The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 6.
RICHARDSON V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in this
case, the arguments in which were concluded yesterday. The
case came before the Court upon appeal from the decision of
the present Master of the Rolls, ordering Mr. Rees Thomas,
one of the partners in the late firm of Sir James Esdaile and
Co., the Bankers of Lombard-street, to pay into Court a sum
of upwards of 19,0001. His Lordship, after going at some
length into the facts of the case which we gave when the case
was argued, stated his opinion to be, that the Master cf the
Rolls' judgment was wrong, and ordered it to be reversed.
Mr. WIGRAM, who appeared for Mr. Rees Thomas,
trusted that the Court would reverse the judgment, with
costs, as there could be no doubt that the application for the
order below was a vexatious one.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said if the application had
been originally made to him, he should have felt
bound to have refused it, with costs, as cont! ary to the
practice and principles of the Court. Such being
the case, he felt himself bound to put the parties
into the same situation as they would have been if the applica-
tion bad been originally made before him. He should there-
fore give Mr. Thomas the costs of the application in the
Court below.

IN Till MATTER OF DAVENPORT, A LUNATIC.
This case came before the Court upon the petition of the
Committee of a gentleman named Davenport, who had been
found a lunatic, praying that a sum of 6,0001., which had
been paid into Court by Mr. Ward, the representative of the
late Bishop of Sodor and Man, might be paid over
to them, together with interest. Our readers will
recollect that the late Mr. Davenport, who was an eccentric
individual left the sum of 6,0001. in trust to the late Bishop of
Sodor and Man for certain charitable purposes. The rela-
tions and friends of Mr. Davenport obtained a commission
against him, under which he was found a lunatic, and upon
a petition being presented, Mr. Ward, the representative
of the late Bishop was ordered to pay into Court, which he had
done, the sum of 6,0001., which was not to be paid out without
notice to the Attorney-General and also to Mr. Ward.
Upon the present petition for the payment Out of
the money, the Attorney-General appeared by Counsel
stating his dissatisfaction at the finding of the lunacy
of Mr. Davenport, and asking that the Court would
not pay out the fund, until he had an opportunity
of considering whether or not he should traverse the
finding of the Jury. He had no objection however,
to 'the interest of the fund being paid to the Committee if
they required it until the question was settled. By an arrange-
ment among all parties, it was agreed that the fund should
be retained in Court, and the interest paid to the Committee.

HOARE V. JOHNSTONE,

This case which came before the Court upon exceptions to
he Master's report, occupied the Court the rest of the morn-
mg. The only question in the case is whether certain
Lands called Upper and Lower Justice, were or not included
in a lease.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 6.
CRESSWELL V. NORTON.
Mr. BINGHAM, on a former day, bad moved for a rule to
show cause why the verdict given for the defendant in this
case should not be set aside, and a verdict entered for the
plaintiff. This was an action by an attorney to recover the
amount of his bill for services performed for a solicitor in the
country. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff bad done
the business under colour of being a solicitor in Chancery,
but that he was not so, but only an attorney in another Court,
and therefore had no right to maintain the present action.
The Jury had given a verdict for the defendant, but the
Learned Counsel now contended that this matter did not
amount to a defence, for the statute of Victoria 1., c. 56, a. 4,
would cure this defect if the Court thought that that statute
had a retrospective operation.
The COURT took time to consider, and on this day Lord
DENMAN delivered judgment, and said the Act could not be
considered as retrospective. The rule was, therefore, refused.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 6.
CHURCH-RATES.
Mr. WHEATLEY applied to the Court for a rule calling upon
the churchwardens of Walsall to show cause why a writ of
mandamus should not issue, commanding them to make a rate
for defraying the expenses of repairing the church of that
place.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, after hearing the case, said—You
may take a rule to show cause.
MANSLAUGHTER.—THE QUEEN V. JOHN BRYANT.
Mr. COCKBURN applied to his Lordship for a writ of certio-
rari to remove into this Court the proceedings taken upon a
Coroner's inquisition in which the jury had returned a verdict
of manslaughter against the above defendant. It a
emppeared
from the affidavits that the defendant was a young lad plo ed
as a waggoner, and that in driving his master's waggon through
the streets of Tiverton, the horses suddenly took fright and
ran over a little girl, and killed her. The defendant now
swore that the occurrence was purely accidental.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 6

TILE EARL OF MANSFIELD V. BLACKBURN.

The Court granted the application.
SLANDER.—DAVIS V. HEDGES.
Mr. THESSIGER stated that this was an action brought to
recover compensation in damages for certain slanderous words
uttered by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff, with
intent to injure him in his business. The plaintiff was a re-
spectable tallow-chandler, residing in St. Martin's-lane, and
the defendant carried on the same business in Charles-street,
St. James's, and also in Piccadilly. The words complained of
were coolly, deliberately, and maliciously uttered by thech d
the
e-
fendant. They were directed against the mode in whi
plaintiff carried on his business, and calculated to do him con-
siderable injury. Both parties were highly respectable in
th, it respective stations in life, and he believed the defendant
was a person of considerable wealth.
Mr. KELLY, for the defendant, was not instructed to justify
the words alleged to have been spoken by the defendant, but
to deny that he had ever uttered them, or anything equivale
to them, in the sense imputed to them by the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE Summed up the evidence, and
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 51.
DEFRIES V. SOLOMONS AND WIFE.
Mr. PLATT stated that this was an action to recover da-
mages for certain slanderous words spoken by the de-
fendant's wife, Judy—( A laugh)—of and concerning the
plaintiff. The parties were both in humble circumstances ;
they had a dispute about some money matters, which led to
proceedings in the Court of Requests in Osborne-street,
Whitechapel, at the termination of which the parties were
leaving the Court, when the defendant's wife, addressing the
plaintiff, said, " My husband is a batter man than you ; he
never went to the House of Correction for six months for com-
mitting a rape."
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE summed up the evidence, and the
Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

This was an action for breach of covenant, brought to re-
cover the value of certain salt-pans, which had been removed
by the defendant from certain salt-works in the West of Eng-
land at the expiration of a lease, in which he had covenanted
to leave on the premises all engines, edifices, &c., necessary
for the carrying on of the works. The cause was tried during
the last Sumrrer Assizes, and the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff, dameges 1,1001., the value of the salt-pans; but, on
another issue, fourd for the defendant. It appeared that the
pans in question were not attached to the premises ; and the
simple question was whether they could come under the de-
scription of engines necessary for the carrying on of the salt-
works. Upor that point leave was reserved to the defendant
to move the Court.
Mr. JOHN EVANS accordingly to-day moved for a rule to
show cause nhy the verdict should not) be entered for the de-
fendant on tie issues raising that question.
Mr. Vanoriax WILLIAMS, in the same caso, made a coun-
ter-motion to have the verdict entered for the plaintiff on an-
other issue which raised a question with regard to covenant
to repair.
The CoutT granted both rules, but suggested the propriety
of framing the facts into a special case ; a suggestion which
the Learned Counsel said they would recommend to their
clients.

ATT WOOD V. SMALL AND OTHERS.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE to-day made a cross-motion in this
case, in which Sir William Follett yesterday obtained a rule
nisi, for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be
set aside *ld a new trial had, on the ground of misdirection.
The contlact well-known these parties were stated yesterday,
until ha was restrained from so
and it mas that Mr. Attwood had brought
several actions to recover the half-yearly payments speci-
fied in those contracts,
doing by an injunction obtained by the defendants in the
Court of Exchequer. At first that injunction was granted on
the terms of bringing the money into Court, but afterwards
the paynent into Court was discontinued. When the House
of Lords ordered the reversal of the Bill filed by the de-
fendants, the Court of Exchequer paid that money out of
Court to Mr. Attwood ; but subsequently to the payment of
money into Court there remained eleven and a half half-yearly
payment:, to recover which, with interest thereon, the present
action wcs brought. To this action the defendants pleaded
paymentof money into Court as to the whole amount claimed,
except s deduction of a half per cent. on 75,0001., which
left to 13: disputed 2,0631. But the question upon which his
motion turned bad, reference to the allowanee of interest on