The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-14 00:00:00

,
Fi-ZA 1,1 A 11
tt 64
• leV. P

WIA
A'RSEILLES AND TOULON RA IL-
-1( AND DOCK COMPANY.—(THIS DAY.)
hilpublic meeting of the shareholders in this under-
RZ:3 Nviss held to-day, at the London 'nvern, Bishops
Street, to take into consideration the measure:
.I;ecst,oarrs,y for the dissolution of the company, and the
.0111 of the deposits to the shareholders. The
it is said, are willing to return the deposits, it
incietunitied.
resolution, setting forth that it is not expedient to
the affairs
with the undertaking, hut that it be abandoned.
Cafttirs wound up, and the deposits returned to tin
eholders, was passed unanimously ; and Messrs.
a :titling; Carvallm, and Spacman were appointed a
ruittee to carry it into effect.k

9UEEN'S BENCI-I.—( TH IS DAY.)
Jed -,,EN-MAN, at the sitting of the Court, gave
Bteent in the following cases :
wasThiThe3 POLLET V. FORREST.
„ a writ of error from the Common Pleas
thee
case was tried at Latio.ast, r, and the verdict was for
oftb`lemiant. The error was alleged to be the insufficiency
'''nstrument by which the defendant held a eertan
eoolatitlf land, and the question at issue, whether the plaintiff
defencTaenelye 26. GI per yard for all the hay sold by the
A dis IA in the shave of a penalty, or as a rent service.
du Chess was put in, and the jury found for the arrears
ferleti p plaintiff heir gin the position of a de-
tetZt• The present plaintiff contended that the alone)
as it be recovered as a penalty, and not as a rent service
deft Wails found. The Court considered that the present
li'ant was entitled to judgment in his behalf.
This HOPE V. HARMAN.
Iler4f WaS an action brought by the plaintiff,. Alexander
l'hilb,°V,llope, against the executors of his late uncle,
titianiC'"n Hope, to recover the possession of a large
Were le ofjewels of great value, which he contended
Waited
left him by his uncle's will. Two questions were
inste,,d in the case—whether the deceased intended the
been."l,ent by which the jewels wire alleged to have
uenaised to the plaintiff to have effect; and
consider
certain alterations which were made could be
defendiered legal, and consequently binding upon the
Veiotant, who was' the deceased's executor.
.To
.the
Wes," which was for the plaintiff, various objections
out of d. It appeared that the instrument was never
that"„tne Possession of Mr. Hope, the deceased, and
Witness alterations alterations referred to were attested by a
hiteade'a The Court had no doubt that the deceased
ethnecenaftn-re tfice will for legal operation, whatever
,n• the bequests might be. There was a differ-
the b° Pinion amongst the witnesses with respect to
tittet4c in which the goods were deposited, and conseect
to d an important. question was raised with respect
°ea
otents, or other things, which betrayed a change
llot.,,untward appearance but an instrument, w
to the signature of an attesting witness,
he considered as regular in every respect.. oughthNiec!ahc-s
kr the contrary was proved in evidence. There
N
ittLlther extraordinary fact in the case, namely, that the
thewstation stated that certain words in the margin of
at LWill were signed with the initials of the deceased,
enin fact it appeared that he had signed his name
thegth; but, nevertheless, that the additions were in
teß,fgnature of the deceased and properly at-
-1-d, was efectl clear. Mr. Justice Patteson,
justice Copler ridge,y and the late Mr. Justice Wil-
tiZs thought the verdict warranted by the evidence ad
•
Thee(),,,, and that it was the only verdict so warranted..
the
case, however, paused before giving judgment in
of 004 e, .in order that they might consider the number.
Jeetions discussed, but pat ticularly whether the in-
strument could be considered to convey anything, and
thin:e4tindeartethiet attestation being only by one person, did not
; but the rule was obtained on the ground
fat the verdict was against evidence, and therefore that
aide the point which the Court was called upon to de-
sioi; and they felt it impossible to come to the conclu-
avidenee 'at
adduced. the verdict for the plaintiff was agains.t the
asas They considered, also, that there
Court misdirection, and therefore the judgment of the
tot Was in favour of the plaintiff.
This WILLIA3ISON V. HAGGARTH.
of aS an action against the defendant for disposing
tsu_t•erf W
to which he had no right. He had pleaded that
iorected under the instructions of another, and a rule
Tah
_nw trial was sought.
thltt jeotrivr acceed to the application, and considered
ue defendant should should offer a plea of abatement.
is SMITH V. HOPPER.
tiltiza was an action aanst the defendant to recover
t
Iviisf_geB for breaking the. plaintiff's gates, and a verdict
eat
e!.l:ind for him with considerable damages. The de en
re-
With
cei,,,inTeci a nonsuit on the ground that he had not
tiatne notice of the action specified in conformity
he 6,18 Highway Act. The defendant contended that
that IT' toted bona fide, but several cases went to show.
the ,z2r'4 fides Was not sufficient to bring the Act within
The'annitig of the Highway Act.
',°uRT considered that the defendant, who was a
cours-.°,lAcer, might have thought himself justified in the
to re,,lue adopted, and that the clauses of the Act ought
distil—I've a liberal construction. They must, however,
trge the rule.

DOB DEM GOODY V. CARTER.
11111 e discharged.
LORD DOWN V. THOMPSON.
e wacharged.
411 BROOKS V. ROCKET.
coxs: absolute to enter the verdict for the defendant.
ZitAclr.—TßE QUEEN V. CHARLES WRIGHT AND
The SOPRIA FENNELL.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to have judgment
part.l in this case. The defendant (Wright) was in
tie but as the female defendant had not received any
beetaf the proceeding, he only applied to the Court
fesd.,sualf of Wright. An outlawry against the de-
oho': t 2 Was reversed by consent last term. The general
by „ss° against them was, obtaining a fraudulent transfer,
Isee c,lllls of false letters of administration, certain East
Ise a otOck. The first count alleged, that on the day
Illtrioned there was standing in the books of the East
tsi la, Company, in the name of Charles Campbell, cer-
-4 interest or shares in the stock of the company, of the
hi,ne of 9651. It appeared that Campbell died, and that
tak-inwife Mary survived him, but she died without
th g out letters of administration. Sophia was one of
it elrehildren and was married to George Fennell ; and
,„ was char that she and other defendants conspired
obtain letters of administration from the Prerogative
Court, in the name of Fennell, in order to get " means
and power " to obtain the said stock. He apprehended
that the Court would be of opinion that this term was
far too va, ue and general. All the counts, with the
exception of two, were open to objection, as they did
Sot state who was to be defrauded, nor whom the stock
belonged to.
The COURT acceded to the application.
SPINES v. BARDELL.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS applied for a venire de novo,
or for a new trial, cn the ground that the verdict for the
plaintiff was against the evidence. The case was tried at
the last sitting at Guildhall before Lord Denman, and
IP% brought to recover the keep of a horse, which the
tuerendant had sent back to the plaintiff from whom he
44(1 bought it, because it had " farcy," " rowelled," and
146 a perfect " nuisance." The case will, no doubt, be
Ithe recollection of our readers. A cross action was
brought
in the Common Pleas, which was decided the
other
ay'
but
°/(1 DENmAN considered that the verdict was correct,
at_ when he came to examine the dates his opinion was
6:7.ngthened. The plaintiff acted, he thought, perfectly
`a.fide. lie, however, granted a rule.
13