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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court in the Old
Hall, Lincoln's Inn, to-day. His Lordship took bis 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 Cour
in Chancery-lane to-day.

STURGE V. STURGE.-JUDGMENT.

His 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.—('PHIS 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.
(Befure 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 WIGRAM .) •
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 MAN.
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. MALnis now argued, that upon the 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. Ilislop 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 trim a bill of exchange
partly to oblige him and partly fur the furniture. The
ill got into the hands of a person named Dyer, who sued
for
its amount. Mrs. Westaway paid 21. to the defen-
dant; 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 ho had sustained in his character,
contending that he had never employed the defendant,
and that he had, therefore, defended the action without
his consent or request. Indeed the plaintiff declared
that he had no knowledge of the action, and that his wife
was so fond of law that she could not keep out of
it ; 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
the
the evidence; that the:Learned Judge misdirected
8 jury, and that the damages were excessive. The
Learned Judge told the jury that it appeared the 4de-
fendant had not defended the actidn with any reasonable
recognition on the part of the plaintiff, and that the
Probability was, that the 2/. paid to the defendant was
the
o settle the action. The Learned Judge also asked
jury if they considered there was any recognition
eatitheiieini implying
of the defendant by the plaintiff, evi-
dentlyng that no recognition was given ; also
the defendant trusted to the directions of a mar-
woman in such a proceeding, it was a wrong pro-
ceediag on his part. He also asked them to assess the
iunat of damages, whereas he should have told
ttnthem that the plaintiff was entitled to only nominal da-
mges, the jury having given 50/. more than the plain-
hadW been compelled to pay.
The COURT said they would consult Mr. Justice
Pule
well upon that point, but were of opinion that the
e could not be granted on the mere observation of a
judge upon a fact in explaining the case to the jury,
.hor upon the arrest of judgment.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before the LORD CHIEF BARON, Mr.
Baron ROLFE, and Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
Sir NOTTIUGE V. RIPLEY.
F. TRESIGER 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 for
the plaintiff, with liberty for the defendant to move to
enter a verdict for him, he had to move, in pursuance of
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 tee
defendant was entitled to set off certain payments which
he bad 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. Stillvvell'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, in
Somersetehire, and placed her in a lunatic asylum in
London; and in that case the jury gave a verdict for
the plaintiff for 501. damages, intimating at the same
time their opinion that no mercenary motives which had
been attributed to the defendant were properly to be
ascribed. It was agreed that the evidence given
to the first case should be considered as given in:l he
the
in which he was now moving. The plaintiff was
bee eldest daughter of a widow lady who resided in Suf.
folk, and who was the mother of- tour other unmarried
ruzuhgerrrs wll,
siEach of them was entitled, under the
to a sum of 6,0001. absolutely, and to the
reversion of 4,0001. more on her mother's death. A
Person of the name of Prince, unfortunately for the
—44IY, became the curate of the parish in which the
mother resided, or of the adjoining parish, and in a very
tittle time acquired very considerable influence over the
ln„i111111 of all the daughters. He was removed from his
a
WrfteY in consequence of some irregularities in
Preaching, or his conduct in the church.
al! afterwards took to field preaching, and
joined a society in Wales, called the
t:atepeter Brethren. Ultimately he settled himself
so' Charlidge, and set about forming an association, or
413",,thing which he called an " Agrpemone," or the
diode of Love. It would have profaned the name of
so Won if this Abode of Love had been called a religious
pet y, and it was not so denominated, but only called
Their peculiar tenets were, that the
ri4of grace wasand the day of judgment had ate
dec;:de;illyrdf, itoliveer.e. to te, they abjured all prayer as beine
unnecessary; and, by either a senseless or stupid
,r_Wicked perversion of a sacred text, that " whether
t"Fitt or drink, or whatsoever we do, we are to do all
dt/ottle glory ce God," they pretended that every thing they
444ciglori tied God; and when they were eating and drinking,
indOging in all kinds of debauchery, and playing at a
duecalled " Hockey," they were glorifying God by
44.." acts. This person succeeded in drawing five of the
rut)u.Fliters of Mrs. Nottidge to Charlidge on the cere-
turuY of opening a chapel. Two of the daughters re-
loge ed home, and three were detained in this family of
let,;ern_aald were united to three of the brethren ; no
iilvrents being made on the occasion of the marriages,
.4
till' love family securing to ihemselves 18,0001,, the