The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 14.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF EAST

RETFORD.

This was an information filed in 1832 for the purpose of in-
quiring into alleged breaches of trust by the trustees of the
grammar school of East Retford.
-The LORD CHANCELLOR had no doubt the Corporation
was liable, like individuals, to make good to the charity the
debt that might be found due to it in respect of the alienated
estates. His Lordship was, however, satisfied that the part
of the inquiry to which the defendants objected was contrary
to the practice of the Court. The Corporation estates ivere
not the subject of the information, and with respect to them
no inquiry ought to be directed, nor could the Court compel
the Corporation, under such circumstances, to produce the
title deeds of their property. Lord Eldon and Lord Lynd-
hurst in the cases referred to, had both disallowed such in-
quiries,' and, with all deference to Sir John Leach, his Lord.
ship preferred their authority. That part of the decree
directing the production of the Corporation deeds must there-
fore be reversed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 14.
TIIE QUEEN V. BIUNTZ AND OTHERS.
Lord DENMAN, referring to this case, which was argued on
Monday last, said that the
Court was not prepared to say that
there had been any misdirection in this case, but upon the
whole the Court thought that on one count or other the de.
fondants were entitled to have the rule for allowing them a
new trial made absolut.e.—Ruh: absolute.
The rest of the day wasoccupied with parish settlement cases.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 14.
REED V. CROFT.

This cause came before the Curt on a demurrer to the re-
plication. The c.lendant, had pleaded insolvency, aid the
plaintiff roplied that he had had no notice according to the
provision of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. To that replication
there was a demurrer on the ground that it raised the ques-
tion whcf4er the Insolvent Debtors Court had acted properly,
it being the duty of that Court to give the notice of insolvency,
and that that was a question which the Court could not,
entertain.
Mr. PETERSDORFF argued in support of the demurrer, and
Mr. JAMES against it.
The Court took time to consider its judgment.
INGRAM V. I,AWSON.

This was an action of libel against the Times newspaper,
which now canto on for argument on a demurrer to the de-
fendant's third plea. The declaration stated that the plain-
tiff, being the owner
of a vessel which was about to sail to
Calcutta, advertised his vessel in the Times for the purpose of

procuring freight and respectable passengers ; but that in the
same paper in which this advertisement appeared the defen-
dant published a letter from a correspondent, asserting that
the vessel was in an unseaworthy state, and that she had been
"sold to the Jews to carry out convicts." That letter consti-
tuted the libei for which the action was brought. The third
plea purported to be an answer to the whole cause of action,
and it justified all that part of the libel relating to the unsea-
worthiness of the ship; but that plea of justifization did not
extend to the assertion that the ship had been sold to the
Jews to carry out convicts. To that plea there was a demur-
rer, on the ground that not being an answer to the whole
cause of action the plea was bad.
Mr. HRNDERSON appeared in support of the demurrer, but
was interrupted by the Court, who asked Mr. Humphrey how
he c ,uld support such a plea ?
Mr. HUMPHREY, in support of the plea, urged that the sub-
stance of the libel was that this vessel was unseaworthy, and
that the plea, consequently, in justifying that part of the
libel, supplied a good answer to the action ; for the words
which were notjustified by the plea could not of themselves be
considered as libellous.
The COURT, however, held that those words were libellous,
that the plea of justification clearly did not cover them, and
that therefore the demurrer was good. Their judgment was
accordingly for the plaintiff, with liberty to the defendant to
amend his plea.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—Nov. 11.
IN THE GOODS OF JAMES AIMING.

The deceased made a will, which had an attestation clause
regularly executed, with the names of two attesting witnesses
affixed, and was, therefore, on the face of it a valid docu-
ment. In the affidavit, however, of these witnesses, it has
subsequently appeared that they did not sign their names at
one and the same time in the presence of the testator, a 3 the
law requires.
Dr. ROBERTSON, under these circumstances, made applica-
tion to the Court to pass its sentence against the will.
The CIURT would not grant the application, as collusion
might have been entered into between the two attesting wit-
nesses. It could not, however, grant its probate to the paper.