The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-03 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice
Erle,and Justices Crompton, Blackburn,and Mellor.)

EYRE V. FORBES.

Mr. Bovill, Q C., said this was an action to recover
money for the resignation of an office ; and the
question for the court was whether, under the
statute, it was a void bargain. The learned counsel
said the case came within that of Graeme v.
Wroughton, unless his learned friend could per-
suade the Court to the contrary.
Mr. Garth, for the plaintiff, said this was a con-
tract to pay money for the resignation of an office.
Whilst the plaintiff was a major in the East India
service it was agreed between the plaintiff and de-
fendant that in consideration of the former's retir-
ing from the service the latter would pay or cause
to be paid to him the sum of 40,000 rupees. The
plaintiff according retired, but the defendant had
paid no portion of the money agreed on between
them. The learned counsel submitted that he was
entitled to their lordships' judgment, because there
was nothing to show on the pleas that the resigna-
tion was contrary to the East India Company's rules
and regulations.
The Lord Chief Justice said an officer of the East
India Company was within the statute 49th Geo.
111., sec. 126, which act recited that of the sth and
6th Edward IV., cap. 16.
Mr. Garth said the 9th section provided that the
act should not extend to any office exempted by the
statute of Edward, or any office legally saleable
before the passing of the 49th Geo. 111. It was not
shown that this office was not a legally saleable one.
The Lord Chief Justice said that it' the company
had resolved that every commission in their army
was saleable, he was bound to tell them they were
unsaleable. No regulation laid down by the com-
pany could contravene the statute.
Judgment for the defendant.
NEWTON AND ANOTHER V. CUBITT AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Powell were coun-
sel fur the plaintiff; Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Ray-
mond, and Mr. Humphreys, were counsel for the
defendants. _ . .

This was a special case for the opinion of Court.
The question was whether the defendant had a
right to ply from the Isle of Dogs to Greenwich.
The defendant, Mr. Alderman Cubitt, the owner of
Cubitt Town, Isle of Dogs, had put on a steamer
from Cubitt Town to Greenwich, for the conve-
nience of the inhabitants. The Court was asked to
say whether the defendant had a right to convey
them and others as against the plaintiffs who claim
the exclusive right of ferry.
The case had not concluded when the Court rose.
The Lord Chief Justice suggested an arrangement
between the parties.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron,

and Barons Bramwell and Martin.)
MAYALL V. HIGLEY.

This action was brought by Mr. Mayan, the
photographer, for the improper detention of certain
photographic portraits of eminent men, which
plaintiff has lent to Mr. Tallis, the publisher of the
Illustrated News of the World, with a view to en-
gravings from them being issued with that journal.
Mr. Tanis became a bankrupt, and the defendant
purchased the photographs from his assignees, and
sold reduced copies of them for considerable sums.
At the trial which took place before the Lord Chief
Baron at Guildhall, the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, but a rule was subsequently obtained
to enter a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Vaughan Williams, in the absence of Mr.
Lush, now appeared on the part of the plaintiff to
show cause against the rule.
The Lord Chief Baron said that when the Court
granted the rule there was au impression that the
case involved the question of copyright in photo-
grnpils, but it now appeared to him that it did not
touch that question. It was really an action for
using a man's property without his consent and to
his disadvantage, which the defendant had no right
to do.
Mr. V. Williams admitted that the case was
wholly independent of any point as to copyright,
but said that if it were not it would come within
the decision of Lord Cottenham in the case of
"Prince Albert v. Strange," in which etchings by
hc•r Majesty of the late and lamented Prince Con-
sort, sent to be printed for private use, were by
some breach of trust or of confidence copied and ad•
vertised to be sold. His lordship went through all
the authorities upon the point, and held that no
person had a right to make copies of drawings with-
out the consent of the proprietor, even though he
had no knowledge of the manner in which they
came into the posEossion of the party from whom
he got them, and he granted an injunction restrain-
ing the pUblication.
The Lord Chief Baron 'aid they were all of opi-

nion that the rule should be discharged, but it .oUld
be better in the first instance to hear counsel oft the
other side.
Mr. M. Smith was then heard on the other &de,
but had not concluded when the Court rose.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswe, l. and a Special Jury.)
BRANDRETII v. BRANDRETIE.
This was n suit instituted to prove in solemn forma
the will of INITr. Thos. Brandreth, late of Ormskirk,
near Liverpool, who died on the 25th of February,
1857. The instrument in question consisted of a
will dated the 11th of August, 1856, which was
admitted to be genuine, and three codicils, bearing
date respectively the 23d of August, the 19th a
Sept., 1856, and 17th of Feb., 1857. The testator
by the last codicil bequeathed his household
furniture to his niece, Mrs. Mary Brandreth,
wife of the Eel-. Canon Braudreth, and also named.
her sole executor, with a power of appointment
under a previous will. He left the whole of his.
property, amounting to about .f.,1,400 a year, to be
divided between his two nieces, the lady just men-
tioned, who is the plaintiff, and the other, Nvho
is
the defendant. The last mentioned codicil was
alleged by the plaintiff not to have been duly exe--
cuted, and to have been made under undue in—
fluence, and by means of fraud.
Mr. Edward James, Q.C.,. Dr. Spinko, and Mr.
Burnie, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.. Collin,
Q.C., Dr. Wamby, and Mr. Jones, for the defetidant.
The evidence was very voluminious, but con-
trined no feature of public interest, and the opposi-
tion to the disputed instrument was withdrawn. A
compromise was then agreed to between the liti-
gants, with the understanding that the Court was
not to make any order relative to costs.