The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-21 00:00:00

ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Mr. TuLx brought forward a motion, of which be had
given notice, that, in addition to the number of twelve
ladies who visit the female prisoners in the House of Cor-
rection, Coldbi,th-fields, under the sanction of this Court,
two Roman Catholic ladies, properly qualified and recom-
mended, be permitted to administer religious instruction
and consolation to the female prisoners of that persuasion,
who amount on an average to above one-fifth of the whole
number of female prisoners. If the Court rejected his
motion, he pledged himself to renew it in some shape or
other every Court day until it was granted.
Captain CARPENTER seconded the motion.
Mr. LAURIE moved, and Mr. M‘WILLIAm seconded, the
previous question.

After a very long discussion, the Chairman put the ques.
tion, when there appeared—

For the amendment 3O

Against it l5
The original motion was consequently lost.
PARISH OF ST. GEORGE, HANOVER-SQUARE.
The CHAIRMAN thought it right to state to the Court
that the appeal of the parish of St. George, Hanover-
square, was heard, in the Court of Queen's Bench, last
term. He was present at the time of the judgment, and
had since read a faithful transcript of it. The effect of the
judgment was shortly this, that the Court of Queen's
Bench were of opinion that the Magistrates were wrong in
their construction of the Act. The Court had spoken of
some inconvenience being likely arise from this construction,
but the Magistrates would have great pleasure in hearing
that neither this Court nor the county would be put to any
inconvenience at all. The only difference would be this,
that in making their calculation the Magistrates would be
obliged to make it on to a future day ; and the probability
was that they would be compelled to tax the country with
an additional rate, in the first instance, to meet the neces-
stry consequence of their having to calculate to a distant
day. The order of Sessions was quashed, but the parish
of °St. George not having moved the rate into the Queen's
Bench, as well as the order of Sessions, it remained exactly
as it was ; and therefore the parish would not be put to
any inconvenience by money being paid back, front the acci-
dental
omission which had taken place.
Mr. Oam E made some remark relative to the rate, which
we could not heir.

The CHAIRMAN said the rate remained as it was. He
was exceedingly glad they had got this construction of the
Act. He would only siy further, that in order to be for-
t fled on the subject of the rate not being quashed, the
opinion of the Attorney-General had been taken, and pro-
bably it might be of use to print it for the use of the parishes.
On the motion of Mr. WILKES, seconded by Sir JOHN
SCOTT LILLIE, it was agreed that the documents should be
printed and distributed amongst the Overseers.

Mr. ORME trusted the Court would sanction a warrant
of distress if the money should not be paid.
The CHAIRMAN—Oh ! they'll pay it.

After transacting some other Unimportant business the
Court adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANGER Y, Dicc. 20.
IN THE MATTER OF THE SHAFTESBURY CHARITIES.
This was a petition for the confirmation of the Master's
report, recommending that certain persons be appointed
trustees of the charities.

The LORD CHANCELLOR having heard Mr. Wigram
and Mr. Girdlestone on the part of the Mayor and Bur-
gesses of Shaftesbury ; and Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Teed
on the other side ; dismissed the petition itself with costs,
and confirmed the report.

ROLLS' COURT, arc. 20.
BULLMAN V. THOMAS.
The arguments in this case were to-day concluded.
Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. KEAN were heard against
the motion.
His Lordship the MASTER of the RoLLs, in giving
judgment, said that this motion was made to restrain the
defendants from selling the property belonging to the
Reeth Consolidated Mining Company, and from interfering
in the affairs of that Company, and to appoint a receiver,

The question resolved itse'f into this. Had the trans-
actions under the directions of the defendant, Mr. Thomas,
been so bona fide that the other parties who had advanced
their money were bound to continue subject to the party
by whom they had been misled ? He (the Master of the
Rolls) had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that
the defendant ought to be restrained from carrying on the
affairs of the Company. He thought that the Court
would be justified in appointing a manager and receiver, for
if otherwise the property would go to ruin.
The motion was, therefore, granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DFc. 20.
TOMLIN V. TU/IGUARD.
_

This was an action of trover to recover about 675/., the
value of a quantity of lead.
The plaintiff was the proprietor of certain lead mines,
near Richmond, in Yorkshire ; and the defendant was the
assignee of an insolvent named Maltby, who was a lead mer-
chant in the city of London. It appeared that Mr. 'Maltby,
in December, 1836, sent an order to the plaintiff for the
quantity of lead in question ; and that in January, 1837,
the plaintiff contracted to supply it. The lead was accord-
ingly shipped at a neighbouring port, and arrived in Lon-
don ; but in the meantime Mr. Maltby had failed, and when
the bills given for the goods became due they were refused.
This action was brought accordingly against the assignee
of the insolvent, to recover the value of that quantity of
lead ; and the defendant pleaded that it was not the pro-
petty of the plaintiff. The first question which arose in the
cause related to the stoppage of the goods in transitu which
it appeared the plaintiff had endeavoured to effect, upon
hearing of the failure of the insolvent ; but that matter being
one for legal argument rather than the decision of a jury, it
was agreed by both parties that the case should be turned
into a special case. The other point raised by the Coun-
sel on the part of the plaintiff was this, that the contract
of sale was altogether void, inasmuch as, at the time when
the contract was made, Mr. Maltby was so irretrievably
insolvent that he must have known that he never could pay
for the lead which he had ordered ; and inasmuch as know-
ing that, he fraudulently endeavoured to possess himself of
the goods without paying for them. In support of that
case an accountant was called, who proved that, at the
time of his entering into the contract in question. Mr.
Maltby was insolvent to the extent of between 60,0001 and
70,000/. On the part of the defendant it was contended,
that though he was at the time insolvent to a large amount,
and had been so for some years, still it (lid not necesarily
follow from that that he might not have been able, in the
course of his business, to pay for this quantity of lead ;
that the evidence had totally failed to establish any case of
fraudulent intention against Mr. Malt by, and that it was
not even pretended that he had made any misrepresenta-
tion as to the state of his affairs.
The LORD CHIEF .JUSTICE, in summing up, told the Jury
that the onus probandi rested on the plaintiff. He must
clearly satisfy them, that, at the time of making the con-
tract, the insolvent could by no possibility have expected
to be able to pav for the lead which he ordered, and that he
ordered it with the frudu!ent intention of becoming pos-
sessed of it without paying for it In his opinion it was lay-
ing it down far too widely to say that because a man was
insolvent, and in great difficulties at the time, the contract
was altogether void ; for, though insolvent, he might
honestly expect to derive from various sources a sum suffi-
cient to meet the particular demand arising out of the
contract. The Learned Judge then left it to the Jury to
say whether the contract was void on the ground of fraud.
The Jury retired for some time, and returned a verdict
for the defendant, thereby finding that the contract was
not void, and that the lead in question was not the property
of the plaintiff.

EQUITY EXCHEQUER, DEC. 20.
HODGES V. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Mr. SIMPKINSON said this was a bill filed by Win.
Hodges and John Norman against the Attorney-General,
and the object of it was to have a declaration that the
plaintiffs are entitled to an equitable mortgage or lien
upon certain premises, and that the usual account might be
taken of what was due to them by virtue of the mortgage,
and that the premises might be sAd and the money ap-
plied to the payment of the lien. The case was shortly
this. A person named George Bayley was in possession
of some houses at Stoke Damarel and Plymouth, and being
indebted to the plaintiffs on a banking account he deposited
with them the deeds as a security for the money. If this
had been merely a case as against Bayley, the decree would
have been a matter of course ; but it seemed that the plain-
tiffs a short time before filing this bill commenced an action
against Bayley to recover the money. However, before
they could obtain judgment against him, Bayley committed
a felony and was transported, and consequently the pre-
mises became forfeited to the crown ; and the question now
was, how under these circumstances the property was to be
dealt with—whether the Court would decree a sale against
the Crown, or make a declaration that the plaintiffs were
entitled to an equitable mortgage, direct an account to be
taken, and declare that the plaintiffs were entitled to hold
and enjoy the premises as against the Crown until the
amount of what was due to. them should be satisfied by the
rents and profits. There were no cases exactly in point,
but in the case of Reeve v. the Attorney-General (2 At-
kins, 223) Lord Hardwicke expressly declared that the
Court of Exchequer had jurisdiction to decree a sale
against the Crown, although the Court of Chancery had
not, because the Court of Exchequer was a Court of
Revenue.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—You would be in difficulty here,
because I don't sit here as a Court of Revenue. lam
sitting here only to do the Equity business ; therefore you
should go before the full Court. That point, however, may
be raised if the matter can be brought before the Court.
Mr. WRAY, on the part of the Attorney-General, sub-
mitted that the Court
could not decree a sale against the
Crown ; it would never make a decree which it could not
enforce, and how an order made by his Lordship to com-
pel the Crown to sell and convey could be enforced he
could not understand. The proper course to pursue was
to have sent a memorial to the Treasury stating the circum-
stances of the lien. The objection to the present proceed-
ing Was, that it might be cited as an authority to bring
the Crown before this Court, in order to discuss what be-
longed to the Privy Council.
Mr. SIMPKINSON, in reply, admitted the difficulty of the
Case, remarking that he did not see how a decree for sale
Could be enforced against the Crown, nor how his Lord-
ship, supposing her Majesty was to refuse to convey, could
commit her Majesty to her own prison of the Fleet, for
contempt of his Lordship's order.—(Laughter.) The pro-
per decree he thought would be, that the plaintiffs were
entitled to an equitable mortgage on the premises to the
amount due to them, and that they should hold and enjoy
the property against the Crown until the amount of the
lien was satisfied.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON deferred his judgment.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Das. 20.
WOOD AND OTHERS V. GOODLAKE, HELPS, AND OTHEES.
The arguments in this cause are still proceeding, and
will probably continue for some (lays.