The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, April 28.
The COURT heard consent petitions and short causes,
then causes were spoken to upon the minutes of the
decrees therein, after which
RR 3URCIIELL.
The petition of Messrs. Spottiswoode, Morley, and
Johnstone, presented in the matter of Messrs. Bur-
chell, Kilgour, and Parsons, solicitors, the respondents,
praying for a reference back to the taxing Master to
review the taxation of the bills of costs of the re-
spondents relative to the Larne and Ballymena
Railway, &c., in Ireland, was resumed, and Mr.
Turner for the petitioners, Messrs. Spottiswoode, was
further heard. He was followed by Mr. Lewis,
but that gentleman had not concluded when the
Court rose.

THE ATTORNEY• GENERAL V. STEVENS.
In our report of this case in last Thursday's paper,
Lord Langdale was stated to have made a declaration
that the whole of the rents and profits of the lands
(the subject matter of the information) belonged to
the Corporation of the Dean and Chapter of Roches-
ter. The declaration his Lordship made was, that
those rents belonged to the Hospital of St. Bartholo-
mew, and that the Dean and Chapter were not
entitled to them, but that the right of patronage
belonged to the Dean.

VICE CHANCERY COURTS, April 28.
(Before Sir L. SHADWELL )
SISMEY V. ELY.
This bill was filed for the setting aside of an in-
strument whereby an annuity was secured to the de-
fendant, on the ground that the plaintiff was induced
to execute such instrument by the defendant's promise
to cohabit with him, when in fact the deed itself was
for past cohabitation, and the interrogatories were
framed for the purpose of eliciting from the defendant
whether or not those were the circumstances under
which it was executed. A demurrer was put in to
this bill, in support of which it was contended that
this court would not aid a plaintiff in setting aside
the reparation which he had made for a past injury.
The plaintiff, in fact, alleged an immoral considers
tion, and upon principles of public morality as well
as equity he would not be allowed to cancel an in-
strument which was in fact fur a mural consideration,
nor would he be assisted in drawing from the defen-
dant admissions of a turpitude in which they were
both concerned and of which he had been the cause
All the cases on the subject laid down that princi-
ple, and therefore the bill was untenable.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Brett appeared in support of the
demurrer; Mr. Bethell and Mr. A. Smith appeared
for the bill—without hearing whom
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, it appeared to him
that the instrument on the face of it was good. The
plaintiff represented that he had been induced to ex-
ecute it by the defendant upon a promise made and
held out to him that she would live with him as his
mistress. That promise was the alleged considera-
tion, but it did not appear ever to have been acted
upon, and in fact the whole thing was broken off,
and no illegal act took place in consequence of that
expectation. The demurrer must therefore be over-
ruled.

(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
CONSTABLE V. BULL.

A testator, after directing the payment of his debts
and funeral expenses, gave to his wife all his estate,
effects, goods, chattels, houses, lands, and moneys,
for her own use and benefit; and he further gave
and directed that, at the decease of his wife,
" whatever remains shall go, and be equally divided,
share and share alike, between the following
persons," whom he then enumerated, or such of them
as should be then living. The question raised was,
whether under this the widow took an absolute in-
terest in the whole, or whether the other parties had
a substantial interest in the capital after the decease
of the testator's widow.

Mr. Wigram and Mr. Kent appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Russell, Mr. Toiler, Mr. Metcalfe,
Mr. R. Fisher, Mr. Chichester, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Bichnor, and Mr. Giffard, for the several de-
fendants.

His HONOUR was of opinion, at present, that the
widow did not take the property absolutely, but that
the other parties at her death had a substantial in-
terest; and he should so hold, unless before the end
of the term he should intimate a contrary view to the
registrar.

✓
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM )
HUTTON V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAIL.
WAY COMPANY.

The VICE. CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this
case. The plaintiff was the lessee for years of a
stream and reservoir suppled by the tidal waters of
the Thames, and in the year 1837 the company pur-
chased the right of erecting a railway bridge over
part of the stream and reservoir fora sum of 9501.,
which included the damages by the loss of the water,
and the increased expense which would be occasioned
in periodically clearing -the stream. In 1847 the
company obtained a further Act, enabling them to
widen part of the railway ; and under this Act they
took proceedings to widen the bridge, without pre-
viously attempting to ascertain the amount of the
damage which would be occasioned to the plaintiff, or
paying compensation. "Upon this, the plaintiff filed
his Bill for an injunction. The bill did not dispute
the right of the company to widen their bridge, nor
allege that in doing so they had exceeded their
powers ; but insisted that they had no right to do so
until they had part made compensation to the plain-
tiff. The defendants asked for time to meet the
motion for the injunction, and afterwards took steps
to ascertain before a jury the amount of compensa-
tion, which was assessed at 2001. The damage so
ascertained was paid, and nothing remained to be done
but determine the costs of the suit—a question which
depended on the right of the company to do the acts
complained of without having previously made
The bill was founded upon the mistaken
com-
pensation.ground that the case came within the provisions of
the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, whilst it fell
under the provisions of the Railway Clauses Act.
There was an obvious difference between the
purposes of the two Acts. The first provided for
cases of purchase of land; the second for the
manner in which the works should be carried

into execution. The latter Act provided that the
Company should make to the owners and occupiers
of land taken or injuriously affected full compensa-
tion for the damage so done, and that such damage
shoull be ascertained in the manner pointed out by
the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. The case of
taking or purchase of land stood in a very different
position from the case of a consequential damage
to other parties arising from lawful acts done by the
company ou their own land. He was of opinion that
in the latter case, although the company were bound
to make compensation, it was not necessary that the
compensation should be made before the work was
done. He found that this conclusion agreed with
that of the Court of Queen's Bench'in a
case before
them on the same point, where it was considered that
it would frequently be a matter of much difficulty, if
not of impossibility, to ascertain the true amount of
damage until the work should be completed". The

poked it through for him, " big a devil as he was." She
hesitated not to say also, that learning after she went to
live with him, how he had abused his wife, who was still
living, dislike had taken the place of any affection for
him. Beesley declared that all he wished from MiCall
was his papers and the letters from his wife and owners.
During the investigation, however, it came out that the
caper which was most desired was an assignment of
1,3001., which he had transferred to his mistress when they
were living together in temporary quietude. The as-
signment had reference to some prize-money to which
Beesley was entitled by virtue of services on the coast
of Africa. Miss M'Call offered to give up all papers
but the assignment; but Beesley, not content with this,
charged her with felony, and she was locked up in bride-
well for the night.

On Wednesday Miss Call was brought up at the
police-court before Mr. Rushton, charged with stealing a
ork-box and other articles. Mr. Davenport appeared
for the prisoner. Beesley said the prisoner had been
living with him for six months, in Ireland, but had now
left him, and robbed him of every thing. Mr. Rushton—
Have you been living together as man and wife? Bees-
ley—Yes. In reply to Mr. Davenport, Beesley said he
belonged to the Scotia steamer, and had been living with
the prisoner in Kingstown until last Friday. He had
allowed her to use the name of Beesley. He gave her
an assignment of 1,3001. He did not watt hi r to live
with him. Could not tell how much property she had des-
troyed, as he had been ordered off in a hurry. Mr. Rushton
—But you have brought her here on the distinct charge of
-,tealin books, work boxes, and other articles. Officer
Tuck—We have those at the office. Mr. Davenport—Was
it not your wife's work-box? Beesley—Yes. Mr. Rush-
ton—Did you set her up in the house? A. I had it fur-
nished betore. Q. Do you know what is gone? A. I
claim nothing but my papers. Mr. Rushton—ln order
to sustain a charge of felony you must be quite clear
that these articles were never left in her custody. She
was in such a capacity with you that the articles were
common property. It seems you made a settlement on
'on her. Beesley—That I gave her; I do not ask it.
Mr. Rushton—lt appears a very hard case that she
should have taken away his papers. The whole thing
is a rupture of one of those wretched connexions
which always end in misery. Mr. Superintendent
Clough—She proffered to give up all the papers, pro-
vided he would allow her to retain the deed of assign-
ment for 1,3001. Mr. Rushton—Who has got that
deed? Prisoner—l have. That is the paper he wanted
from me. The prisoner then proceeded to give a history
of her connexion with Beesley, particulars of which will be
tbund above, and added, that she loved the father of her
child, but did net like the complainant. When she was
living with him in Canning-street, Birkenhead, he called
her improper names before the landlady of the house,
and she took a dislike to him then. She stated that she
would have been married in May to the father of her
boy if she had left Beesley, who offered to settle 1,300/.
on her if she would not go. She got Beesley to write
to the father of the child, but he destroyed the letter
written by her desire, and sent another, telling him that
she was living with him. Mr. Rushton—l du not think
any charge of felony can be sustained in this case. Dis-
charge her. The prisoner then left the court.—Liverpool
Mercury.