The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-08 00:00:00

BARTON V. • WHITEHOUSE.

This was a suit to administer the estate of the Rev.
George Barton, who by his will, of which the defendant
was the surviving executor, devised all his rent and per-
sonal estates to trustees on trust, subject to an annuity of
240/. to his widow, to receive the rents and proceeds, and
employ so much of them as they should think proper for
the maintenance and education of his four children, until
they should have attained the age of twenty-one years,
and then to stand possessed of the same, subject to the
said annuity, for the benefit of his four children (without
naming them) their heirs, executors, administrators,
and assigns. The testator died, leaving four chil-
dren, and his widow having died also, it was
now prayed that it might be referred to the Master
to inquire whether the plaintiffs were the children
referred to in the will of the testator ; whether it would
be proper for the surviving executor to renew the leases
of some leasehold estates, the terms of which were
nearly expired ; and that the estate might be generally
administered.

The MASTER of the ROLLS directed a preliminary in-
quiry, respecting the children of the testator.

DAY V. CROFT.
In this suit it was prayed that an action of ejectment
might be continued against a tenant named Brooks,
who was in possession of a farm let to him by the tes-
tator, and which he refused to deliver up, notwithstand-
ing that he had received proper notice to quit ; and also
praying that it might be referred to the Master to in-
quire whether it would be expedient to take any pro-
ceedings against the tenant for recovering the amount of
a valuation agreed upon between him and testator, when
he entered upon the farm; and also the amount of double
rent that had become due, in consequence of his holding
over.—Order granted.

VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 7.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
OAKES V. HARVEY AND GRDIWOOD.

Mr. RicHARDs applied to dissolve an ex parte injunc-
tion granted by the Court in January, 1831, restraining
the defendants from negotiating three bills of exchange
for the sum of 1,2501. each, drawn by the plaintiff in
favour of John 'Whittle Harvey. The present applica-
tion was made on behalf of the defendant Grimwood into
whose possession one of the bills had come.
It appeared that Mr. Harvey had set up a bank in Leg-
horn in the year 1831 ; and the plaintiff, Oakes, a young
gentleman residing in Italy at the time, applied to him in
the month of September of that year for a loan of 2,5001.
Harvey gave him a draft for that sum on condition of
receiving, in compensation, three bills of Exchange, of
1,2501. each, payable after five years' date, being the
amount of the bill, and of a bonus upon it of 5001. with in-
terest upon the entire sum. It was alleged, however, that the
bank of Harvey was not a bona fide concern. The bill
for 2,5001. was made payable at Rolfe's, in Leadenhall-
street ; but it was found, when it was attempted to get
the bill cashed, that there was then no firm of that name,
Rolfe having previously absconded. The defendant,
Grimwood, for whom this application was made, was a
coach-builder and a horse-dealer in Italy. Some trans-
actions had taken place between him and Harvey, with
whom he had deposited certain bills and sums of money,
to the amount of 8501., and who was indebted to him in
the price of a coach. Towards the end of the year 1831,
Grimwood heard that Harvey-, who was thus indebted to
him, was fittingup a yacht, and that he was supposed to be
upon the point of effecting his escape on board of it from
Leghorn with_ any property he might possess. He went
therefore to claim, the money due to him from Harvey,
who invited him on board the yacht, where he said he
should be paid. Grimwood refused to go, and he then
received one of the bills of exchange accepted by the de-
fendant Oakes, in payment of the sum due to him. The
reason assigned by the applicant in his affidavit for not
having sooner moved that the injunction should be dis-
solved was, that he had been in Italy since the year 1831
until the month of September last.
His Hoxoutt said that nothing could be more unsatis-
factory than the affidavit upon which the injunction
had originally been granted. In that affidavit the plain-
tiff merely stated that he believed, without giving any
ground for that belief, that Grimwood had acted in col-
lusion with Harvey. The affidavit of Grimwood stated,
on the other hand, that ho had come fairly by the bill of
exchange r. and in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, his Honour was bound to credit it. He was,
therefore, of opinion that the injunction should be
dissolved.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Wicalm.)
TOMLIN V. TOMLIN.

The arguments in this cause were brought to a conclu-
sion. His Honour ordered it to stand in the paper for
judgment on Thursday next.

(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
TULLOCK V. HARTLEY.

The hearing of this cause was continued the whole day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 7.
PRICE AND OTHERS V. SEWARD 'AND OTHERS.

Mr. THESIGER (with whom was Mr. IIil1) stated the
case. The plaintiffs, Sir Charles Price and Co., were
extensive merchants and importers of tar, turpentine, and
other matters, carrying on business at Poplar, and the
defendants were steam•engine manufacturers at the Canal
Iron Works, near Mill-wall, and the question was whe-
ther a piece of ground in the immediate neighbourhood of
the plaintiffs' premises, and which they had enjoyed the
use of for nearly 30 years, was a public highway or not.
In 1801, the Corporation of London made a bridge across
to the Isle of Dogs, and they having purchased more land
than was necessary for the purpose of the bridge and
canal, which was called the City Canal, they sold it in
portions to different parties, and the ground in question
was sold to Price and Co. In 1812 an Act of Parliament
was passed to make a road, called the Ferry-road, in the Isle
of Dogs, and in that Act power was given to Sir C. Price
to stop up the public pathway which went across the
ground they had purchased ; but they did not do so.
Now it would be shown that from 1812 the plaintiffs had
constantly used that piece of ground for depositing their
barrels of tar and turpentine upon, • still leaving a path-
way (kiwi' to the Mill-wall. The right of the plaintiff
was never disputed till July, 1840, when the defendants
came with a large body of nearly two hundred men, when
a scuffle took place, and the plaintiffs, in order to preserve
peace between neighbours until the right of the parties
was decided in a court of law, submitted. It was alleged
by the defendants that these barrels were placed against
their wall, and that they thereby created a nuisance ;
but it would be shown distinctly that there was a large
interval between the barrels and the defendants' wall.
The plaintiffs admitted the public pathway across the
ground, and he contended that it would be impossible for
the defendants to show that they had any right what-
ever to interfere with the plaintiffs, or that they could
show that the ground in question was a public way.
M. Justice WIGHTMAN suggested whether the case
was not one which might be advantageously referred to
arbitration.

Mr. TLIESIGER, for the plaintiffs, had no objection to
such a course.

Mr. JERVIS (who was with the Attorney-General), for
the defendant, after conferring with his client, assented.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
DARBON V. ROSSER.

Mr. Hall, Mr. White, and Mr. Pearson, appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Thesiger and another Learned Gen-
tleman for the defendant.

Mr. PEARSON opened the pleadings. Sophia Darbon
was the plaintiff, and Richard Rosser was the defendant.
The declaration contained four counts, and the first
alleged that, on the sth July, 1837, the defendant pro-
mised to marry the plaintiff after a reasonable time, and
then there was an averment that the plaintiff remained
unmarried, and was ready to marry him, but he refused.
The second.count, that, on the sth September, in the
same year, the defendant promised to marry plaintiff at
the Christmas then next ensuing ; and then there were
similar ,averments. The third count alleged a promise
in June, 18'3b,land the 4th in April, 1840. The defen-
dant pleaded that he did not promise, and then that after
making the promise, and before the commencement of
the suit,- he• had invested in Government stock three
sums of 6661. 13s. 4d., 3661. 13s. 4d., and 215/, which
the plaintiff accepted and received, in satisfaction of the
defendant's breach of promise.
Mr. PLATT then stated the case. Ho feared the Jury
had not yet had much light thrown on the subject they
had to try, the pleas being necessarily loaded with tech-
nicalities, but the matter to which their attention was to
be directed was a plain matter of fact, in which he trusted
they would ultimately have no difficulty in finding their
verdict. The plaintiff in the record was the daughter of
a Mr. Darbon, who formerly carried on business as a
wine cooper, and who died in 1810, leaving a widow and
three daughters, the plaintiff being the youngest and
then two years of age. The father of Mr. Darbon, the
grandfather of the plaintiff, carried on alike business, and
Tor some time after the death of his son. At his death