The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT DEC. 2.
BLOOD V. THE BIRMINGHAM AND DERBY JUNCTION
RAILROAD.

This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendants from digging, cutting up, or preparing a certain
piece of land, containing four acres belonging to the plain-
tiT, at Bolehall, in the parish of Tamworth. The of jest
was to prevent the defendants carrying on their works for
the railroad until it should be decided whether interest
since last August upon the money tobe paid by the Railway
Company, amounting to 1,620/., should be awarded by the
Court, for which purpose a bill had been filed.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR refused the application with
osts.

ROLLS' COURT, Dac. 2.
CROOK V. BARTON-CONTEMPT OF COURT.

This was an application for a writ of habeas corpus to
bring up the body of a man ;named Brcnan, now in the
custody of the Sheriff of Kent, and to have him committed
to the Fleet Prison for contempt of Court, under the
following circumstances :—The plaintiffs, who are the
creditors of the late Mr. George Barton Greenwood
(well-known about town as a most eccentric character,
and a great cricket-player), procured an order of the
Court of Chancery, appointing Mr. William Edward
Graves, of Staple-Inn-Buildings, receiver of the rents of
certain houses and other premises, part of the estate of
Mr. Greenwood, situated in Wood-street, Brompton, near
Chatham, in the county of Kent. The tenants of this
property having refused to pay any rent to the receiver, he
obtained legal authority to take possessisn of the premises,
for which purpose, on the 17th of November, he served
Edward Brenan with an order in the cause, commanding
him to pay to the receiver 401., being the arrears of rent
due to the estate. On Mr. Grave's demanding the money
from Brenan, he swore he would burn the houses down,
attempted to strike him with a hammer, swore he would
murder him ; and, when the hammer was taken from him,
he attempted to strike at his head with a butcher's cleaver.
Brenan was taken into custody for this assault, and com-
mitted to gaol by the Magistrates for want of bail.
Mr. AYRTON applied for a writ of habeas corpus, to
bring up the body of Brenas, now in Chatham Gaol, and
to have him committed to the custody of the Warden of the
Fleet for this act of contempt of the authority of this Court.
The MASTER of the ROLLS would not interfere to punish
a man twice for the same offence. If after his imprison-
ment had expired he still persisted in his contempt, the
Court would entertain a motion for his committal.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Doe. 2.
THE QUEEN V. MURPHY AND DOUGLAS•
In this case, which was not concluded on Saturday when
we want to press, after Counsel had been beard at some
length, the further hearing was adjourned to Monday.

DEC. 1.
IiONIFREY V. YUMA.
This was an action upon a Bill of Exchange for 3001.,
brought by the plaintiff, an attorney, against Madame Vestris,
the celebrated actress. The bill was drawn by Mr. Anderson,
the defendant's brother-in-law, and accepted by Madame
Vestris, and the defendant's plea was, that the bill had been
accepted by her for the accommodation of Mr. Anderson, and
for which sh.e had received no valuable consideration—and it
was further pleaded that the bill had been accepted, In order
that it might be discounted by Mr. Anderson and applied to
the purposes of the defendant, but that he did not do so, but
passed it to the plaintiff after it had become due, without
having received any consideration from the plaintiff.
The case having been briefly stated by Mr. Titussirma,
Mr. Edward Hooper, formerly treasurer at the Olympic
Theatre, and at present acting manager at the Victoria,
proved the defendant's hand-writing on the bill. He had a
Chancery suit with the defendant, and had arrested her shortly
after she had superseded her bankruptcy.
Mr. HUMPHREYS addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
called,

J. R. Anderson—_l am the drawer of the bill in question.
I think it was accepted in blank, as Madame Vestris was in
the habit of giving me blank acceptances to raise money for
her. I know the plaintiff for three years. I was obliged to

leave-bills in the hands of several persons to raise money for
her. The bill was drawn in December, and I believe it was
discounted in January. I received 2001. from plaintiff on ac-
count of the bill, which I immediately 'handed to Madame
Vestris, who was in the next room. In the evening of the
same day he brought me 701. more, and I also transferred it
to her. The discount was 301. Whatever the charge for dis-
count was I was compelled to allow it, as she told me she
could not go on without the money.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Disc. 2.

WILMOT AND OTIIERS V. SIR FR.EDERICK WETHERALL.

This was an action on the case brought by the trustees
of certain property in the parish of Isleworth, the proceeds
of which were to be applied for the benefit of the poor, re-
specting a small plot of waste land granted to the defen-
dant by the lord of the manor ; and the only, or rather
substantial, question in the case was, where the boundary,
between the property of the parties and that of Sir Frede-
rick Wetherall was situated. Several surveyors were exa-
mined, who had at different times made surreys of the land,
and their testimony generally confirmed the correctness of
the plans which were put in on behalf of the plaintiffs.
When the plaintiffs' case was concluded,
Mr. Segeant WILDE objected that the present plaintiffs
had no right of action.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought the wiser course
would be to appoint some gentlemen to draw a proper
boundary line.—Accordingly a verdict was taken fbr 405.,
with leave to either party to apply to the Court as to the
mode of entering up the verdict.

SHERIFF'S COURT, Dec. 2.
BOYS V. THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY
COMPANY.

In this case the claimant, Mr. Edward Boys, proprietor
of Dorehouse Farm, Middlesex, sought to recover compen-
sation from the London and Birmingham Railway Com-
pany for the injury he would sustain in consequence of an
alteration and diversion of the line of road made by the
Company for their railway, which passed through his land.
Mr. KELLY appeared. for the claimant, and Sir W. FoL-
LETT for the Company.
The Jury, after an hour's absence, awarded Mr. Boys
the sum of 5941. 10s.

ARCHES COURT.-DEC. 2.

THE BISHOP OF WORCESTER V. THE REY. MR. CRANE.

In this suite the office of the Judge is promoted by his
Grace the Lord Bishop of Worcester against the Rev. Mr.
Crane, a Clergyman of the Established Church, who holds
a living in the Diocese of Worcester. The cause is insti-
tuted for the purpose of obtaining ecclesiastical punish-
ment against the Rev. Defendant, who has been charged
with the commission of adultery, and who, though urging
some circumstances as a justification of;the crime, has not
denied the truth of the accusation. The suite is brought
by letters of request from the Consistorial Court of the
Bishop of Worcester.

The Learned Judge gave his deeision this day. He
stated briefly the circumstances of the case, and said the
Court would suspend the party for a period of three years
from the duties of the living, and must debar him from ac-
cepting the profits of it during the term of suspension,
which must be sequestered. A certificate from the seques-
trator of the good conduct of the party during the suspen-
sion must be given to the Court, until the production of
which the suspension would exist. The Reverend de-
fendant must be condemned in the costs of the suit, and
the sentence of the Court must be read publicly in the
Church.