The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-05 00:00:00

THE SUN

property of those three ladies. Not satisfied with that
—the plaintiff having returned with her sister to her
mother's resdence—two of the family of love shortly
afterwards went there and insisted on her accom-
panying them. Her mother endeavoured to induce the
plaintiff to rinain with her, but the plaintiff declared
that it was the will of God that she should go. Accord-
ingly, the plaintiff left her mothei 'a house. Her mother,
not knowing whither her daughter had gone, shortly
afterwards went into Wales in search of her, and ulti-
mately the mother discovered that her daughter (the
plaintiff) had become an inmate in this Abode of Love.
Her mother felt it to be her duty to endeavour, if she
possibly could, to rescue her daughter from the contami-
nation of such a society; and accordingly she requested
her son and her ton-in-law, Mr. Ripley, who had been
the friend of the whole family, and had managed the
whole of their money affairs, to go down to Charlidge
and bring her daughter away. They could only justify
themselves in this act on the ground of the plaintiff being
a dangerous lunatic. They brought the plaintiff to
London, and there she was found to be in a state of very
consider able excitement, declaring her belief that that
wretched man, Mr. Prince, was Almighty God, that he
had rendered her immortal, and expressing herself in
similar terms with regard to the chief person in the
Abode of Love. Her mother thought it necessary to
call in a medical man. A Mr. Morton was applied to;
he examined the state of mind of the plaintiff, and was
perfectly satisfied that she was deranged, and gave a li
certificate of that fact.

Mr. Baron ALDER,ON slid he could not see how the
Court could interfere so ac to give the Learned Counsel
leave to enter the verdict for the defendant, upon a
state of facts which were in dispute.

Sir F. THESIGER submitted that ►he certificates of the
medical men were evidence that the plaintiff was insane.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said that might be so, but then
it remained to say whether those certificates went to
prove that she was a lunatic, " dangerous to herself or
others," in accordance with the terms of the Act 8 and
9 Vic. c. 100.

Eventually the Court granted a rule, the terms of it
to be settled on the subsequent argument, namely, whether
it should be to enter the verdict for the defendant or for
a new trial.

COMMON PLEAS—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
WILDE, Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr. Justice WILLIAMS,
and Mr. Justice TALFOURD.
RIDGELL V. MOORE.

This action was tried before Mr. Barcn Rolfe at the
last Berks Assizes, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff; damages, one shilling.
Mr. WHATELY moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had,
on the ground that there was no evidence in the cause to
go to the jury. He also moved an arrest of judgment
on the ground that a good cause of action did
not appear on the face of the declaration.
The action was to try a right of way. The plaintiff it
appeared was seized of one-seventh of a certain close
called Ewin's Wood, as tenant in common, which at the
time of the act complained of, was in the possession of
a tenant named Reddings, and the plaintiff claimed a
right of way from this close over a certain other close
belonging to the defendant to the public highway. The
breach was—the defendant knowing these premises and
intending to injure the reversionary estate and interest of
the plaintiff, bad wrongfully and unlawfully fastened a
certain gate standing across the way in question,
and prevented his making use of it. The
only important plea in the case was the traverse
of the right. It appeared, that in 1812, the father of
the plaintiff Kidgell, purchased Ewin's Wood; which at
that time, and as long as was within the memory of the
oldest witnesses, was covered with trees and underwood,
which were cut down at the usual intervals. After
the purchase old Kidgell began to grub up the ground,
and convert it into arable land, a process which occupied
seven or eight years, but was completed about 1822, for in
that year he let it to a tenant named Clarke, who occupied
it until 1831. In 1832 Clarke gave it up to Kidgell,
the present plaintiff, who occupied it up to the period of
the trial. On the part of the plaintiff the case was that
old Kidgell had drawn timber along the road whenever
it was cut down. This was not denied by the defendant;
but he contended, if there was any such user of road,
the evidence only went to show a limited and not a
general right; for all that was provedtbeyond the convey-
ance of timber was, that on one or two instances, while
the ground was being cleared, some crops of corn and
beans had been carried along the road. and also that the
tenant Clarke had ridden over it. Upon the paint of
arrest of judgment, the Learned Counsel contended that
no such obstruction as that alleged could, under any
circumstances, be injurious to a person who had a rever-
sionary interest in the land. It it were so, an action
could nor now be maintained by the reversioner, but no
lapse of time would debar him from asserting his right
when he came into possession of the property.
Their Lordships took time to consider their decision.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
TOWNSEND V. ALDRIDGE.
Mr. WATSON moved for a rule nisi calling upon the
justices of the county of Huntingdon to show cause why
a mandamus should not issue commanding them to hear
the appeal of Mr. Thomas Aldridge against an order in
bastardy. The case was heard at the petty sessions of
St. Neot's, on the 17th cf May, and Mr. Aldridge
was adjudged to be the putative father of the bastard
child of one Jane Townsend. Mr. Aldridge gave the
female verbal notice that he should appeal against the
decision, but when the oise came before the justices at
Huntieg,lon two objections were taken to the notice, first
that it was not in writing, and secondly that,,although
the adjudication had been made when the notice was
given, yet the justices had not signed the order; and the
justices determined that the notice was not sufficient. Now
it was quite clear, by the decisions of the Court in the case
of" The King and the Justices of Surrey" and " The King
and the Justices of Stanhope," reported in " Barnwell
and Adolphus," that where an Act of Parliament required
that a reasonable notice should be given of an appeal,
it did not necessarily follow that it should be in writing;
while with regard to the other objection, that the order
had not been signed, the fourth section of the 7 and 8
Vict., chap. 101, simply required the notice to be given
within 24 hours after the adjudication.
Mr. Justice PATTESON granted a rule nisi.
Rule nisi accordingly.
ASHWORTH V. SHEPPARD AND ANOTHER.
Mr. HATHERTON Was instructed to apply to the Court
for a:rule to show cause why a writ of prohibition should
not issue in this case, directed to the Judge at the County
Court of Lancashire, at Haslington. The case arose
out of a replevin suit, and he moved upon the joint
affidavit of the defendant Sheppard and his attorney,
who stated that the defendant, the heir-at-law of one
Judeth Tattersall, and claimed to be the customary
successor to some copyhold property which the deceased
lady had held under the lord of the manor of Accring-
ton. The tenants, however, disputed his right, on the
ground that a document had been lodged in the
Consistory Court of Chester, by certain parties
named on the face of it, and purporting to be the last
will and testament of Mr. Judeth Tattersall; but a caveat
had been entered against probate on the part of Mr.
Sheppard, and a suit on the subject was now pending in
the Consistory Court. Mr. Sheppard was, therefore,
forced to distrain on the tenants in possession of the
property to recover the rent, and six of them had com-
menced replevin suits in the County Court, to recover
damages for the distraint. At the trial, it was not only
shown, but admitted, that the suits involved questions
relating to property of a freehold character, and it was
contended that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
The Judge, however, ruled otherwise, and adjudicated
in favour of the plaintiff, observing that by the 121st
section of the County Court Act, the defendants had the
power to remove the cases into a superior court on
certain conditions. This case, however, bad nothing to
do with that section; it came rather within the provisions
of the 58th section, which strictly prohibited the judges
of county courts taking cognizance of cases involving
questions of right to real property, even though the
damages or amount in dispute were under 201., and as that
section made the decision in this case voidable, the de-
fendant was anxious to have the point argued and decided
in one of the cases only.
Mr. Justice PATTESON thought there was a distinction
between the two sections, and the cases which each con-
templated, and asked if the rent distrained for accrued
subsequently to the death of Mr. Tattersall.
Mr. HATHERTON replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take a rule.
Buie nisi.

LONDON,

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
LAND LUBBERS.—Two lads, named Southerland and
attired in the garb of sailors, were charged with
begging.
Police-constable A Bi, stated that on Saturday after-
noon he was on duty in the Strand in plain clothes,
when he observed the two prisoners stop several gentle-
and solicit alms, which induced him to take them
into custody.

Mr. HALT—They are not regular sailors? The con-
stable said they were not; they had money on them and
could not have been in want.

Mr. HALL thought so.

Sutherland said his worship was mistaken then. He
was a sailor, and in distress too, or he would not have
begged.
Mr. HALL—Regular sailors can always get plenty of
employment, but you are land sailors. You have not
the least appearance of salt water sailors. You are
what sailors would call " Land Lubbers," a class of
beings who are everlastingly going about calling them-
selves " Poor Jacks."

The constable said these two belonged to that class.
Mr. HALL asked Southerland when he was last at sea?
—Southerland said be came from Calcutta in the South-
ampton on , the Ist of August. He was an ordinary
seaman, and got 30s. per month, but on landing he was
robbed of all he possessed, and was obliged to be g for his
living.
Mr. HALL—What have you to say, Overy?—Overy
said he belonged to Liverpool, and had recently returned
from Quebec in the Jane. Since then he had been on
board she Jem, trading to Algoa Bay.
Mr. HALL—Have you any friends you can refer to?-
overy said he had a sister living in Doctors' Commons,
but he should not like her to know the state he was in.

Mr. HALL thought their stories were most improbable.
Sailors were often robbed upon getting ashore, but they
seldom or never turned beggars. It was, however, the
practice of idle fellows to put on sailor's clothes, and
assumo a distressed appearance, to excite compassion.
He had no doubt these two belonged to the fraternity,
and he should therefore send them to the House of Cor-
rection for eight days.