The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-26 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS LAY')

This being the last day ot Term, the Court toe;;.n°fees
ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. MARRYATT. t 2113,1 i
Mr. KINDERSLEY moved on behalf of Mr. v
es
nine other relators, trustees of Bishop King's and v.. 1;e a
ward's Charity, at Fulham, that the information be -i „
•tle,
off the file, or tbat their names be struck out of the-00
and that the solicitor (Mr. Scarth),vrho filed the inforinleeti
and bill, be ordered to pay the costs. A contract had 0.110
entered into by the trustees with Captain Marryatt,/ease
was an assignee of a lease, for granting to him a De") bill
on certain terms, and the object of the information an The
was that that agreement might be carried into effect• d
information and bill was filed against Captain tejo
the representatives of a Mr. Copeland, to whom 1'31'8;0
Marry.att alleged he had assigned his interest, and agora,his heir, the object of the suit being to enforce PercoHir
ante of the agreement ; and the heir-at-law of Mr' the
land having been made a party, because part n'rreir
agreement was, that Captain Marryatt should se or
der certain copyhold lands to the trustees, in t 101
P sideration of the new lease they were to t
him. The Learned Counsel stated the affidavits "%ill'
in support of the motion, stated the defendants were efer
ing to perform the agreement, and that they had It, or
given any authority to the solicitor to institute the su
for their names being used as relators or plaintiffs., pots,
Mr. BENSON, who appeared for three of the dee," cob'
Smith, Copeland, and another, stated that they han,lit, the
jection to the proceedings which had 'own taken I"
plaintiffs. de for
Mr. PEMBERTON said the application was trade pee
vexatious purposes, as a controversy had ta.keill be ear
amongst the trustees as to the solicitor that shool° • bee?
ployed to carry on the suit. The contract bad
entered into by the trustees with Captain Marriattifor
it turned out that the trustees had never been lee,' ;Of,
pointed, and the contract could not be carried iat°,;-
lion without the consent of a Court of Equ'r,.';ne't
was therefore necessary to make the AttornerTe et'
a party to the suit, and the proceedings on "stilts
of the Charity were perfectly regular. if the tru citso
who were the plaintiffs, thought that what had ben,nectios
was not for the benefit of the Charity, he bad Ile 0111 ba
to their names being withdrawn from the informati°l3:oriti,
entitled
of the proceeding had been taken by consent of the tnitle'
of the trustees, he contended that the solicitor was
to make the whole of the trustees parties to the ew-cierslo
Lord LANGDALE said (without calling on Mr. gil'or
to reply) the solictor, whether with a right inotive
ti
,ii all
had thought proper to use the names of persons in
information, who never gave him any authority. Tblind the
so, their names ought not remain on the ReCOr' Bay tile
persons who did employ him, or he himself u 1 110 t P,
a tbe
cosThets of the application.
motions did not occupy more than an hour, -
Court then proceeded with the remaining petions.
QUEEN'S BENCH =THIS DAlr'
thr°6

This being the last day of Term, the Court went
the Bar, commencing with the junior Counsel.
EXPARTE TAYLOR AND ANOTHER. fotls°
Mr. BYLES moved in this case for a rule to ablivi-e
cn
why a writ of certiorari should not issue to reoli
e:/4311
positions taken in the county of Buckingham agailloge°
and Sarah Taylor, who were in custody on a "
felony, into that Court.

Lord DENMAN—What is the felony?
Mr. BYLES—It is a charge of larceny. the sr
Lord DENMAN—On what grounds do you mak e
be Vl°
plication.
Mr. BYLES—On the ground that, supposing all tic, el
disclosed in the depositions are proved, they t'breiP
amount to a felony in point of law, but to a sirir
of trust. It appears that Maria Taylor lived t°'
beach with a person named Torry, who paid his
otbero
dresses to her, and promised her marriage.Y guer old
applied to know what his intentions were, and he 'l've Jr
was determined to marry her. However, they 4-15 e it
gether, although the marriage did not take place, first s,
Wisbeach, then at Somerton, and afterwards At Itilfei;l9
In September last Torry was seized with a oervons wet
and became delirious, and while the rest of the famillto
down stairs they heard a noise, and on going fa;
room they found that he had destroyed himself rope pei4l'
Just before that time he had purchased a little Pres/
and had drawn out of his banker's a sum of 440 L Icer
it. This sum was entrusted to Maria Taylor, vvmebssel
his keys, and who had it locked up in a box e
by himself. On the death of Torry his friends eilietinfol'
demanded all the property in the house, and ye?' 911'ft
ingly, to give it no harsher name, charged' gefee
and her mother with his murder, although at col fal'll
it was satisfactorily proved that the deceased had
at
theaddsuicide during a fit of insanity. It was found tha a jiej
been executed, and that Maria Taylor t.ellebo
with Torry, and borne his name, and that it was,svi, cal '0
hired the house in which the property was.
upon for the money she refused to give it doesa"-iwher
fact that she had not got it—the friends of the a her
however, went after her, and committed herself trio e
mother for felony. It was shown that she had there115
with the property as to change a 201. note, but
he contended, no pretence for saying that she °a vtbe
mitted a felony. that tA
Lord DENMAN said, if the Court saw clearly fit.o
cbarge of larceny could not be sustained, they
-
suffer the parties to remain in custody till the and fr
They would, however, look over the depositions,
t4l,
give their opinion. to •
THE QUEEN V. THE COMMERCIAL RAILWAY . e
dCCia fill 1,0
to Mr. BODKIN had been instructed move i°l.iree teuoll
Li
show cause why a nzand shou not iss e
the Commercial Railwayamus
Company and coaecling„ovierloa
to issue a precept, and take the necessary'ld rom
steps for e u'rostr-,
the Sheriff of Middlesex to empannel a jury ,t° a of
value the amount of compensition to be Pa' the coo'
Pocklington, the owner of certain property h
the railway, which he had received notice frog the of
pany of their intention to take. After the delivelle:tr°•ll;
binotice, and after Mr. Pocklington had gone to n'e.dertitl°.r
c and expense in preparing a case for the. ce7,00 tb,,eol,
of the Jury, the Company thought fit to deviate vtliel'
line, and excluded the property, consisting of brej iss'leep
&c., which they had previously resolved to take, aeog gig
a precept to assess the other property,
notice that they would take thewho e. the
Lord DENMAN—Had any new Act authorising
viation been obtained ? after haw

Mr. BODKIN—No, my Lord.
COURT—Take a rule
THE QUEEN V. THE SHERIFF OF XlDD",.stt,:ioeCtobe
Mr. HODGES showed cause against a rule ~ .05t
t,,sll:ihlaarset.riicKfrn
oecuoil
elfryfta,uiiftt'or:v
Middlesex..asetdtin g
Theaside
defendantan att a c hi: en t 411;1, Al Pie,/
beingtiri woardsearerdresttoedbroinng the 6th
went was issued. a ev
as ordered that no rule could b° f), of ror
by setting ' radavti, ff
aside an attachment unless upon au. ..d trace
not
rits, showing that and
y° itih the
596btfitohhrdsyGto
eidf:at j.youinoCef:'.
,tueaatrrhtnnmdde:biltit
yblitgeetfl_
b-ear:ti ;lei
made 0 nat such application was really 81:,0
behalf of the Sheriff or his officer, a° L'accitil
wiffht, n
be, at his expense, and for his indemnity, 313 SO'
out any collusion with the plaintiff or defendant. ~ for
the affidavit in the present case set out that it "41 for°
his phcaovtienc,t i oboe
been
submittedacnodmhpelied with,
thtehartultehefoprresseetrtiibries Aside
theNtitttachMent must be dischard.
r. KENNEDY was heard in support of the rule. ,e (lir
rule ought
to 11
The Court was of opinion that the rule oub
charged.

•g(
BAIL COURT-(THIS DAY•)

THE~vI
QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION Or 14°- 014171
by a
Mr. KELLY moved for a rule to show cause 'olo°
certiorarishould not issue to the Corporation o[l'l°

-retnave into this Court an order of the Town Council of that
-borou ftil, and that the order might be disallowed by the
CL as
f e°llll. The order wor th payment of 576/., bin
rtthe amount of the bill of costs and disbursetnents onethe
. 'of the Council of Norwich, ac respondents, up to the
ast- 'day of Jul in an appeal pending in the
tof
f-pt VI le.
NIS' in h. hy,Bio'noldand another were ti appe an s.
Re circumstances Of the case were these :—By the sth
an a 6th William IV c. 76 s. 71, it was provided that
wh •,
e any of the old Corporations were seised of any
tit'ates in trust for charitable purposes, they should continue
terii4.stees until either the Ist July, 1536, or until the Lord
of IZne.ellor should otherwise order. The old Corporation
lerwich
c.,,e '
were seised of very considerable estates in trust.
rlAn`charitable purposes, and at the time the Municipal
t' came into operation, the trustees were Mr. Big-
tit'id and another gentleman. The time mentioned in
TrII: Act of Parliament elapsed, and a petition was
°t esented to the Lord Chancellor either to continue
31.* Bignold and his coadjutor as trustees, or to make an
Iler vesting.i the trusts in persons to be appointed by his
arie.rd'hilL The Lord Chancellor upon that petition mide
'order, In the mean time another petition was presented
I)3', liew Corporation of Norwich. Both these petitionsf-
el/l'ing the same object, were pending in the Court o
:4a'neery at the same time, and they were, therefore,
13idered at the time. The Lord Chancellor made
lo"n against which Mr. Bignold and the other gentle-
Loarida PPealed, and carried the question to the House of
That appeal was now pending, and would proba-
-611,7 °e determined (luring the next Session. In the mean
the present Corporation had made an order for the
,;43141e1 It of this bill of costs to the Town-clerk, who had
in" Is tl'.eir solicitor. Toe original borough funds being
a suffici•ent for the various purposes to which it ought to be
413tPlied, this money must come out of the pockets of the
tl:NYets. This appropriation of the funds was alien to
Vi ,1311t.Poses of the Act, and by the 4th section of the Ist
thts
Cr. c. 78, power was given to remove the order into

eteAturt. The question was whether the Corporation
rates justified in taking out of the pockets of the
ter, PaYers the costs which had been incurred in this man-
-41. terfor purposes in which the inhabitants were wholly un-
zuj_ "ted• Under thee circumstances, he moved for a
twe to show cause why the order made in this case should
`the removed by ccriiorari into this Court.
1". Jitstice LITTLEDALE—Take a rule.
kr. c THE QUEEN V. MARWOOD.
Crj~:RESSWELL moved for a rule to show cause whya
'"al information should not be filed against the
defend-
The '4'o was the proprietor of the Sunderland Herald.
n'ir lication was made on behalf of two respectable
ogAgentlf•
'')lco, named Tanner and Sparkes, who were ship-
. eanr''.a, residing at Sunderland. Many years ago they were
'ereecl in attempting to suppress a riot of the sailors,
ait):° had struck for an increase of wages, and prevented the
valPitiae.n the port from going to sea ; and the article corn-
liear (4, which was written in very malignant terms, ap-
ero
Justice
havebeen published for a. political purpose.
• Ivith • LITTLEDALE said it was not in accordance..
forro the practice of the Court to apply for a criminal in-
ation on the last day of Term.
CRESSWELL was not aware of that practice, except
Aliearegardto Magistrates. There were several other ap-
the :"8 of a similar nature to be made in the course of
cO42laY, the instructions having been received from the
•r only 4 this morning.
ittle• Justice LITTLEDALE said they might be mentioned,
could be brought on next Term.

e°l43lON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
The
ekses `-"atraT gave judgment this morning in several
of '44 ued during the present term, which present points
40'41 interest.
Thi STONE V. COMPTON.
2,600, Was an action brought on a promissory note for
'eurit given by defendant to plaintiffs (bankers) as se-
et!')f°r a mercantile house, Cox and Chambers, who
eiated a loan to that amount from plaintiffs. The
I,4tlrt decided that the note was void because the plaintiffs
the reit agents had caused it to appear to defendant that
to a 4 was to be absolutely to that amount, whereas it had
he stiPulated that a separate debt due from Cox should
lobtracted from it.
The BOTTOMLEY V. FORBES.
at B° question in this case was whether cotton, shipped
PoseThal/ for London, should be measured for the pun-
Idler e'dlculat ing freight, at the former place, immediately
the „ pressed in a powerful screw, or on arriving in
the di London, of London, when it had expanded considerably,
uerence between the two admeasurements amounting
*4Bll° less than ninety-three tons. At the trial evidence
kea,.aditiitted for defendant, to show that the usage was to
le 14 ,re the cotton at Bombay; and evidence for plaintiff,
feed, to show that the usage was unreasonable, was re-
The „The verdict was for defendant.
a 4oPe "c'uaT thought the admission of defendant's evi-
Pla'elt.,vtas Proper, but, on the other hand, decided that the
4111,1 ur
on this evidence in reply should also have been admitted ;
group's!! ordered a new trial.
The REEVE V. CAPPER.
theirto
service, named: Wilson, a hundred pounds on the
"ritv f
811,,b ; a valuable chronometer ; which, however, they
Wif wed Wilson to carry with him on his next voyage. On
141 2°4% return he again pledged it with plaintiff on an
Ititl'e44'e from him. And the action was brought under the
tiele-Pple%ider Act to decide who had the right to the ar-
it a . the plaintiff contended that Capper by delivering
eeirlo to Wilson had in fact parted with possession. The
dei• 41, however, said, that though a verbal gift, with no
tin'elvtFrY,eonveyed no interest to the donee ; yet the dis-
14Pet;11)4 in this case were that there had been a valuable
keeC'eration, and a written agreement that the chrono-
-4.4
e,, -er
uoutd be lent for the voyage only ; that, therefore,
dieiPer had not parted with the possession ; and that ver-
tuust be entered for defendant.
'EQUER COURT—(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
The • ONLEY V. GARDNER.—JUDGMENT.
tietto; Lodgment of the Court was given in this case by Mr.
1:1111ea- He said the action was one of trespass, with
Of a right of way for upwards of twenty years before
qati I:l.lllnencement of the action. It was proved that there
tokilteen a unity of possession during the first five of the
there Years, and it had been held by all the Courts that
11,411-„tnust have been an enjoyment of the right of way
-1.014.,"t interruption for twenty years, in order to come under
for e "uterden's statute. The rule must be made absolute
•%.4,,11;e1in, a verdict for the plaintiff, with nominal damages.
"le absolute.

h BRYANT V. FELIGHT.
sil,°llgb;,"rgeallt, ANDREWS moved for a rule nisi, to, enter a
,134,,-,:`Ain this case. The action was tried before Mr.
,tkct-p" 41derson, in London, on Wednesday last, when a ver-
!aal'tssed for the plaintiff. The defendant was avow-keeper, ,
140 ,ite.tonsiveway of business in Islington. The plaintiff went
t,ft thiaetnPloyment as a manager, under an agreement which
4111 ;re Payment to be made to the plaintiff to the discre-
Nth. the defendant. He served for less than a month,
"er2. -11 brought his action for 41. a-week. The Learned
4Rr4.-"t contended that no action would lie upon such an
tioti-Itlent before the defendant had settled what rernunera-
Nht to be given.—Rule granted.
A• ir ▪
i xi. ARROWSMITH V. JOHNSON.
•'AtILE moved for a rule to show cause why the
f,", "1 this case, which was for the plaintiff, damagesn
citl
the 18.2 should not be set aside, and a new trial had, o
eßl4„"rid of misdirection on the part of I\lr. Bar on Al-
• t+ whom the trial took place on Wednesday
i.,14 London.
The plaintiff had sold the ship Rosanne,
1141011°i :to, to the defendant in November, 1837. In that
1.-.44/ spars, &c. and provisions were sent on shore as
koustLt)l safety, and the action was brought to recover thebin
r, of the value of these provisions, and some ca
tlett;llte Which was left in the ship. The Learned Gen.
thagt-. ,contended, that according to the custom of men-
*ere tn
selling and buying ships, whatever provisions
N th" her at the time of sale, went along with the ship,
/I'Lich at they were included in the words of the bill of sale,
Illothetnitnerated ship, sails, blocks, bolts, spars, &c., and
tt appurtenances.
I:4s be. et ouivr were of opinion that the Learned Judge
Nes -rtentlY right, and thought the provisions did not pass
I\ll' the bill of sale.
• ith Ile
had another point to submit to the Court.
AptjesPect to the cabin furniture, the plaintiff called
144 Y ifUexander, who swore that he heard the defendant.nt
lat; ne would settle for it. Now that might be convenient
-°
01 43 the invariable custom was for the Captain
ttfaatabl;'de such furniture. He was now furnished with the
11104.44 At. the defendant, who denied that he had ever.
prise 13v45'(!uch promise—that he had been taken by sur
Captain Alexander's evidence, or he could have
-Opt _ Promise on the Witness's part to pay for the furni-
-I,l'llll his return from the voyage.
sfendati7" were not in the habit of relying upon a de-
IN sought affidavit alone—however, in this case, as the
;_e,ald-,,mlAt to be recovered was under 201., a new trial
tibiae rieftluseodri. payment of costs. It was not worth
kkb -111INAL COURT.—(THIS I)AY.)
or QUAKERS FROM SERVING ON THE GRAND
tehtlern JURY.
A ‘21.4 d I an named Johnson was summoned to serve as
onnthoeUror, but he claimed an exemption under the
%eilds ground that he had belonged to the Society of
Air h.
'4,t_tilfePutY Corn (the Foreman) informed the Court
t4,4!1r. -joahPrlP_liocant Marl withdrawn froth thatreligions ‘ret
4; at 5 hays a conscientious objection against
oath.

Alderman FAnEnnoTinat—We shall never get a Jury
if gentlemen arc allowed to jump up and raise these ob-
jeetions, _ _ _

Mr. Johnson—Then Cie law should be altered. I claim
an exemption under the Act as it now stands. . _

The RECORDER, on referring to the Act, said that the
exemption extended not only to Quakers and Moravians,
but to those who bad been members of those religious com-
munities. It was, therefore, clear that Mr. Johnson's ap-
plication must be entertained.
The applicant then left the Court.

The RECORDER addressed the Grand Jury at great
length upon the alteration which was about to take place
under the sanction of the Judges, whereby they would be
furnished with a copy of the depositions taken before the
Magistrates, and have the valuable assistance of Mr. Clark,
the chief officer of the Court. The Grand Inquest were
told that their duty was likely to prove an arduous one,
there being nearly 300 prisoners for trial.