that
the object-only was to get a verdict by proving merely a
bare legal assault. This he must admit bad h3en done.
But he trusted that the good sense of tL: Jury would
induce them to give as damages the smallest coin known
in this realm, and thus discharge such litigious proceed-
ings on a transaction which could easily have been sum-
marily disposed of by Magistrates, without putting a
respectable tradesman to heavy expenses. the plaintiff
suing in forma pauperis.
Verdict—Oae farthing damages.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nor. 8.
MARPLES V. PLANT.
Sir GREGORY LEWIN moved to set aside the ver-
dict in this case. He said it was an action for seduc-
tion, which was tried before Mr. Justice Coltman at the
late York Assizes, when to the surprise of every one
in Court the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 1001. The case rested wholly and solely upon
tne evidence of the girl, and she was most distinctly
contradicted by six other persons unknown to each
ceher—unconnected with the case, and above suspicion.
The eeirl in her cross-examination, swore that she did
not know a person named Watts, or another parson
named --. She had heard of such persons that day
for the first time. That she did not know a person named
Ashmore, and did not go with her and other persons to
houses of ill-fame kept by Watts and others, and there
behave improperly with men. She swore she had never
been turned out of a dancing school for improper beha-
viour, nor was she in the habit of being out late, and
going home making noises, and sometimes getting in by
the window ; nor had she ever before been pregnant,
nor before that day had she ever known or heard of a
person named Booth. In every particular point she
.was positively contradicted. Ashmore was called, and
swore that she had long known Marples, and that on
several occasions she accompanied her and ether persons
to houses of ill-fame, where they drank spirits, &c. It
was proved that she got a person named Ann Taylor
to write to Th•enas Booth, Esq., making appoint-
ments ; and she (Taylor) was induced to do so be-
cause Marples said he was the father of her child.
It was further proved that Booth and she were
frequently seen going into improper places ; and a
most respectable surgeon, a member of the Society of
Friends, named Fairbank, said, Marples called upon him
stating that she was pregnant, and demanded from him
a certificate to that effect. In order to check imposi-
tion, it was the practice of the surgeons of Sheffield to
demand the name of the father before giving such a
document--he did so, and she gave the name of Booth,
which he wrote on the back of the certificate. The
Learned Judge told the Jury that if the girl's story
were true, it was a case of the most t xtraordi-
nary conspiracy he had ever met with. Notwithstand-
ing all this, to the surprise of every one, the Jury
li
found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 1001. , damages.
The COURT said they had communicated with the
Learned Judge—he was dissatisfied with the verdict,
therefore there would be a rule.
Rule nisi granted.