The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN 31.
STUBBS V. SAIGON.

This was an appeal from a judgment of the Master of the
Rolls on the construction of the will of the late Mrs. Ives, of
Queen-street, Lincoln's Inn-fields. By that will the residue
of her freehold and personal estate were bequeathed to those
persons who might happen to be her partners in her busi-
ness of a varnish-manufacturer at the time of her death ; and
a note for the sum of 2,0001. was at the same time given to
her sister, Mrs. Sargon, for the purpose of enabling her to
bestow any portion of the principal or interest that toher might
seem fit on the different branches of the testatrix's family.
The Master of the Rolls decided that the devise of the free-
hold estates and personalty' to the testatrix's partners was a
good devise, and that Mrs. Sargon took a beneficial interest in
the 2,0001. note, but was merely a trustee for the testatrix's
family, and that she was to pay the money into the general
fund. The Lord Chancellor this morning affirmed the judg-
ment of the Master of the Rolls on all the points in dispute.

ROLLS' COURT, J. 4 .V. 31 .

PARXtN V. TFIR LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY COMPANY.

In this case a motion was made on behalf of the plaintiff
for a special injunction to restrain the defendants, the directors
of the London and Croydon Railway Company, from making
use of a new description of sleeper, which the Plaintiff claimed
as his invention. In the affidavits filed in support of the ap-
plication it was stated that, in 1835, the plaintiff, Mr. Parkin,
discovered a new mode of laying down sleepers in continuous
blocks of wood upon a concrete foundation, for which he took
out a patent, and that, on the 31st of December last, he first
became aware that the defendants were making use of his in-
vention in a portion of their railway at Cubet's-lane, Surrey.
In answer to this the defendants denied that the plaintiff had
made any invention at all; and even if he had, that they had
not infringed upon it.
His Lordship, the Master of the Rolls, did not think he
could grant the injunction. It would be better to let the
motion stand over, with leave for the plaintiff to bring his
action.

The motion was ordered to stand over, the plaintiff under-
taking to bring his action at the earliest period.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH; Jex. 31.
THE QUEEN V. THE REV. W. THORPE, D.D.

Sir W. FOLLETT stated that in this case there had been a
rule obtained by Sir Francis Shuckburgh, calling on the de-
fendant to show cause why a criminal information should not be
Sled against him for publishing a certain advertisement in the
newspapers and as a handbill. He now appeared to show
cause against the rule. The advertisement stated that for
some time past improper letters had been sent to Dr. Thorpe's
house, and that recently a parcel had been sent thither caleu-
lated to wound the feelings of Dr. Thorpe and his family ; that
from certain circumstances application had been made to Sir
Francis Shuckburgh to know if he had sent the parcel in ques-
tion ; that Sir Francis had denied that he knew anything of it,
upon which the advertisement in question, with a view to the
diticovery of the offender, offered a reward of 30 guineas to any
perscr, who wculd give information of the same. The com-
plaint of Sir F. Shuckburgh was, that this advertisement was
calculated to give rise to the belief that he had sent the letter
and parcel in question, and that the advertisement, printed
as a handbill had been circulated in the neighbourhood of his
house, posted on doors and walls, had been thrown into his
park and sent to his connections in Dublin and elsewhere. He
(Sir W. Follett) submitted that this advertisement was no
libel at all, and that it was printed on an occasion for which
circumstances afforded the fullest justification.

Lord DIN AN was of opinion that the rule should be
charged, but without costs.

THE QUEEN V. WALKER.

The ATTORNEY-GINEnAL moved to enlarge the rule in this
case. This was a rule for a criminal information against the
defendant, for publishing in the Jiorni,pg Chronicle a lettt-r
reflecting- on the conduct and character of Mr. Urquhart, the
late Secretary cf Embassy at Constantinople. In lost Michael-
mas Terra he had ott,ined an eidari:ement of the i ohs till this
Term, on the ground that Mr. Walker, who had published
this matter as the friend of Lord Ponsonby, desired to send to
Constantinople for information from Captain Du Platt, who
had been found to be the writer of the article in question. At
that timo he stati.d that informatics could hardly be obtained
in the course of the Term ; but the Court said that the rule
could not thrn be enlarged for a longer period, and he was
directed to make a fresh Application. As 7,:)oit as the rule was
granted a communication was sent out by the earliest coLvey-
once—that which conveyed the Government despatches to
Constantinople—and it was now found that Mr. Du Platt was
on his return to this country, and would be back here before
Easter Term. The defendant, therefore, applied that the rule
rn;ght be enlarged till that period.
Sir W. FOLLLETT had not oppcsed this application in Mi •
chaeltnas Term, but he did oppose it now, because he thought
it was not bona fide. The libel had been originally published
in the Times, but not by the defendant; but it was afterwards
published by him with additional paragraphs in the Morning
Chronicle. He ought Lave been prepared by this time to show
cause against the rule fur a criminal information. There was
not sufficient ground made out for further delay.
Lord DINMAN said that the Court thought the rule ought
not to be enlarged.—Application refill:A.
On the motion of Sir W. FOLLETT the rule for a criminal
information was then, as a matter of course, made absolute.

BAIL COURT.
PENLEAZE V. TODD.

On a former day Sir William Follett obtained a rule to
show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue to remove
the proceedings in this cause from the Court of the Vic,
Warden of the Stannaries into this Court, on the ground that
the plaintiff could not have a fair trial there, as the Jury would
be selected from persons resident in the neighbourhood of cer-
tain mines, and had remotely an interest in the result of the
trial.

Mr. BUTT 110 W showed cause against the rule.
Mr. 'MosTaocs Smiru having been heard in support of the
rule,

Mr. Justice PATTESON maid, with regard to the allegation,
that points of law were likely to arise on the trial, he supposed
that both parties would appear by Counsel competent to argue
them.

Mr. MONTAOL' SMITII—O'n, no, my Lord ; Couniel do
not attend in that Court. Such things as a wig and gown
were never seen within its walls.—(Laughter.)
Rule discharged.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JAY. 31.