The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-20 00:00:00

CHANCERY

NEATE C. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in this case,
which was argued before his Lordship a few days since. The case
came before his Lordship upon appeal from the decision of his Honour,
the Vice-Chancellor, allowing a demurrer, put in by the defendant to
the bid of the plaintiff. The bill was filed by the plaintiff as a judg-
ment creditor of the Duke of Marlborough to a large amount, for the
purpose of enforcing the payment of his judgment debt in that Lill.
The plaintiff had stated his debt, but he hail not set get the
writ of clegit upon which that debt w.rs sought to be reco-
vered, and not having done so, the defendant demurred to the
bill. Upon the case coming on before the Vice-Chancellor, he was of
opinion, upon the authority of " Manningham v. Lord Bolingbroke,"
decided by Lord Bathurst, and Leith and Pope, that it was necessary
to state the elegit ; and he therefore allowed the demurrer. Ills Lord-
ship, after going through the authority, stated his opinion to be, that
the decision of the Court below was right, and ordered the appeal to
be dismissed with costs.
FREWIN V. THE RIGHT 11011. FRANKLAIVD LEWIS.
This case came before the Court upon appeal from the decision of his
Honour the Vice-Chancellor, overruling the demurrer put in by the
defendants, the Poor-law Commissioners, to the Bill filed by the
plaintiffs. The Bill was filed by two gentlemen who were Governors
and Directors of the Poor of all the united parishes of St. Andrew, Hol-
born above Bar, and St. George the Martyr, praying that the Poor-la•.s
Commissioners might be restrained from enlarging the workhouse in
I.ittle Gray's Inn-lane, and expending the sum of 12,0001. for that pur.
pose. On th• 29th of March, 1836, the Poor-law Commiss'oners issued
an order whereby they constituted a union of the parishes of St. An-
drew, Holborn, St. George the Martyr, and tile districts of Saffron-hill
and Ely-place. By that same order certain proceedings were to be
taken for the election of guardians, end the enlargement of the work-
house was to be made. The plaintiffs being apprehensive
that that order was illegal, made an application to the
Court of Queen's Bench to remove it by certiorari into that Court for
the purpose of having it quashed. That case came before the Court of
Queen's Bench a few days since, when their Lordships were pleased to
declare that the order of the Poor-law Commissioners was correct. The
case now came on before his Lordship, upon appeal from the decision
of the Vice-Chancellor allowing the demurrer.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, with whom was Mr. ToetetersoN, appeared
for the appellants, the Poor-law Commissioners, and was addressing the
w Court when we left.

The case appears likely to occupy the Court the whole day.

QUEEN'S BENCU.-(THIS DAY.)

DOE DEM. GREEN, V. HARRIS.
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which was an action of
ejectment for the recovery of certain copyhold property. The Jury
ti and a verdict for the plaintiff, but leave was given to move for a new
trial or a nonsuit. The question here for the consideration of the
Court was, whether a will which had been duly executed had been pro-
perly 'evoked. The testator was much under the influence of the de-
visee, N 6 ho lived with him as his housekeeper, but they had frequent
quarrels, and on one occasion he threw the will made in her favour into
the fire. The paper in which it was wrapped was burned, but the will
was uninjured—the devisee having snatched it out of the fire again,
and kept it till the death of the testator. These facts being established in
evidence, the Jury had found that that was an actual revocation of the will,
and was so intended by the testator. It had ben urged that the testator
was aware of the will having been saved; that he expressed his annoyance
at it, and his determination to make a new will, but had nt done so; and
further, that no words had been used by hint which could be construed
into a revocation of the will. On a full consideration of the case, how-
ever, the Court was of opinion that it was impossible to limit the testa-
tor's power in that way. Other equivalent words might have been used,
and when these are followed up by acts the revocation was manifest in
every part. The suggestion that the testator was aware of the existence
of the will and acquiesced in its continuance, should have been given in
evid:nce instead of having been left to inference. The new Act for
regulating the making of Wills, and which defined what was an act
of revocation, would prevent the discussion of such points in future. In
the present case, however, the Court was of opinion that the act of revo-
cation had been made out, and therefore there was no ground for a new
trial.— Rule discharged.
TIIE QUEEN V. THE CAMBRIDGE GAS-LIGHT COMPANY.
This was an appeal from an order of Sessions against a rate imposed
by the guardians of the poor of the parish of St. Mary, Cambridge, upon
the defendant., for the relief of the pear of that parish. The Magis-
tr,tes at Sessions confirmed the rate, subject to the decision of the Court

upon a case stated.
Mr. KELLY (with whom was Mr. Bodkin) new appeared in support of
the order of S..,ssions. The Act ine,rporated the Cambridge Gas
Light Company (4th Wm. IV.) contained the usual provisions
empowering the Company to erect buildings, break up the pave-
ments, lay down mains, piper, &c., and perform all the
other requisites for lighting the Town and University of Cam-
bridge with gas. The Company's works had been let to a ten
ant at the Teat of 2,400/. per annum, the tenant paying all rates,
but not providing for the renewal of the works, which were esti-
mated at 5001. per annum. The assessment had been made upon the
sum of 2,4001. and it had been estimated that '7Ol. of that amount was
rateable in the pari,li of St. Mary. The Company on the attc r hand
onte.ided that tree asse,sment should he made in the following way :
their actual income was 5,9661., and their expenses 3,5961., leaving a
profit balance of 2,3701. ; from that sum deductions were to be made of
500/. for annual repLir of works, interest of capital, bad debts, &c.
accounting in all to 1,325/.2 leaving a balance of 1,0431. ; they then
claimed a further deduction of 814/., being the suns paid for lighting
the Colleges of the University, which were not liable to be rated, and
they submitted that under all the circumstances the annual sum for
which they ought to be rated was 2301. 4s. Sd. The object of, all par-
ties was that the Court should dacide the principle upon which the Com-
pany should be rated in the several parishes of Cambridge so as to pre-
vent further litigation.
S.r Wm. FOLLETT having been heard on the other sole,
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(TIIIS

CLIITTON V. KNIGHT.

This was an action for damages, sustained by the plaintiff, in conse-
quence of the defendant having taken down a dam in the river Joberton,
by which the meadows in the occupation of the plaintiff were deprived
of water. The verdict at the trial was found for the defendant. A rule
for a new trial was obtained last term ; it was argue:lto-day at considera-
ble length. The only question was as to the construction to be
put on a lease, dated in 1778 ; and the arguments being entirely legal,
possessed no point of interest to the general reader.
The COURT discharged the rule, as they thought that though the
Chief Justice of the Pleas might not have been strictly correct; still on
the evidence substantial justice had been done.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY

GRAINGER V. HILL.

The arguments in this case were concluded. The circumstances aro
shortly as follow :—The plaintiff; who is the captain of a trading vessel,
had borrowed of the defendant a sum of money on mortgage previous to
making a voyage. It coming to the ears of the defendant (as he alleged)
that the vessel was about to be engaged in a smuggling transaction, he
took out a capias against the plaintiff, and put it into the hands
of an officer, who went to the plaintiff, then ill in bed, and
threatened to arrest him unless be either gave up the register
of his ship, or found bail. Upon this the plaintiff surrendered the
register, without which he cou'd not make use of his vessel, and which
was not returned to him until the debt had been paid. The plaintiff
brought his action for abusing the process of arrest, and for trover and
conversion of the register. The jury found for the plaintiff, damages 1501.
Sergeant Toddy having obtained a rule to show cause why a nonsuit
should not be entered, or a new trial granted, or the judgment arrested,
on Thursday, Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. James showed cause against
the rule. To-day, Sergeant Taddy and Mr. Richards sup.
ported the rule, contending that the declaration should have stated
the absence of all reasonable cause for the arrest, as well as the malicious
arrest : that both were equally necessary to maintain such an action as
the present ; and that with regard to the trover count, the register was
obtained with the leave and license of the plaintiff, and that there
was no conversion, and that there was in fact no arrest, for that the
Nicer did not actually take plaintiff's person into custody.
The COURT, in giving judgment, were unanimously of opinion that
the arrest in this case was sufficiently proved by the conduct of the offi-
cer, and that the defendant had no right to take out a writ on the ground
of debt, and then use it for a totally different purpose ; and that it was a
shameful abuse of the process of the Court, to make it the means of extort-
ing from the person arrested, by false duress, an additional security for the
debt, which was not actually due at the time, for the mortgage did notexpire
till nearly a twelvemonth afterwards. The taking possession of the register
by wrongful means did, in fact, amount to trover and arrest ; and
though, in common cases of actions for malicious arrest, it was usual to
allege in the declaration the absence of any reasonable or probable cause
for the arrest ; yet, as this was a case without precedent, it was to be
judged of by its own particular circumstances, and the absence of rea-
sonable cause for the arrest was evident from the debt not being actually
due at the time. The rule must, on all grounds, be discharged.