The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-15 00:00:00

MANN V. STEPHENS.

This case came betore Lord,hip upon an appeal
from the deci.,ton of the Vice-Chancellor of England,
ordering the committal of the defendant for the breach
of an injunction granted in July last, by which he was
restraint d from erecting any brewery or building upon
certain lends adjoinitz Windmill-hill, Gravesend, with
the exception of one private and ornamental house on a
portion of land known as The Dell. The appeal motion
also asked for the dissolution of the injuneti,m.

The ca6e occupied his Lordship the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

LATOUR V. HOLCOMBE.

Mr. PALMER, on the part of the assignees of the
plaintiff, moved hir an order to dismiss the bill with
costs. It appearei that the plaintiff (Colonel Latour)
became bankrupt, and his estate was sold by his as-
signees to the, defendant. The plaintiff filed a bill, to
which the cl,fendatit demurred, which was dismissed,
and the plaintiff had been in prison since for the costs of
that suit.

Mr. KINDERSLET (who, with Mr. Hilderton, appeared
for the phintiff) stated that his client had been very
badly treated by his assignees, and that the Vice-
Chancellor, before whom the former cause was heard,
had expressed a very strong opinion in favour of the
plaintiff's case, supposing the allegations in his bill were
substantiated. His client had every hope, in the course
of a month or six weeks, of being able to raise the funds
requisite to discharge the costs for which he was detained.
His LORDSHIP (at the conclusion of the arguments)
said that the plaintiff was no doubt entitled to the
protection of the Court on a motion for the dismissal of
a bill with costs. At the same time, nothing should be
done to the derogation of the rights of the defendants,
who had performed their duty in reference to the pro-
ceedings before the Court. Before the plaintiff became
entitled to the delay which he sought for he should make
out a reasonable cause for the interference of the Court
on his behalf. He did not think that such a case had
been made, in the present instance, and he would grant
the injunction.

BAUNDERSON V. THE COCKERMOUTH AND WORKINGTON

RAILWAY COMPANY.
Th's was a motion fur an injunction to restrain the
defendants from opening their line, under the following
circumstances:—The railway passed through a portion
of the plaintiff's property, and by a contract of the 2,1 of
March. 1846. the d.-tendants agreed to afford a suitable
accommodation for .he plaintiff's cattle. This they pro-
posedtheir erecting h toth
ed o
plaintifftiy a tratsiel
diysatisfit•d,
jusnmdteirsfit,hde, raainldwayi,nsiwstiethd
upon their e
hefiemnditionotis.rain,tdustehde
ptloainateitt;tilnest
the proceedings.
thatpeac
eh easthoquuladrthear7esessosuigonhat
It was contunded, on the part of the defendants, that
demand,tion ci; 2501. but offrrehreedd
the very terms of the contract." slips for cattle," showed
that it was not expected by the plaintiff that they should
eheinjugsuteiseteir of fl•
erect
stshefrbormidg,
he f °re applying to the court; that it would be almost im-
practicable, consistent with the purposes of the railway,
to tnAcw the bridge in question, and that the defendant
should have instituted this snit before, and not have de-
layed till the completion of the line.
Mr. Kindersley and another Learned Gentleman ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Turner and Mr.
Matins for the defendants.

The arguments in this case, which were commencPd
before the hodriays, ware restom-ti snd concluded to-day.
His LORDSHIP directed the case to stand over, both
parties having intimated their readiness to accede to the
directOn of the Court, as to the manner in which the
contract should be cpecifically performed.

VICE-CHANCERY.—;THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND
MOSELEY V. ALSTON—TILEDRoAD v. THE NARROW GAUGE.
The further arguments in this part-heard motion for
an injunction occupied his Honour the u hole morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief.fustice DENMAN.)

THE QUEEN V. ADAMS.

Mr. LUSH moved for a writ of habeas corpus to bring
up the bodies of two elderly females, who had ben con-
fined in Whitecross-street Prison, and also applied for
their discharge, as they had been in prison since 1844.
They had pleaded guilty to an indictment, and the pro-
seoutor had refuses to pray the judgment of the Court
upon them, and the consequence was that they had been
detained in custody ever since, and had been maintained
at a considerable expense to the justices.
Mr. PEACOCK, on behalf of the prosecutor, said that
the defendants were committed on a former occasion for
contempt of court, and they had since repeated the libel.
Lord DENMAN, after making some inquiries, said they
had not been committed for contempt, but merely on the
indictment for a libel.
Mr. PEACOCK applied to the Court for time to allow
the prosecutor to put in some affidavits before the parties
were brought up for judgment.
Lord DENMAN—We cannot keep them in prison to
please your client. If they repeat the libel you can have
them punished again, but as they have been so long con-
fined I think that they bad better be brought up.
Mr. Lusa said that the parties were present.
Lord DENMAN—Then let them come forward.
Miss Frances Adams and Miss Mary Anne Susannah
Adams were then brought forward.
Lord DENMAN—You are now brought up for judg-
ment for a most serious offence, on which you have al-
lowed judgment to go by default. You have been in
custody for a very long pi-r:od, and the Court thinks that
punishment enough. The judgment of the Court is that
you each pay a fine of one shilling to the Queen, and
enter into your own recogniz 'noes in 1002 each to be of
good bet avicur for the next two years.
The Retnen.brancer then proceeded to read the form
of recognizance, and said—You and each of you owe
to Our sovereign lAdy the Queen the sure of 1001.
Miss Mary Anne—We owe 100/.? How do we Owe
tho Queog ra? We do iaot or; her

The COVET—You must pay her a fine of a shilling.
Miss Frances Adams—Pay her a shilling !—no, nor a
penny.
Lord DENMAN—You must not repeat the offence; that
is all you bind yourselves to.
The two ladies at once—We have never misbehaved
ourselves—the

Lord DENMAN—YOU must not use such language.
The itt-tneium sneer (showing the form of recogni-
zance)—Read this.

Mi;s Mary Anne Adams—We won't leave the Court,
we are determined to have justice.
Lord DENDIAN—There is no harm intended to you,
they are merely words. You only promise that you will
not repeat the oNenee.

Mis; Francis Adams—Oh, won't we though ? Yes
we will.7(Llughtt r.)

The R inetunratic‘r having read the form of rec,g
nizance, en attempt was made to remove the ladies.
Their removal was, however, a mater of much difficulty,
for one fastened on the Solicitor-General, while the
other firmly grasped the Attorney Gt neral. The usher
of the Court attempted to remove them, but without
success fur some time, unto the assistat ce of the police
was called in, when the ladies were taken out amidst
shouts of laughter, in which the Bench joined.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Bancu, btfor* Mr. Justice EBLE,)
This C,,urt met at .ten o'clock, but there being no
business to transact rose immediately.

SHERIFFS' COURT.--(THIS DAY.

(Beivre Mr. Unblur• 6heritt 13URC1ILLL.)
WRIGHT V. 11A11811.

This was an action to recover the gum of 121. 10s. on
a bill of exchange.
1 he defendant pleaded that he did not accept the bill.
Mr. TaussAs, who appeared for the plaintiff; called a
witness, who proved that he went to Messrs. Mord,n
and Co., in Croswell-street, where he saw a person v.ho
admitted that his name was Marsh, and that the bill
was accepted by him.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said that this evidence
was not sufficient, there must be some ider.tity.
Mr. TuomAs said the case must stand over till they
could get other evidence.

Suaegtiently an admission was proved, and a verdict
given for the plaintiff.

GRIFFITHS V. HALES.
The plaintiff in this action is a carver and gilder, and
the defendant is a gentleman residing in Cam& n-gro%e,
Westbourne-grecn. The action aas brought to recover
the sum of 151. for goods sold and delivered.

From the evidence on the part of the plaintiff it
was shown that the defendant ordered a chimney glass,
but on its being taken home defendant c‘ mplained that
there were imperfections in the trarne, and said he could
not receive it unless it ...as repaired. This Has done,
but when it was taken back again the defendant re-
fused to take it.

Mr. Fisu, on behalf of the defendant, contended that
this was no delivery, ar.d, therefore, that the present
action could not be maintained.

The UNDER-SHERIFF held that there was evidence to
go to a jury.
A witness wa3 then called, who said that the glass
was refu.ed by the defendant from the first, and that,
although improved since it was tendered, it was still
imperfect.

The UNDER. SHERIFF summed up, and the jury gave
a verdict tor the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
These cas4i3 occupied the whole of the morning.

SOUTHWARK.—(THIS DAY.)
Henry Susi' Ae, a cab-driver, was charged before Mr.
Seeker with being concerned with two other men (not
in custody) in break►ng into the premises of Messrs.
Clarke und ft. hitby, of the Dover read, and stealing
plate and articles of silk amounting to upwards of 150/
It appeared that a policeman of the M divis on, while
on duty that mot nit% in the Dover-road, was informed
by a rdranger that some goods were seen to be brought
up through an iron grating by two suspicious looking
men. He followed these men, and saw them approach
a cab and deposit a huinile in it, after which the vehicle
was driven forwards towards L•.'cg• lane, and the two
men escat,ed. The poticernAn went in pur-
suit of the cab, which was driven by the
prison r, and succeeded in stopping it, and
inside it he found several articles of plate, besides up-
weads of 1001. worth of silk articles of various descrip-
tion:. When intormation v.as subs. quently given of the
circumstances at the house of the above firm, it was dis-
covered that an entry had been effected into the pre-
mises by litiing up an iron grating, which led into a
cellar underneath the warehouse, from which articles of
silk, to the value of upwards of 1504, had been packed
up ready for removal. The quantity or silk di.e ,vered
in the cab was worth upwards of 1001, but the other
portion was lett behind, it being supposed the thieves
were disturbed.

The prisoner said that he was hired by two men off
the stand in Aldersgate-street, to take 'hem to Kent-
street, where he was to wait fur them, and they returned
with a bundla, and, placing it in the cab, desired him to
drive fo Bermondsey Church, and that they would meet
him there. lie added, that he had nothing to do with
the robbery of which he WAS ignorant until stopped by
the policemon.
Mr. bEcitEa remanded the prisoner for a week, until
the other men wt.re taken into ctiatorly.