The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 6.
TAYLOR V. SALMON.
In this case, which was being argued by Counsel yesterday,
when our Reporter left, judgment was postponed.

COURT OF Q UEEN'S BENCH, JUNE 6.
BAnNABY V. THE LANCASTER CANAL COMPANY.
Lord DENMAN delivered judgment in this case. This was
an action in a case far negligence. The declaration set forth
portions of an Act by which the defendants were empowered
to make a canal, and to raise such vessels as might be sunk
therein, if the owners of such vessels did not do so within
twenty-four hours. It then stated that it was the duty of the
defendants to raise such vessels, /ie. ; that the plaiatiff navi-
gated the said canal, and paid tolls to the defendants for navi-
gating the same. The plea was—Not guilty. At the trial of
the cause, before Mr. Justice Coleridge, a verdict was given
for the plaintiff. There had since been a rule obtained for a
nonsuit. That rule had been fully argued, and the Court bad
now no doubt that this action could be maintained. It were
needless to enter on the other question raised in the argument
as the effect of the plea of not guilty. The rule for a new
trial must be discharged.

BAIL COURT.
THE SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY.

Mr. HILL applied to the Court for a writ of certiorari to
remove into this Court an indictment preferred against the
Southampton Railway Company, for digging a trench across
a turnpike road. The Learned Counsel said that there were
several important points likely to arise relative to the construc-
tion of the Act of Parliament by which the Company was
formed, the decision relative to which was of great importance
to the Company; for if it should be against them they would
be compelled to alter their line of read.

Mr. justice CoLErtinuE would look into the affidavits before
he gave his judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jc.•.NE 6.
HAWARD V. SMITH.

This was an action on a promissory note by the maker, to
which the defendant had pleaded that the note had not been
duly stamped. There was a demurrer to the plea, which came
on for argument to-day. Mr. Peacock supported the demurrer.
The Court held that the defendant was bound to state the
denomination of the stamp, and therefore gave judgment in
favour of the demurrer.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Jess 6.
MACDONALD V. JOPLING.-JCDGMENT.

Lord ABINGER gave the judgment of the Court in this case,
which was argued yesterday. The question turned upon the
construction of the Act of Parliament 5 and 6 W. IV., e. 19,
the 9th section, of which enacts that, in case of a seaman ab-
solutely deserting the ship to which he belongs, the whole of
his wages due, and also his clothes left on board the ship, shall
be forfeited. For the defendant it was contended that this
clause provided for desertion at any time before the delivery
of the cargo. The plaintiff, however, argued from the 7th
section of the Act, by %Alija one month's wages only were for-
feited by the seaman quitting the ship before the delivery of
the cargo, and without leave; that the 9th section was only
applicable to cases in which the desertion took place before
the vessel set sail, or during the voyage; and that otherwise
one clause would contradict the other. The Court were all
disposed to think that the construction put noon the statute by
the plaintiff's Counsel was the right one.—Rule absolute.