The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 25, 18b4,

grounds of the application, both to the clerk of the
ceurt and to the party. The rule then provided
that if such application should not be made on the
day mentioned in the notice, no subsequent appli-
cation should be made without the leave of the judge,
and on such terms as he should think fit. In the present
case no notice had been given as required by the first
part of the rule, but an application had been made for a
new trial to the judge, who said he could not grant the
application, but that he had the power, under the latter
portion of,the rule, to give his leave to apply at the next
court. The learned counsel contended that the judge
had no such power. He could give leave to apply for a
new trial only in the case where the requisite notices
had been given, but where, for smile reason or another,
the party had been unable to make it in due course. In
the present case no notice whatever had been given, and
therefore the judge was acting without jurisdiction.
Lord Campbell said, the judge of a County Court,
being the judge of an inferior court, had no jurisdiction
to grant a new trial except in cases where an act of Par-
liament permitted him to do so. The learned counsel
might take a rule.—Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
IN THE MATTER OF W. H. ORCHARD.

This was a rule calling on W. H. Orchard, an attorney
of this Court, to show cause why he should not be struck
off the roll of attorneys.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Francis, showed
cause.

It appeared from the affidavits that Mr. Orchard, to-
gether with a person of the name of Cox, had been con-
victed of a conspiracy to defraud by means of a false
affidavit of increase upon the taxation of costs in an
action of A. Orchard v. Rackstraw, Mr. Orchard being
the attorney for the plaintiff in that action. The affidavit
which was prepared and sworn by Cox, who was the ar-
ticled clerk of Orchard, stated that certain witnesses in
the cause of A. Orchard v. Rackstraw had been paid
their expenses for attending the trial. This was alleged
to be false, and hence the indictment,' which however
had not been preferred for nearly three years after the
alleged offence had been committed, Mr. Orchard's own
brother being the prosecutor. The only part taken by Mr.
Orchard in the matter appeared to be that, whilst at-
tending the taxation, he had stated, in answer to a ques-
tion of the attorney who appeared for the defendant,
" That all the witnesses had been paid." Circumstances
were about being entered into which, as it was con-
tended, exonerated Mr. Orchard from any criminal in-
tention, inasmuch as these circumstances had induced
him, at the time he made the statement referred to, to
believe in its truth, when
Mr. Justice Crompton suggested that this was a case
which might be better investigated before the Master.
Mr. J. P. Wilde, who appeared for the Law Institution,
was willing to adopt the course suggested.
Mr. James stated that his client was anxious that the
fullest investigation should be made into all the circum-
stances.
The whole matter was accordingly referred to one of
the Masters to report upon.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Geulburi.)
IN RE L. BENJAMIN.

The bankrupt was a jeweller of Princess-street, Lei-
cester-square. This was the certificate meeting.
Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, asked for an adjourn.
ment in, order to ascertain the result of an action
brought by the assignees against the trustees of pro-
perty held under an assignment by the bankrupt.
Mr. Lewis resisted the application.
His Honour said the case wets certainly not one in
which the bankrupt could expect an immediate certi-
ficate. He had begun his accounts 8001. worse than
nothing. He now owed upwards of 2,0001. A short
time before the bankruptcy he had assigned over all his
effects, and there was now nothing for the creditors.
Under such circumstances there would be an adjourn.
ment for three months.

(Before Mr. Gmmissioner Fonblanque.)
IN RE RAFFAELE MONTI.

The bankrupt was a sculptor of Great Marlborough.
street, and is well known from his numerous casts in
the Crystal Palace. From a preliminary statement of
hi- affairs by Messrs. Paul and Turner, the accountants,
his debts would appear to amount to 15,866/. The assets
chiefly consist of a sum of 5,043/., the balance of an
account of 18,693(. with the Crystal Palace Company.
There are works of art held by creditors as security
valued at 1,7931. A sum of 6,0001. will, it is esti-
mated, be required to finish certain contracts with the
Crystal Palace Company. These contracts include 38
fountains to cascades, consisting of boys carrying tazzas,
to be executed in Garland's plaster, for 3,9001. The
works completed include river fountains, and ocean
fountains, and statues for fountains, in the terrace•gar-
dens ; of " Hope, " Joy," " Friendship," Love,"
" Modesty," " Valour, " Vigilance," and " Prudence."
Debts to the amount of about 5,0001. were proved, and
Mr. George Thomas Ellis, builder, and Mr. Montagu
Hunt, of Whitehall-place, were chose' assignees. The
bankrupt attributes his failure to his having undertaken
contracts at a figure at which he is now unable to carry
them out, owing to the advanced prices of labour and
materials. Also, to the partial failure of the process by
which he sought to produce the galvano-plastic casts.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

REGISTRATION APPEALS.-THE PUTNEY OASR.-AFITRUITY,

APPELLANT, V. HENDERSON, RESPONDENT.

•It will be remembered that this was an appeal from a
Revising Barrister, by the holder of two allotments ob-
tained from a freehold land society, which, let on a
building lease, would be worth 151. a year, but which if
let from year to year, and used for any other purpose
than building, would not be worth 40s. a year. The
barrister held that this was not a sufficient quaiiflcatioa
under the statute of Henry VI., and refused to allow
the vote. The case was partly heard yesterday, and the
hearing was resumed this morning.
Mr. Sergeant lits les, on the part of the appellant, re-
plied, and he contended that the finding in the case, that
the land would be worth 151. a year only upon a lease
being granted, could not affect the appellant, by reduc-
ing his interest in the estate, for it was laid down in
Sugden's " Law of Vendors and Purchasers," that the
expense of preparing a lease, in the absence of any ex-
press agreement, would fall upon the grantee ; and
taking that into consideration, with the statement in the
case, that the land let on building lease would be worth
151. a year, it was clear that the appellant had a free-
hold interest worth more than 40s. a year. As to the
class of cases which had been referred to as analogous,
the cases of poor-law assessment, the court had decided
in the case of "Covill v. Wood" (2 C. 8., 216), that the
principle of those cases ought not to be applied to regis-
tration appeals. If a man had an estate of 40s. a year,
on which there was a charge of 205., the poor-law as-
sessment would be upon the 405., though it was clear
that the owner would not have a vote.
The Chief Justice said it seemed to him that this was
a good vote, and that the vote must be allowed. It was
not necessary to lay down a rule of law as to speculative,
or fraudulent value for the purpose of getting votes, for
in this case there was abundant evidence that this plot
of land was worth 40s. a year, and nothing but the un-
wiliingness or obstinacy of the appellant could prevent
his getting 40s. a year for_it. He had given 1501. for it,
and that amount in the ordinary way would produce
more than 40s. a year, but beyond that he could let it for
151. a year if he thought fit ; and it was simply because
it was not worth 40s. a year as agricultural land, that
the revising barrister had held that it was not worth 403.
a year, and had refused to allow the vote. The question
was, what Jwould the land fetch in the market, for a
thing was generally worth what it would fetch ; [and the
barrister said that the land would fetch 151. a year on
lease. It had occurred to him at the moment, that it
might make a difference that the value couki only be ob-
tained upon something being dose by the landlord to
entitle the tenant to build on the estate, but on consi-
deration, it appeared that every value depended upon
something to be done by the landlord ; there must be a
letting by leases or verbal agreement, in every case.
The price of the land, the offer for it, and the statement
that it was worth for building purposes 151. a year, all
showed that it was worth mere than 40s. a year; and
the rev/slag barrister ought therefore to have granted.
the vote under the statute of Henry VI.
Mr. Justice Maule thought it was clear that the ap-
pellant had a vote, as having a freehold from which he
might expend 140 s. a year if he liked. He had paid
1501. for it, and it appeared that he might let it fos'
Ig., and without anything to qualify these facts, it
could not be doubted that the land was worth 40s. a
year. If it was necessary that 'the land should at pre-
sent produce 40s. a year in order to give a vote, then
a man with an estate of 10,0001. a year might
possibly be deprived of his vote. The revising barrister
seemed t• have thought that if the appellant had had
power to let to a tenant from year to year at 40,. that
would have conferred a vote, or even if let for 21 years
on an occupation lease, but he thought that as the requi-.
site amount could only be obtained by granting a build-
ing lease that that would not do. But why not ? Build-
ing, of course, would not take place without getting a
tenant willing to build, but in every tenantcy there must
be a compact of some kind or other, and there was
no reason for depriving the appellant of the right of
suffrage, his property being clearly sufficient to give
it him.
The appeals were therefore allowed in this case and
in the sixteen others consolidated with it. ,