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

of opinion between him and the President touching
the movements of troops. _ .

Commodore Vanderbilt had presented the steamer
Vanderbilt to President Lincoln, and had offered
to sell his next best steamer to the Government,
iron-clad, at a price to be fixed by its own apprais-
ers. In consideration of this generosity of Com •
modore Vanderbilt, his willingness to carry the
mails, and his contract with the Overland Mail
Company to carry newspapers, the Conference Com-
mittee on the Post-office Appropriation Biil struck
out the section requiring ocean steamers to carry
mails under penalties, and the Bill was passed in
this shape.
The New York Tribune says :
" Certain English celebrities connected with the
British army have been refused a pass to Fortress
Monroe by Secretary Stanton, No pass to Fortress
Monroe will hereafter be granted to any person not
connected with the army or navy."
Captain Jeffers, of the Monitor, is reported to
have said to a visitor,—
" Sir, if I knew as much of the Merrimac from
newspaper descriptions and pictorial representations
and diagrams as the rebels know of the Monitor 1
would go up to Norfolk and sink her before sun-
down.'
The Whitworth battery presented to the Federal
Government by American citizens in England was
among the artillery before Yorktown.

LAW INT ELL IGEN CE.—May 2.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.
(Before Sir J. Stuart.)
SIR I. MORRIS V. THE SWANSEA HARBOUR TRUSTEES.
In this case Sir John Morris claimed to be equit-
ably entitled to a leasehold interest in a wharf in
the town of Swansea, which the defendants gave
notice of taking under the power of their act. The
amount of purchase money was settled by arbitra-
tion. It appeared that a question arose, as to the
title which the defendants were entitled to require.
It appeared that under a lease, dated in 1813, the
Duke of Beaufort granted to Sir J, Morris and four
other persons who were in partnership with him a
lease of the wharf and other premises, of whom Sir
J. Morris was now the surviving trustee. In 1853
he agreed to grant a lease to the plaintiff's trustees
for the residue of the term, less a day. The plaintiff
insisted that the defendants were not entitled to
inquire into the title further than was disclosed by
the original lease and this agreement. The defen-
dants insisted that it must be shown that Sir John
Morris had acquired the whole of the equitable in-
terest, and to have a complete abstract.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Rasch appeared for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Malins and Mr. Bevis contra.
'MORETON AND DYSON V. RAMSDEN AND 0111E129-
TENANT RIGHT-SIR JOHN RAMSDEN AND THE TOWN
OF HUDDERSFIELD.
This case, in which Mr. Malins, Q.C., and Mr.
Nalder appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Bacon,
Q.C., and Mr. C. Barber for the defendants, was a
bill filed by the plaintiffs against Sir John Ramsden,
M.P. for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and tenant
for life of nearly the whole of the borough of Hud-
dersfield, and it prayed that certain proceedings at
law commenced on the part of Sir J. Ramsden might
be restrained. Notice of a motion for an injunction
in the terms of the prayer of the bill had been given
on behalf of the plaintiff, but before it came on to be
heard,
Mr. Malins said he desired to mention to the
Court that an agreement had been come to between
himself and his learned friends to the effect that the
motion for an injunction should be turned into a
motion for a decree, Sir John Ramsden undertaking
not to pursue any of his legal remedies against or
otherwise act upon the notices to quit which had
been given to the tenants (to whom notice to quit
their holdings at Huddersfield on the 11th May
inst. had been given) until this cause had been dis-
posed of, and the defendants also undertaking. to file
their answers to the plaintiffs' bill of complaint on
or before the first day of Trinity Term nest. The
interrogatories had been filed seven weeks, and about
60 affidavits had been filed on behalf of the plain-
tiffs and in support of the allegations in the bill.
For the plaintiffs he would undertake to give
notice of a motion for a decree and of the affidavits
which it was proposed to read at the hearing of
the cause as soon as the answers of the defendants
were filed, the plaintiffs being very desirous that
the hearing of the cause (the matters relating
to which were said to affect about 1,700
persons in Huddersfield and the neighbour-
hood) should be brought on and determined before
the long vacation.
The Vice Chancellor said if Mr. Bacon, who was
not in court, had consented to the arrangement
there could be no objection to the registrar making
a note of it.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice
Erle,and Justices Crompton, Blackburn,andiViellor.)

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 bargaii. The learned counsel
said the case came within that of Graeme v.
Wroaghton, 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 'be 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 Cnief 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 iY the company
had resolved that every commission in their army
was saleable, ho 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 couu•
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 hid 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. Mayall, 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 Naos of the World, with a view to en-
gravings from them being issued with that journal.
Mr. Tallis 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 an impression that the
case involved the question of copyright in photo
graphs, 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
ht 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 possession of the party from whom
he got them, and he granted an injunction restrain-
ing the publication.
The Lord Chief Baron said they were all of opi-