The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-13 00:00:00

CRAIG V. DUFFEY AND OTHERS.

The arguments in this appeal, which were commenced
yesterday, were resumed this morning, and occupied their
Lot dships the whole day. The case (as we stated yes-
terday) came before their Lordships upon appeal from
the Court of Session in Scotland. The appellant repre-
sented the London, Leith, and Edinburgh Steam Packet
Company, and the defendants were steam engine-makers.
The sole question between the parties was whether the
company had a right to recover more than a limited
amount of damages for the construction of a steam-engine,
which had be'en put on beard one of the company's boats,
and could not be worked.

Mr. Bethel!, with whom was Mr. Gordon, appeared
for the appellant; and Mr. Stuart Wortley and Mr. An-
derson were counsel for the respondents.

PRIVY COUNCIL.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lords forming the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council' sat again to-day in the Council Chamber,
Whitehall, to hear appeals, but no case of interest came
before their Lordships in the course of the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
DUNSTON V. DUNSTON.
The arguments in this case, which came before his
Honour upon further directions and costs, occupied the
Court the whole morning. The case is totally devoid of
interest, except to the parties concerned.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
DUNCAN V. LUNTLEY.
The further arguments in this past heard case, which
came before the Court upon demurrer, occupied his
Honour the whole day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
SMITH V. CAPRON.—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR gave judgment to-day in this case, which
was arginid before him yesterday, upon a demurrer put in
to a bill filed for the specific performance of an agree-
ment to take an assignment of the lease of a house in
Great Ormond-street, which, in 1845, had been granted
to a Mr. Wakefield by Lord Monteagle and Lady Lucy
Standish. The lease had subsequently been assigned by
Wakefield to Mr. Smith, who had subsequently agreed
to assign it to Mr. Capron, who, it was alleged, refused
to accept the lease, upon the ground that the written con-
sent •f Lord Monteagle, the surviving lessor, had not
been obtained, ,which written consent was specifically
required by the original lease.
The point upon which the demurrer turned was, as to
to the sufficiency of the statement in the bill, as to the
consent in writing having been obtained from the sur-
viving lessor, it being argued by the counsel in support
of the bill, that, at all events, enough appeared upon the
face of it to justify the Court in sending the case to the
Master upon the question of title.
His HONOUR, after going shortly into the case, stated
his opinion to be, that the demurrer could not be sus-
tained, and ordered it to be overruled with costs.
Mr. Schomberg was counsel in support of the de-
murrer, and Mr. Wood and Mr. Southgall were in de-
fence of the bill.
The Court then proceeded to hear causes and further
directions.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Westminster, before Mr. Justice ERLX and
a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN v. TURNER.
This was a prosecution, at the instance of a gentle.
man named William Stevens Merewether, against a Mr.
John Turner, for the commission of wilful and corrupt
perjury committed in an affidavit sworn b him in this
Court some time ago. The defendant is the brother of
a Mr. John Turner, a gentleman of considerable pro-
perty, who died in 1829, at the age of 76. He had
been twice married—the second time to a lady who had
acted as governess to his former wife. She, however,
died a few months before him. For three years before
his death he had been in ill health, particularly so dur-
ing the last year. Mr. John Turner, the defendant, a
Mr. Hornblow, and another gentleman, were the execu-
tors of the deceased gentleman. Shortly before his
death the prosecutor, who was examined at consider-
able length, accused Mr. Turner and Mr. Hornblow
with having obtained the deceased gentleman's signa-
ture to cheques in the middle of the night. This,
it seemed, they did not deny ; but they
added, that no injury should result from this,
as all save two had been destroyed in the presence of
several respectable parties, and that the two had been
used for a necessary purpose, the defendant saying that
it was well they were signed, as his brother was in such
a state that he would never be able to sign his name
again—meaning that he was in an imbecile state. Dif-
ferences arose between the executors and the other mem-
bers of the family, which led to protracted proceedings
in Chancery, and consequently much ill-feeling. After
some decision had been come to in these Chancery pro-
ceedings, a pamphlet was published and circulated,
purporting to have been written by a barrister, detailing
the nature of the suit, and containing some strong ob-
servations with respect to the conduct of Mr. Turner, for
which he applied for a rule calling upon the prosecutor's
son, the writer of the pamphlet, to show cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against him.
The alleged perjury was held to have been committed in
the affidavit of Mr. Turner sworn in this court, as pre-
liminary to the application for the rule.
A large number of witnesses have been examined on
both sides, and the case is likely to be a most protracted
one.

EXCHEQUER.--(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westminster, before the CRizr
BARON and a Special Jury.)
WA LEY V. COOKE.
The trial of this case, which was brought by the
plaintiff, the Coroner for Middlesex, to recover compen-
sation in damages for the publication of libels in the
Medical Times, was resumed this morning.
Mr. Sergeant Wzmuzis addressed the jury on the part
of the defendant, earnestly soliciting their most serious
attention to the observations which he had to address to
them—not merely for his own sake, for he was entitled
to little consideration—not merely for the sake of his
client, but for the sake of the interests necessarily con-
nected with the case, which for magnitude, and iu im-
portance, had of late had no parallel. He did not in-
tend to imitate the example of the Attorney-General in
conducting the defence. It mattered little to him whe-
ther Mr. Healy was accused of being an ignorant and
half-educated man, a stupid lawyer, or a person reduced
to the lowest depths of poverty, except so far as such
accusation tended to show that the plaintiff had infused
into this action a portion of his own malignant spirit
and disposition. Was a man's poverty to be held up
there as a reproach upon his character? In order to
show that he was no ignorant, half educated man, he
would refer to passages and sentences in the articles
now beTere the Coutt, which Mr. Wakley might do