The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 13.
LEVI V. PRENDERGAST.
In this case, which was not concluded yesterday when we
went to press, the LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the
order of the Master of the Rolls must be overruled, and the
injunction dismissed.

ROLLS COURT, DEC. 13.
DAVIES V. GATACRE.

Mr. PEMBERTON appeared in this case on behalf of the
plaintiff. The bill was filed in aid of an action at law by the
plaintiff, who claimed as tenant in tail of a certain es-
tate under a settlement made in 1721. His estate in posses-
sion occurred in 1824 upon the death without issue of the te-
nant in tail then entitled. In 1827 the plaintiff commenced an
action of ejectment, upon which the defendants, who were in
possession of the property, got in an outstanding term of 300
years, which was created under the deed of 1721.
This, of course, rendered it impossible for the plaintiff
to proceed with his action of ejectment, and accordingly it
became necessary to file a bill to have the impediment in
way of the legal right removed by the assistance of a Court
of Equity. The defendants rested their claims upon this
ground. They alleged that the plaintiff was not The tenant
in tail of the property, because certain entails prior to those
limited in favour of his ancestors had not failed ; in short,
they alleged that there was a prior tenant in tail, who suffered
a recovery, and from whom their (the defendants') ancestor
purchased in 1784.
His Lordship postponed the further hearing of the argu-
ment till to-morrow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 13.
LONG V. M`CABE.

This was an action which the plaintiff had brought to
recover a compensation in damages for the expenses to
which she had been put by an injury she had suffered in
consequence of the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff
was an elderly lady, who resided with her sister, Mrs.
Schofield, and her nephew, Captain Rankin, the gentleman
who made such a courageous defence of his aunt's house
against the Chipstead burglars, at Mont House, near Chip-
stead, Surrey. The defendant was a watch and clock
maker, residing in Cheapside. On the 18th of February
last the plaintiff had come to town upon some business, and
she went in the evening of that day with her nephew to the
shop of the defendant, her nephew desiring to leave his
watch there to be repaired. They went into the shop just
about six o'clock, when it had become dark. Now there
were scarcely any lights in the shop, and there was a trap-
door in it which was open. The plaintiff unfortunately
stepped into the hole, and was precipitated a depth of ten
feet into the cellar below. She was instantly taken up, and
carried up stairs into the shop ; and the defendant then
afforded the plaintiff every attention in his power. But the
accident bad occurred through his negligence, and the
attentions which he then bestowed could not prevent the in..
tolerable pain which the plaintiff was then suffering. She
was taken to an inn in the Borough, and shortly afterwards
went down to her own house at Chipstead, where she re_
mained for some time in a very weak state.
Witnesses were then called to prove these facts.

Sir F. POLLOCK, for the defendant, said there was no
one who more than his client regretted the unfortunate oc-
currence which had made the plaintiff suffer the pain of
which she now complained. But her sufferings were not
attributable to the negligence of the defendant. There
was a labour necessary to be performed in all tradesmen's
shops once in a day, that was the labour of putting up the
shutters. That labour was being performed at the moment
when the plaintiff and her nephew entered the shop. The
defendant had behaved after the accident with every atten-
tion to the plaintiff. This accident was not owing to the
defendant's negligence, but to the plaintiff's incaution.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
161. 4s. 3d.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 13.
ATTWOOD V. HANCOCK.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Charles and Benjamin Attwood, extensively engaged in the
glass trade, against the Sheriff of the town and county of
Poole, in Dorsetshire, to recover compensation in damages
for losses which they alleged themselves to have sustained
from the defendant having failed in his duty in regard to

the execution of a writ.—The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
summed up, and the Jury found for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, Is.

EXCHEQUER COURT, DEC. 13.
SMITH V. ROBINSON.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for injuries sustained by plaintiff, in consequence of the
careless and negligent driving of defendant's son. The
plaintiff was a builder, reiding in Watling street, the de-
fendant a farmer at Crawley, in Sussex. The plaintiff, on
the 3d of September last, had occasiou to go to Brighton,
and was proceeding on his way in a one-horse chaise, ac-
companied by his wife and child. About four miles be-
yond Croydon, at the left-hand side of the road, is a train-
ing house for horses, with a green sward outside, where
they are exercised. Upon arriving at the spot plaintiff saw
defendant's son approaching in a one-horse cart, with
three young women in it, and, notwithstanding all his en-
deavours to avoid it, the cart came in contact with the
gig, tore away the wheel, broke the shafts, and threw plain-
tiff with his wife and child headlong upon the ground. The
harness was injured, his wife was thrown under the mare,
which trampled upon her chest. She returned to town to
obtain medical advice, and continued for a long time un-
well. The gig had been sent for repairs to a coach fac-
tory, and the mare had ever since became vicious and less
valuable. The defendant upon the record admitted the
facts, and paid money into Court. The question which
the jury had to decide was the amount of loss sustained by
the plaintiff.
The jury found for the defendant.

ADMIRALTY COURT-DEC. 13.
THE SUSANNAH-SALVAGE.

This, which is a suit for salvage, is promoted by the
masters and crews of the Liberty, Eagle, and other smacks,
against the owners of the sloop Susannah. There is great
discrepancy in the testimony of the parties, it being con-
tended on behalf of the alleged salvors that the Susannah,
Captain Brown, master, while on a voyage from Colches-
ter to London, laden with corn, flour, and similar produce
on the 23d of September of the present year, struck on
the Maplin Sand---that the masters and crews of the
smacks went off in the Liberty's boat to render assistance,
and got her afloat—that she proceeded on her voyage, but
through not keeping a proper luff again struck on the Buck-
say Sand—that the salvors then went on board of her and
discovered that she had sprung a leak, having been pricked
by her anchor in her larboard bows, and that they stopped
the leak, and through their assistance islie was enabled to
continue her course. This was the story told on behalf of
the salvors ; but the witnesses on the other side denied
that the Susannah ever struck on the Malpin Sand, and
stated that she went purposely ashore on the Bucksey Sand
to repair the hole that had been made by the anchor—that
the alleged salvors then came up, but that Captain Brown
refused their assistance. The ship and cargo were valued
at 5501.

The COURT, after hearing counsel, decreed that the pe-
tition of the salvors should be dismissed, with costs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. 13.

William Peter Broughton, formerly of the Marine-pa-
rade, Dover, and late of Clarges-street, Piccadilly, book-
seller, whose case was reported on a former occasion, came
up for adjudication. In this case the question was the con-
tracting of a debt with one of the opposing creditors, and
the manner in which the insolvent had disposed of his pro-
perty, to the injury of his creditors.
Mr. Commissioner BOW EN gave judgment, by remanding
the insolvent for a period of ten calendar months, for a
fraudulent disposition of his property.

The CHAIRMAN was disposed to grant the motion, and to
put the warrants into the hands of the police directly, as
they were of course best acquainted with the premises. But
he must of course have a communication with Colonel Rowan
to ascertain whether he thought such a course would be
proper. At present, therefore, he did not feel justified in
assenting to the motion until lie had consulted with the Co-
lonel. He was very strongly convinced of the expediency
of warrants of this description being executed by the police,
because it would put an end to the system with which
gaining-house prosecutions were at present carried on.
The COURT then directed that the bench warrants be is-
sued and placed in the hands of the inspector of police al-
luded to, to put into execution.

THE KING V. LEWIS AND ANOTHER.
This was a prosecution carried on by Mr. Charles Perry
against the defendants, for keeping a common gambling-
house. Mr. Perry addressed the Chairman, and said that
he had not been able to apprehend the defendants, which
would not have been the case if the warrants had been in
the hands of the police. The Chairman directed that Mr.
Perry should inform himself more particularly upon the sub-
ject, as he understood one of the parties had been appre-
hended. Mr. Perry admitted that Levy Leman had been
taken.