The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-15 00:00:00

JUDGMENT.-THE EARL OF ALDBOROUGII V. TYNE.

TheLORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which was argued before their Lordships a short time
since upon appeal from the decision of the Court of Chan-
cery in Ireland. The bill was filed to set aside two post
obit bonds granted by the present Earl of Aldborough
during the life time of his father. Upon the case coming
on for hearing before the Court of Chancery in Ireland, a
reference was made to the Master, to inquire whether,
under the circumstances, the sum given by a gentleman of
the name of Onley for those two bonds was a proper one,
considering the market price of such securities. The
Master by his report found that the amount paid by Mr.
Onley was a fair consideration for the bonds, and a decree
was made upon further directions ordering the Earl of
Aldborough to pay the amount of them. From this
decision the Earl of Aldborough appealed, contend-
ing in the first instance that the Court of Chancery
in Ireland was not justified in directing the inquiry, and
secondly, that the decree pronounced upon further direc-
tions was against all authority. His Lordship, after going
at some length into the authority upon the subject, stated
his clear opinion to be, that the decree of the Court below
was perfectly correct, and ordered it to be affirmed with
costs.

Lord BROUGHAM concurred entirely with the opinion ex-
pressed by the Lord Chancellor.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
VIGIRS V. PIKE.

The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied
their Lordships the remainder of the day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

SIDNEY V. RANGEIt.

The further arguments in this part heard case which
came before the Court upon exceptions to the Master's
report, occupied the whole morning.

CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

The June Sessions of the Central Criminal Court com-
menced this morning, when the proceedings were opened
with the usual formalities before the Lord Mayor and the
other Civic Authorities. The Court was extremely
crowded in consequence of its being generally understood
that some allusions would be made to the important cases
which stand for trial at the present Sessions. After the
Grand Jury had been called over and sworn.
The COMMON SERGEANT, in the absence of the Learned
Recorder, who was prevented from attending by indispo-
sition, proceeded to address the Grand Jury. There were
a great • number of cases for trial, two of which required
some observations from him. There was another case, also,
of considerable importance, upon which bills could be sent
up to them, namely, that ( f Edward Oxford, who was
charged with the crime of high treason. After expatiating
upon the enormity of the crime, the Learned Sergeant
proceeded to allude to the several acts from the time of
Edward which had been passed with reference to the
offence. The Act of Edward bad been amended by the
Act passed in the 39th and 40th year of the reign of
George the Third, which continued the penalties awarded
in cases of high treason, but rendered it necessary that
there should be two witnesses to the overt act. Subse-
quent statutes further modified the proceedings, and it was
now enacted that all persons charged with attempting
or compassing the life of the Sovereign, should be
tried as in ordinary cases of murder, or attempt
to murder. The case of Oxford would not, how-
ever, come before the Court in the present Ses..
sions, as the law required that 14 days' notice should be
given to the prisoner. The next case was that of Benja-
min Francois Courvoisier, who was charged with the mur-
der of Lord William Russell. The Learned Sergeant
here referred to the facts of the case, which had been al-
ready fully before the public. He dwelt at some
length upon the fact of the two handkerchiefs and
the gloves stained with blood, which had been
found in the prisoner's portmanteau some days subsequent to
the murder, and after search had been made by the police
officers. That point was of the highest importance to the
prisoner, and, in common justice, it should be known. At
the same time, there were circumstances of strong suspi-
cion against the prisoner, more especially the marks on the
doors, many of them having been made from the inside,
the fact of no trace of any party having left the
house by the back entrance, of no property having
been taken away, but concealed in the house, and in
places to which the prisoner had access. All these were
circumstances of strong suspicion, which it would be their
duty to weigh well. The last case which he should allude
to was that of Gould, and, after referring to the facts of
his case, he observed that the confession which the prisoner
had made should be very guardedly received, inasmnch as
the prisoner might have been tempted by the offer of the
reward to do so. If that was so, the confession could not
in point of law be received as evidence. If there were
any points upon which they required his advice or assist-
ance, he would be happy to afford them all the information
in his power.
The Grand Jury then withdrew, and the Court pro-
ceeded to call and swear the Petty Juries.