The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

This being the second seal after Michaelmas Term the
Lord Chancellor hoard appeal motions.
IN THE MATTER OF THE SHREWSBURY AND CHESTER
RAILWAY, AND IN THE:MATTER OF THE CHESTER AND
HOLYHEAD RAILWAY. .

in .
The appeal motion this. case from the decision of
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce occupied his Lordship
the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Consents, short causes, and motions of no interest
occupied the Court the whole day.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY P. DIMES.
A motion to commit Mr.-Dimes for a breach of the
injunction granted in this case occupied his Honour the
whole morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Motions of no general interest occupied the Court the
whole morning.
(Before the Vice• Chancellor WIGRAM.)
ills HONOUR ha%ing disposed of the motions before
him proceeded to hear the further arguments inthe part•
heard case of Griffith v. Linnell, which eccupied the re-
maider of the morning.

EXCHEQUER.-(TIIIS DAY.)
Sittings in Banco. be'ore Mr. Baron PARKE, Mr. Baron
RoLFE, Mr. Baron ALDERSON, and Mr. Baron
PLATT

SIIARROD V. NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
This was au action to recover the value et some sheep
belonging to the plaintiff, which had strayed upon the
North-Western Railway and been run over by an en-
gine of the company and killed. The verdict was for
the plaintiff, but subsequently a rule nisi was obtained
for leave to enter a nonsuit, and it was argued at some
length in the course of last term.
Mr. Baron PARKE delivered judgment in the case
this morning. The Court, for the purpose of deciding
the que6tion submitted to them, had treated the case as
if the damage had been done by an ordinary
carriage drawn by horses along a public highway,
and they were of opinion that in all instances in which
a master gave the direction and control of a carriage to
a rational servant, the master was only responsible in an
cet ion on the case for any want of skill or care on the
part of the servant, and consequently this action of
trespass could not be supported. The defendants were
bound to see that their carriages did not travel at such a
:Teed as to make it impossible to avoid persons who had
a legal right to be on the railway; but if the cattle of
the plaintiff had no right to be there, the company were
not guilty of any misconduct. On the other hand, it
there was an excuse for getting on the line by reason of
their having escaped through defective fences, which
the company should have kept up, the cattle were not
wrong-doers, although they had no right to be there.
The damage was a consequence of the neglect of the
defendants, and compensation must be recovered accord-
ngly on an action on the case. The Court, therefore,
decided that this action of trespass was not maintainable,
at d were of opinion that the rule for a nonsuit should
be made absolute.
Rule absolute accordingly.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
Sittings in Banco, before Justices MAUL; CRESSWELL
and WILLIAMS.)
MORGAN V. THE EARL OF AREReAVENNY,

The Court gave judgment in this case this morning.
Mr. Justice MAIILE, pronouncing the judgment of the
Court, said this was a case in which a rule for a new
trial was argued before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr.
Justice Colman, Mr. Justice Cresswell and himself, and
the Lord Chief Justice had prepared the judgment, in
which the Court all concurred some time ago, although
he had not put it into the praper form until lately.
This was an action in trover brought to recover damages
for the conversion of certain deer, and the declaration

alleged that the testator was possessed of certain deer,
and then that the plaintiffs, his executors, were also
possessed. The pleas denied the possession of the
testator and the executors, and then they alleged that
the deer were not wild, but were tame and reclaimed,
except a certain number of them, in respect of which
the defendant paid 85L into court. The case was
tried some time ago before Mr. Justice Coltman,
at the sittings in Middlesex, and a verdict passed
for the plaintiff. A rule was afterwards obtained
calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why thereshou'd
not be a new trial on the ground of misdirection, and
that the verdict found by the jury was not a sufficient
verdict, and if it were sufficient that it was contrary to
evidence. The main question in the case was whether
Eridge Park, in which the deer in question were kept,
was an ancient and legal park, or whether it had become
disparked by the addition of other lanes to it, or by the
destruction of the boundaries. The Court were of
opinion that the deer in question were reclaimed, and
therefore that they were of the nature of personal
property, and as such passed to the testator's personal
representatives, the plaintiffs, and not to the defendant
as his heir. That being so, it was unnecessary for the
Court to decide whether the park in question was an an-
dent legal park. Upon the point as to whether the deer
had been reclaimed, it appeared by certain ancient do-
cuments that the park had been a legal park, and also
that the deer in it were very wild. It appeared alto
that the deer were regularly fed during the winter,
that the does were watched, and that when
the fawns were dropped they were marked. Then
it appeared that the way of killing the
deer was by shooting them, and that when shot they
were aold to venison dealers, or consumed by the
owner. It also appeared that some years ago a certain
number of deer were brought from another place and
placed in this park. On these grounds the Court de-
cided that the deer e ere tame and reclaimed, and did
not remain in their wild state. The Court was of
opinion that the rule in this case could not be supported,
ou the ground of misdirection, and, therefore, that the
verdict for the plaintiff was right. The Court thought
the facts were such as it was fitting should be deter-
mined by the jury, and, therefore, that they were
rightly left to the jury, and the Court could not perceive
any sufficient ground for warranting them in se) ing
that the jury came to a wrong conclusion. The rule
for a new trial must, therefore, be discharged.—Rule
discharged accordin giy.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAYS)
A respectably attired ) oung womr,wlto gave the name
of Fanny Temple, was charged with being drunk and
disorderly.
Police constable F 148 stated that on Sunday morn-
ing, about one o'clock, he was on duty in the Strand
when he heard a noise in Newcastle court, and on going
to see what was the matter he found the prisoner quar-
relling with her mother, 4 brothel-keeper, about a