The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-28 00:00:00

Wilt*

OITNDLE
STEEPLECHASES

(THIS DAY.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)

The Handicap.

Ploughboy
Forest Lad ..
Johnny Barrie

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices

QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALL'S—TLIIIRSDAY.
METROPOLITAN HANDICAP.
10 to 1 agst Contentment.
30 to 1 agst Wedlock filly.
LIVERPOOL STEEPLECHASE.
10 to 1 agst Oscar (taken.)
12 to 1 agst Miss Mowbray (taken.)
CHESTER CUP.
20 to 1 agst Lady Evelyn.
30 to 1 agst Constantine (taken).
33 to 1 agst Tremble.
40 to 1 agst Contentment.

DERBY.
11 to 1 agst West Australian (taken).
18 to 1 agst Sittingbourne (taken).
1000 to 15 agst Contentment (taken).
1000 to 10 agst Mr. Sykes (taken).

LIVERPOOL SPI
WEDN:

RING- MEE ri.NG.
rESDAY.

HANDIcAP for t
Yrs st lb
Weathergage 4 8 7
Cariboo 6 8 0
Warhawk 4 7 12
Chaseaway 5 7 9
Warwick 6 7 6
Trosseau 4 7 2
Kiteflyer 4 6 13
The Bishop 4 6 13
Bellewstown 5 6 12
Timid Fawn 5 6 11
Doubt
Needle ..
Sister to Wanota, 5 6 7
Earl of Warwick 6 6 6
Caliban..
Prestige
St. Michael
Little Davie., 46 6
Caurire
Ringleader
Victress
HANDICAP for the
Truth
Yrs st lb
5 8 10
Weathergage 4 8 8
Duc-an-Durras
Warwick
Koh-i-Noor ..... 4 710
Lady Agnes
Mrs. Birch 5 7 4
Belle wstown
Needle 4 7 0
May Day a 6 11
Caurire
Caliban 6 6 9
Worcester 5 6 9
Cheroot
HANDICAP for the GRAND
5 ft. if declared on

she SPRING CUP.

Yrs st lb
Worcester 5 6 4
Richmond 4 6 4
Harp 5 6 2
Cheroot 4 6 2
Lalage 4 6 0
Happy Joe 4 6 0
Burndale 4 6 0
ch g by Harkaway,
out of Puss 4 5 10
Corybantes 3 5 9
Ploughboy 4 5 8
Goorkah 3 5 3
Pastrycook 3 5 3
Monsoon 3 5 0
Master Norton 3 4 10
Miss Emma 3 4 10
Moselle 3 4 10
Pride . 3 4 10
Charity 3 4 10
Llanforda 3 4 7
Mickey Free 3 4 7
AINTREE PLATE.
Yrs st lb
Burndale
Lalage
True Gir1....... 5 6 2
May 810550 m...... 4 6 0
' ch g by Harkaway,
out of Pu 55...... 4 5 12
Game Tommy 35 7
Gaffer Green
Pride
Llanforda 3 4 10
Mickey Free
br f by Gameboy,
out of Maid of
Monton
NATIONAL STEEPLECHASE.
or before Feb. 8.

at lb
Sir Peter Laurie 11. 8
Warner 11 4
Vainhopo 11 4
Knight of Gwynne ll 2
Bourton ll 2
British Yeoman ll 2
Miss Mowbray lO 12
Lucy Neale lO 10
Peter Simple lO 10
Tipperary Boy lO 10
Ab-del-Kader ..........10 10
Duc-an-Durras ......... 10 10
Melford .................. 10 10
b Montacrue 10 8
Fanny Elsler lO 8
Victress lO 6
Postilion lO 6
Maria Day lO 6
Augustine lO 6
Carrig lO 6
Great Western 10 5
Lamiame lO 5
Half-and-Half ... lO 5

Reinark bt lb
10 2
Shinrone 10 2
Rattrap 10 2
Oscar 10 2
Maui ice Daley lO 2
Geraldus lO 2
Betsy Prig 10 0
Slattern lO 0
Dearest Mae 10 0
The Brewer 9 12
Simple Peter 9 12
Benedict

Little Charley 9 10
The Beard 9 10
Poll 9 10
Vengeance
View Halloo ... .....
Maley 9 10
Kilquade
Advance 9 10
Ringleader
Clatterbox
Odin 9 8
Friendless 9 8
Ringdove 9 6
Yorkshireman 9 6
Crabbs
Tempest .. ..
The Dwarf 9 0
Harm0ny............. 9 0
Mary Machreo ...... ;. 8 7

Laperelle.
Charlton .

. ..... 10 5
__JO 5

Forest Lad

10 4

The Drag V 10 4
The General 10 4

Wexford Tom 10 4
Field Marshal 10 4

Calmar 30 4

DERBYSHIRE V. HOLME.
Their Lordships proceeded this morning with this part-
heard appeal, which would probably occupy them the
entire day.

(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
SWINBURN V. NELSON.
His Honour this morning delivered judgment in this
case, which came before him on exceptions to the Mas-
ter's report. Both parties are manufacturers of isinglass,
and the plaintiff conceiving that the defendant had in-
fringed a patent of which he was the holder, filed a bill
to compel him to discover his transactions with respect
to it. The defendant contended that he had no right to
answer the interrogatories contained in the bill, -and
denied the right of the plaintiff. The question was,
whether this was a sufficient answer to the plaintiff's
bill. The defendant relied upon the case of Adams v.
Fisher, in which Lord Cottenham laid it down that the
right of a plaintiff to inspect books and documents
rested upon the validity of his title, and upon its being
undisputed. Upon this his Honour said, a question arose
whether this rule, if sound, applied in the same manner
to the answering of interrogatories as to the production
of books and documents. He was of opinion that it
would apply, and both cases must be treated in exactly
the same manner. With respect to the main question,
he had consulted all the cases and books bearing upon
the subject, and he was of opinion that the weight of
authority before the case of Adam v. Fisher was to the
effect that a defendant who answered a bill, must answer
it fully, that he could not answer one part and then re-
fuse to answer the rest. He himself inclined to this
opinion, and it was of great importance to the preserva-
tion of the rules of pleadings in equity that this rule
should be maintained. In the present state of authori-
ties, however, the exceptions must be dismissed without
costs.
Decree accordingly.

THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHIPELAGO COMPANY.—JIIDGMENT.
This was a proceeding under a scire facias, at the in-
stance of Sir J. Brooke, for the purpose of rendering
the royal charter incorporating the Archipelago Com-
pany void, on the ground that the conditions it contained
had not been complied with. At the trial a verdict
passed for the Crown, and a rule to arrest judgment was
subsequently obtained, and argued at considerable length.
The Court, having taken- time to deliberate, now gave
judgment ; but as there was a difference of opinion
among the learned judges, each delivered his opinion
separately.
Mr. Justice Erle said it was contended on the part of
the prosecutor that the letters patent granted to the
defendants had become void, because, as had been proved
by the verdict of the jury, they had failed to comply
with the condition prescribed by the Crown—that
50,000/., being half of the capital of the company,
should be paid up before it should begin business ; and
it was also contended that the charter became void in
consequence of such non-compliance, notwithstanding
the Crown had failed to exercise the right which it had
reserved to itself of annulling or revoking the charter
by writing under the great seal, or sign
manual, when
any of the conditions were found to be unfulfilled. This
construction seemed to him untenable, as it was unsup-
ported by authority, and against the principle generally
recognised in such cases. The will of the Crown as to
the revocation of the charter could not be sufficiently
expressed, except in the manner specified in that instru-
and as it had not been rendered void by any writ-
ing under the great seal, or royal sign manual, he thought
the rule in arrest of judgment should be made absolute.
Mr. Justice Wightman entertained a different opi-
nion, and was in favour of the rule being discharged.
Mr.i Justice Coleridge agreed with Mr. Justice Erle—
that the rule ought to be made absolute.
Lord Campbell considered that proceedings under a
scire facias could be properly instituted, although the
Crown had not formally revoked the charter in the man-
ner prescribed, and that the writ was not, on the face
of it, defective, because it did sot contain an allegation
of such revocation. After a very attentive consideration
of the charter, he thought the provision as to revoking
it under the great seal, or sign manual, in no respects
limited the proceedings under scire facias, which other-
wise existed, and that such provision only gave an addi-
tional remedy to the Crown to revoke or modify the
charter in a summary manner. For these reasons he
was of opinion, with his brother Wightman, that judg-
ment should not be arrested ; but as the Court were
equally divided, the rule would drop, and judgment
the if ofy errortho u gbi t-
would be for the Crown ; but he had the satisfacton to
fthink a tshuaptertohre
ecoausret,cowuhldo bheatdakpeonwbeyr,
fit, to arrest the judgment.