The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court i❑ the Old
Hall, Lincoln's Inn, to-day. His Lordship took his seat
shortly after ten o'clock.

ROBERTS V. ROBERTS.

The further arguments in this part-heard motion oc
cupied his Lordship the whole day.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
His Lordship the Master of the Rolls sat in his Couri
in Chancery-lane to-day.

STURGE V. STURGE.—JUDGMENT.
LORDSHIP gave judgment this morning in this
case in which the bill was filed by William Sturge
against his brother for the purpose of setting aside a
deed executed by him on the Ist October, 1841. The
grounds on which the bill was filed were, that the
plaintiff was ignorant of his rights at the time he
executed the deed. The Master of the Rolls, after
going at considerable length into the facts
facts of the case, of which we gave a full
report when the case was argued, stated his opinion to
be that the plaintiff at the time of the.execution of the
deed was not sufficiently aware of his rights, and there-
fore that the deed must be set aside, the costs to be paid
,by the defendants. Part of the property having been
sold, and the plaintiff having agreed to accept the pur-
chase money, the decree of his Lordship directed an ac-
count to be taken by the Master in that respect.
The Court then proceeded to hear motions and peti-
tions, which occupied his Lordship the remainder of the
day.

:VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England did not
sit to-day till eleven o'clock,

NEATE V. PINK.
The arguments in this part-heard cause petition occu-
pied the Court the greater part of the morning. There
was no feature in the case calling for a special report.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
HARRISON V. BISGOOD.
The arguments in this cause were proceeded with to-
day, and occupied the Court the whole morning.
(Before the Vice• Chancellor WIGRAH.)
his Honor the Vice-Chancellor Wigram did not sit
sit to-day till half-past ten o'clock.

'VINCENT V. THE BISHOP OF SODOR AND DIAN.
The further arguments in this part-heard case, which
came before the Court on Saturday, were resumed to-
day, and occupied the whole morning.
The cause came on upon the equity reserved. The
case had been sent from this court to the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, on the question whether a power given to
Mrs. Ireland, the widow of the late Dr. Ireland, Dean
of Westminster, was well executed. The terms of the
power required that it should be executed by a will, signed
and published, and attested by two witnesses, and the
will of Mrs. Ireland, though in fact published, had been
attested as to the signing only. The Court of Common
Pleas certified that the power was nevertheless well
executed.

Mr. MALINS now argued, that upon tho difficulty
which arose out of the various authorities on the point
the case ought to be sent for the opinion of another
court of law.

Mr. Bacon appears on the same side.
Mr. Humphreys and Mr. Hislop Clarke are counsel
for the defendant.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
WESTAWAY v. FROST.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING said, in this case, which was
tried before Mr. Justice Cresswell at the last assizes at
Plymouth, and in which a verdict was found for the
plaintiff for 1431., he was instructed to move for a rule
to show cause why a new trial should not be had, and
why judgment should not be arrested. The plaintiff, a
music master at Plymouth, had married the widow of a
lodging —..
house-keeper. His wi e managed the business
of the lodging-house without any interference from him.
It appeared that she owed a considerable sum to a person
named Westcott, for furniture supplied to the lodging-
houses in question, and she gave him a bill of exchange
partly to oblige him and partly for'the furniture. The
bill sot into the hands of a person named Dyer, who sued
Bolts amount. Mrs. Westaway paid 21. to the defen-
nt, who is an attorney, to enter an appearance to the
action ; but he went on defending the action, and at
length the plaintiff had to pay 931. in costs. The plain-
tiff then brought this action against the defendant to
recover the money he bad paid, and compensation in
damages for the injury he had sustained in his character,
contending that he had never employed the defendant,
cod
that he had, therefore, defended the action without
ilia consent or request. Indeed the plaintiff declared
that he had no knowledge of the action, and that his wile
Was so fond of law that she could not keep out of
; and the wife herself asserted that she did not in-
struct the defendant to do more than enter an ap-
pearance. Now he submitted that the verdict was
against the evidence; that the:Learned Judge misdirected
the jury, and that the damages were excessive. The
a.rned Judge told the jury that it appeared the de-
'eneant had not defended the action with any reasonable
recognition on the part of the plaintiff, and that the
Probability was, that the 2/. paid to the defendant was
the ettle the action. The Learned Judge also asked
Itpjury if they considered there was ary recognition
,f the employment of the defendant by the plaintiff, evi-
rtly implying that no recognition was given ; also
a.t if the defendant truged to the directions of a mar-
c_teeettchyvegomoannhiisn such a proceeding, it was a wrong pro-
part. He also asked them to assess the
aitall°net of damages, whereas he should have told
em that the plaintiff was entitled to only nominal da-
nges, the jury having given 501. more than the plain-
"e had been compelled to pay.
The oURT said they would consult Mr. Justice
Creswellupon that point, but were of opinion that the
Pule could not be granted on the mere observation of a
Dodge upon a fact in explaining the case to the jury,
r upon the arrest of judgment.

-XCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before the LORD CHIEF BARON, Mr.
Baron ROLFE, and Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
NOTTIDGE V. RIPLEY.
Sir F. THESIGEa said, in this case, which was tried at
the last assizes in this court, before the Lord Chief
Baron, and in which a verdict was taken by consent tor
the plaintiff, with liberty for the defendant to move to
enter a verdict for him, he had to move, in pursuance or,
leave given, to enter a verdict for the defendant. It was
an action brought for money had and received, to
recover the amount of certain dividends belonging to the
plaintiff which had been received by the defendant, and
the question which arose in this case was whether the
defendant was entitled to set off certain payments which
he had made out of those dividends in respect of the
Maintenance and medical treatment of the plaintiff
during the time that she was an inmate in Dr. Stillwell's
lunatic asylum at Hillingdon. There was another case
tried previously, and which was an action of trespass and
false imprisonment brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant for having removed her from Charlidge,
iii
S,otnersetehire, and placed her in a lunatic asylum in
London; and in that case the jury gave a verdict for
the Plaintiff for 50/. damages, intimating at the same
time their opinion that no mercenary motives which had
bees attributed to the defendant were properly to be
ascribed. It was agreed that the evidence i
given
in the first case should be considered as given n:the
e,(3° in which he was now moving. The plaintiff ryas
the
a:eldest dau hter of a widow lady who resided in but.
tile
k,ansd who gwas the mother of tour other unmarried
fm4allahtrers. Each of them was entitled, under the
will, to a sum of 6,0001. absolutely, and to the
reversion of 4,0001. more on her mother's death. A
trt"ti of the name of Prince, unfortunately for the
P-4111Y, became the curate of the parish in which the
°ther resided, or of the adjoining parish, and in a vilty
ttii time acquired very considerable influence over the
en;" of all the daughters. tie was removed from his
ilf;4eY in consequence of some irregularities in
Ile Preaching, or his conduct in the church.
then afterwards took to field preaching, and
Joined a society in Wales, called the,
441 peter Brethren. Ultimately he settled himself
at eh,
apt, .4,rudge, and set about forming an association, or
.4:,"ling, which he called an " Aguemone," or the
reiC,,s4; aof Love. It would have profaned the name of
So if this Abode of Love had been called a religious
a social and it was not so denominated, but only called
day of love. Their peculiar tenets were, that the,
ticed(. grace was past, and the day of judgment had ar
etiti;', and, therefore, they abjured all prayer as beint
or unnecessary • and, by either a senseless or stupid
eked perversion' of a sacred text, that " whether
to-theat or drink, or whatsoever we do, we are to do all
ilid2-le,!l2rY et God," they pretended that every thing they
/lOC God ; and when they were eating and drinking,
‘riulliging in all kinds of debauchery, and playing at a thoort called " Hockey," they were glorifying God by
datlaeka"F• This person succeeded in drawing five of the
14o:uteri' of Mrs. Nottidge to Charlidge on the cere-
tuenYea home,
opening a chapel. Two of the daughters re-
IN and three were detained in this family of
4ttlttld were united to three of the brethren ; no
And `;', eots being made on the occasion of the marriages,
'nil love family securing to themselves 18,0001., the