The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 12.
The Lord Chancellor sat in his court at Westminster
to-day, and heard cause petitions, none of which pos-
sessed any points of public interest. His Lordship
rose at an early hour to attend a Cabinet Council. -

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Jan. 11.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
INSOLE V. FEATHERSTONHAUGH—JUDGMENT.
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND
gave judgment to-day in this case, which was argued
before him some time since.
At the time of the arguments we gave our readers a
statement of the facts, which we will now shortly
repeat. The plaintiff was a farmer in Worcestershire,
and requiring some years ago to borrow money, he
consulted with his son, who was a solicitor in partnership
with a Mr. Corbett. The plaintiff was then introduced
by Mr. Corbett to the defendant, who had been a
chemist at Worcester, and was in the habit of lending
money; and in July, 1839, a bill for 1001. was discounted
by the defendant for the plaintiff. A great number of
transactions of a similar nature took place between the
plaintiff and defendant, from that period down to the
month of March, 1841, when the plaintiff,having become
indebted to the defendant a considerable sum, executed
an indenture, whereby he assigned his life interest in
1272 10s. per annum (left him by the will of his uncle)
for the purpose of securing the sum which was then
owing to the defendant, and all such further sums as
the defendant might advance, up to 1,0001. The plaintiff,
shortly afterwards, became much involved in his cir-
cumstances, and was obliged to sell his farming stock,
which produced, with the crops upon the farm, a sum
of 1,1761. A bill of sale on this property had been
given to the defendant, who received the proceeds, and
a memorandum was executed between the plaintiff and
defendant, by which it was acknowledged that all ac-
counts were settled to that period, with the exception of
particular sums, for which the assignment of the plain-
tiff's life interest was to remain as a security. The de-
fendant subsequently claimed to be entitled to the whole
interest assigned by this indenture, whereupon the
plaintiff filed his bill, alleging that the assignment was
intended only as a security for the moneys remaining
due to the defendant, and praying that the defendant
might be declared a trustee for the plaintiff as to the
surplus beyond that sum ; and the bill further prayed
that certain documents and bills of exchange in the de-
fendant's possession might be delivered up to be can-
celled, and that the defendant might be ordered torender
an account of all money due to him and received by him.
His HoNc.ua in giving judgment, went at some length
into the case, stating his opinion that there was no evi-
dence of, or any appearance of fraud on the part of the
defendant; that the evidence was clear that the assign-
ment of the life interest was ratified and confirmed by
the plaintiff ; and, his Honour's opinion, therefore was,
that the only just course for him to pursue, would be to
dismiss the plaintiff's bill with costs.
. .

Bill dismissed with costs.
COOPER V. WEBB.-JCDGMENT.

His HONOUR also gave judgment in this case, which
came before him shortly before the Christmas vacation,
upon a demurrer filed by a gentleman of the name
of Douglas Cooper, on behalf of himself and all the other
shareholders in the York and Lancaster Railway, a pro-
ject which failed to pass the Standing Orders Committee
of the House of Commons, charging, that the undertak-
ing had been prosecuted after the defendants, who are
the committee of management, knew that it was imprac-
ticable, by reason of an insufficient number of shares
having been allotted. A release had been prepared,
which the shareholders were invited by advertisemont to
sign, bringing in their scrip certificates ; and by this
document the defendants were to be generally indemni-
fied, and at liberty to retain 10,0181., to discharge exist-
ing liabilities, repaying to the shareholders a portion of
the deposits paid, until such liabilities were ascertained.
The bill, therefore, prayed a declaration that the project
had failed through the neglect and misconduct of the de-
fendants, and that they might account generally for all
payments and receipts ; not being allowed to retain
such moneys as had been expended since the project had
become impracticable ; the plain tiff and the other share-
holders contributing only in such proportion as the shares
allotted bore to the whole number forming the capital of
the company ; and for a receiver and injunction in the
usual a ay. To this bill a general demurrer was put in,
but the chief question argued was as to want of parties,
the plaintiff charging that the shareholders were so
numerous, that it was impossible to bring them forward
by name.
The COURT was clearly of opinion, that the de-
murrer ought to be overruled, and made an order ac-
cordingly.—Demurrer overruled.

THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. GAMBLE

AND NOTT.

The further arguments in this part-heard motion for
an injunction, occupied the Court
,the remainder of the
day. _ _

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WICRAM.)
LETTS V. THE BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a bill filed by the plaintiff, who is incumbent
of St. Olave, to obtain compensation for the loss of
tithes, &c., caused by the above company, who had not
only injured the property in his parish, but actually re-
moved thirty-three of the houses. The plaintiff was
allowed 2s. 9d. in the pound, and from the property
affected by the railway in question derived an income
of 2501. per annum, with a power to augment the same
to over 4001. a year, as well as several incidental advan-
tages. A mass of documentary evidence was adduced
to prove the extent of injury alleged by the plaintiff.
His HoNourt deferred judgment.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
IN RE BUXTON SCHOOL.

The question at issue in this case was whether the
trustees of Buxton-school, in Derbyshire, were !em-
powered to displace the schoolmaster at their pleasure,
or without assigning any ground, provided they
gave him six months notice. It appeared that
a gentleman, named Holland, was appointed master to
the school in 1842, but in the year 1845 was removed,
the six months' notice having been previously given. The
only evidence of the endowment of the school, which took
place in the reign of Charles H., was a document bearing
date 1694, with a deed dated 1811, which had
been executed by the Duke of Devonshire, and which
vested estates in the present trustees, who acted under
this deed, and the power to do so was denied, it being
alleged that the Duke of Devonshire had no authority to
execute the deed in question.
The arguments having concluded, his HoNoun went
through several authorities, and said, as it did not ap-
pear that corrupt or improper motives could be attri-
buted to the trustees, he did not think they were
bound to assign any reason for their removal of Mr.
Holland. He could not, therefore, decide in favour of
that gentleman, on the evidence before him. He was,
however, inclined to think that the evidence was incom-
plete, and he was willing to give them an opportunity
for the production of further evidence, which
might lead to a more diligent search, for
documents relating to the charity which might itself be
benefited by a successful inquiry.
The first day of next seal was appointed for the
further hearing of the case.
The Court rose at half-past one o'clock.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BEACH, Jan. 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
RICIIARDSON V. PERKINS.
This was an action to recover the value of a quantity,
of wine, which was alleged to have been destroys d
through the negligence of the defendant. It was tri ed
here during the last sittings after term, before Lord
Denman, on whose direction the jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff for the full ;amount :claimed, with leave to
the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit. The defer id-
ant leased a house to the plaintiff, Mrs. Richardson, a nd
agreed, previous to her tenancy, to fit up " wine bins of
brick and stone." She found the bins inadequate, 'and
sought the defendant to add another. He at first de-
clined, contending that he had fulfilled his contract,, but
ultimately directed the stone-mason who waited upon him,
to make the required alterations. The stone of which
the slab was made was too thin, and when the wine was
placed upon it broke and smashed the bottles.
Mr. KNOWLES, Q.C., now availed himself of the -per-
mission of the L,:arned Judge, and moved acconEnv:ly.
He based his application on the evidence adduced, which
went to show that the defendant had fulfilled his con-
tract before the additions were made. Besides, the slab
was intended for empty, and not full bottles. The point
was a novel one, and he trusted their Lordships would
grant his application, in order that it might be arg act],
Rule granted.
TEE TRING AND REIGATE RAILWAY.-ELMSLIE, v.
BAGSTER AND OTHERS.

This action was tried at the last sittings after term. at
Guildhall, before the Lord Chief Justice, and U. ver dit tt
was fOund for the plaintiff for 1201., 'who had sougt tt
1401. The plaintiff was the engineer to the compan' )r,
and the defendants Messrs. Bagster and. Co., a• ad Messr s.
Dixon, Overbury, and Co., its joint solicitors. Fle
claimed 120/. from them jointly, for prept,ring several
copies of the' books of reference. They pleaded i ion -
liability, with the exception of the 70L, 301. of wide h
they had paid to the plaintiff, and the remainder i nt o
Court.

Mr. Sergeant ALLEN now moved for a new tria
first on misdirection by the Learned Judge; m ,nd,
secondly, on the admission of improper evidence on be
half of the plaintiff. The misdirection, ho contend 'ed,
consisted in the Learned Judge stating in his charge Its
the jury that the payment into court of the rcomeey
showed that they considered themselves liable fa r
something; but the plaintiff failed to prove their join t
liability; and the improper evidence, in the examinat
of the secretary of the company with respect to a resolu-
tion passed by the committee laudatory of the servit tea
of the plaintiff, and on its production, the matter,
held, being wholly irrelevant, and likely to prejudice the
jury. _ _ _

51r. Justice P.ATTESON adverted to the fact that the. ]
defendants at the trio!, moved for a nonsuit, on the..v
ground that there wP.s not sufficient evidence to show
that the defendants acted jointly. 'That opposition was •
very properly refur,ed, because tiaere was ample evidence
to show joint liability. He did not consider the admis-
sion of the laudatory notice improper ; and, therefore,..},
he considered that the verdicts ought not to be dis-A
turbed.

Mr. Justice COLEAIDGU 'was of the same opinion, and
Lord DEN:ta.N considered that a plaintiff had a per-
fect right to refer ta. tb •
in order to rebut the do-
fence set up to his td aim. He considered that there was-
no mi4direction,— 'a record,
ule refused.

BA.:; L COURT, Jan. 11.
The Court sat in Banco in the early part of the morn-
ing, but no case. ,of any consequence occurred.

COTTON V. WAY.
This was, un action brought to recover the sum of
301. 10s.l'ior work and labour dono by the plaintiff for
the defendant.

Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Ball appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Lush for the defendant.
It appeared, from the statement of the Learned
Counsel. and from the evidence, that the plaintiff is an