The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-20 00:00:00

Master then allowed the defendant to procure
L.w u of the former witnesses to make addi-
tional affidavits, and on these he reported on the 10th
of February, 184.1, that he found the increased saleable
valuec_ef thestate to be 1,4751. To this report the present
exeltions 'were taken, which were 23 in number, their
effect being to traverse the whole of the finding ii the
report.
A conversation having ensued ainotig the Counsel,
it terminated in an arrangemeni- to, . allow 1,0001.
to be found the amount of.the increased value, without
costs for the exceptions, to which arrangement his Lord-
ship assented, and the case_was referred • back to the
Master to find accordingly, by consent of the parties.
His LORDSHIP having heard one.or two other short
causes •of little general interest, rose shortly before two
o'clock, there being no other- ease•on the paper ready for
hearing.

these:—The Reverend Gentleman held the license of
the Archbishop of Canterbury to perform the duties
of chaplain to this establishment. His appointment
had taken place under the 9th George IV., c. 40, s. 32,
by which it was enacted that, in every case where a county
lunatic asylum existed, there should be provided a
Chaplain for the same, who should be a person in full
orders, and should be licensed by the Bishop of the
Diocese ; and the said license to such person should be
revocable by the said Bishop whenever he should think
fit to withdraw the same : and the said Chaplain should
perform service on each Sunday and on the great fes-
tival days, according to the forms of_ the Church as•
established by law. This appointment was only for
the purpose of preaching and prayer, for, by the
ecclesiastical constitution, the cure of souls within
the parish belonged to the ldWfully-appointed In-
cumbent thereof. The applicant in this case was
elected to his office in 1839 ; he was presented to the
Archbishop, and duly licensed .by his Grace. In July
last the visiting Justices thought fit to dismiss Mr.
Tebbutt, and to nominate Mr. Burke in his room, and
they applied to the Archbishop to licence the gentlemen
so nominated by them, and to revoke the licence which
his Grace had already granted to Mr. Tebbutt; but this
his Grace refused to do. In fact, there was no good
ground for such a course, for Mr. Tebbutt had not been
accused of any misconduct, and the visiting Justices
themselves accompanied their application to the Arch-
bishop with a request that his Grace would provide
other preferment for him.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S. COURT. Noe. 19.
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND was
occupied with': tinoppd§ed petitions, short
causes,
lay
arguments on the Part-heard case
a n td he
thew hbl e
further
. of Salisbury v. Morrice. The arguments in the latter case
were not concluded, and will be resumed to-morrow
(this day).
. (Before 'Viee-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
RYAN V. DANIEL.
This suit was instituted by Miry Ryan, the adminis-
tratrii and personal representative of John Burke Ryan,
aaj, tint George Robert Danieh'the devisee and executor
qt Niaolits CharMs Daniel; fur the purpose of obtaining
the performance of a contract, entered into by the parties,
te pay a sum of 1,0001.,• under certain circumstances, to
cacti other.
It appeared that J. B. Ryan and Nicholas Charles
Daniel were officers in the Horse Guards a long time
ago, and•in the month of June, 1799, entered into a'avrit-
ten contract with each other, to the effect that Daniel,
in case he died before Ryan, charged his Ofaniel's) real
and personal property with a stun u 1 1,00(1;, 1,0044 13 , to .. paid
after his decease"by his exeCutors , the latter
having left to DRUM the same sum. in case- Daniel should
survive him (Ryan). Darnel died in May, 1833, when
his executors became liahle to the perforMance of the
contract. Ryan died in :December, 1835 i Application
had been unsuccessfully.- made by,tte pl4iiitiff for the
payment of the money, and in conseAttenco:ste filed the
present bill in Trinity vacation, 1838x7,
Mr. FERGUS (with whom Was MilT)lagslittay.), appeared
for the plaintiff, and submitted that the—contract •in
question was one which ought to be performed. It would
be objected; on
,the other,side, that it was a con-
tract in the nature ' of a wager, and was not
therefore good in law, but he, contended that
even if it were of ziuch a. nature, •it was good
in lass unless. Some- public •tolil4':or positive Act of
Pitiliainent rendered it bat 'L. Counsel quoted several
authorities sup port of his ar.Turnent, and pmeeeded at
some length to" show that`Cert`ain correspondence which
had taken place baweett the parties 'Mg aft the eon-
tract, and which it would be insisted, 'on thcatother side,
had put an end to the contract, had not such an effect,
but only exhibited an intention in theparties to cancel
the engagement, but which iptention vas never carried
.
into effect.
His HONOUR observed, th:at if by,.the engagement a
_
legal debt not legally extinguished had been created,
the Court would, he apprehended, be bound to give
effect to it as against the assets of the de-
ceased. His Honour was by no means satis-
fied that such was the ease. ' Supposing a debt not
to have been created in law, the question was whether
such a demand had been created as a Court of Equity
should give effect to, 119 t being legal. His Honour
thought not. Those documents re on the face of them
every mark of improvidence, having no reference to any
possible change of circumstances which might subse-
quently take pace at eitheide by marriage, birth of
children, or any increase. ' or diminution of fortune.
They were drawn up in 1799 by gentlemen in the army,
who soon afterwards lost sight of each other, It was re-
markable that in each of the papers the word " left" oc-
curred. His Honour was not satisfied that at the time they
were meant as contracts, in the legal or equitable sense
of the term. It was very probable that neither of the
parties understood what they were doing. He was not
satisfied. that the instruments were not testamentary ;
but on that, however, any positive opinion was not ne-
cessary. Looking, however.
to the nature of the instru-
ments, the probable ages and position of the parties
in society, and at the correspondence at a very
remote period from the transaction, which took place
relative to it between them, in which they expressed a
wish either to cancel the contract, or have it completed in
a legal form ; it was impossible for the Court to treat
the debt as an equitable one, as it was not a legal debt.
If it were a legal debt, of which he was not satisfied, it
would be his duty to give effect to it as against the de-
fendant's assets ; but in his view of the case he could
not do so. He therefore proposed to retain the bill for
twelve months before the Court, with
,liberty to bring

Lora DENmAN said, that it was quite out of the usaal
course to grant a rule absolute, in the first instance, in
any but cases of a very peculiar kink The present was
one which required to be discussed, and the Learned
Serovant might, therefore take a rule to show cause.
Rule granted accordingly.
•
FRIDAY.

JOHNSON V. FAULKNER.
In this case an action had been broUght against the
defendant, who held a rent-charge of the plaintiff; Ibr
• having seized a quantity of hay and corn by virtue of
the authority given him upon the aforesaid rent-charge,
and a verdict had been given in favour of the plaintiff.
Mr. Richards had obtained a rule calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why that verdict should not be
set aside, and a new verdict had, on the ground of inis
direction, as the statute of William and. Mary provided
that hay and corn were not liable to distress.
Mr. MARTIN, on the part 'of the plaintiffir4
showed cause, and contended that, although the
:4. Of
William and Mary provided that.hayand corn should ,be
exempt from a warrant of distress, still, subsequent
Acts hail provided that in such cases where the property
could be restored in the same plight as when seized, such
seizure should be good. The-- .Btatutte. of William
and Mary provided that -.no distress shoUld be'
made upon 'hay and corn in 'consequence of its.
being not returnable in the same as when
seized. But the distress in the present case did not
come under that statute, as the hay and corn iti question
were seized in a cart, and therefore could be returned in
the same state as when seized.

Mr. RICHARDS having replied, the Court took time to
consider.

BAIL COURT, Nov 19.

EXPARTE JENKINS IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMIS

STONERS OF SEWERS FOR WESTMINSTER.

Mr. HoGams moved for a certiorari directed to the
Westminster Commissioners of Sewers, to remove certain
minutes of the proceedings of that body into this Court.
He made the application on behalf of a person named
Jenkins who was the owner of a slip, situated about two
miles and a half from London to the north of Padding-
ton. Some persons had' built cottages upon this slip of
land, upwards of thirty years since. These cottages had
private drains, communicating with an old drain, which
eventually discharged itself into the Chelsea sewer. The
Commissioners of Sewers had destroyed all these private
drains, and had summoned Jenkins before them, and had
fined him 2501. Under these circumstances he made the
application.—Application granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 19.
ALDRIDGE V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

This is an action brought by a farmer against this
Railway Company, to recover the value of a stack of
beans, which was destroyed by fire, occasioned by sparks
from a locomotive steam-engine.
A special case was raised upon the pleadings, and
came on for argument this day.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL, for the plaintiff, contended
that the Company were liable for the damage, even
though negligence were not proved. The Learned Ser-
geant cited a number of cases to show that culpable nea-
ligence on the part of a servant was not necessary to

RYAN V. DANIEL.

make the master liable for damage done.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS replied.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that there was a differ-
ence of opinion in the Court as to the statement of the
case, but their Lordships were agreed that the cause
must go to a Jury.

an action.
Mr. BOTELER (with whom was Mr. Wacoci) having
argued the defendant's case at some length,
His Hosoun repeated the obserVatiOnS given above,
and said that he could not take frbtn'tlie filaintiff the
right to prove the legality: of the debt, and he should
therefore decree that the hill.ba retained twelve months,
with liberty to bring an: action; and if the plaintiff
should bring an action within sik, Weeks from this day,
upon the alleged debt Stqt'o in the bill, let the defen-
dant for the purposes:Of that action admit that it was
commenced on the day wboti the present bill was filed.
HOARE V. lIORNBY.
In this cause, William O'Brien Hoare was the plaintiff',
and William Ifornby, the defendant. The bill referred
to a marriage settlement, of which the defenaant, was the
trustee. The object of the bill was to have it declared
that the plaintiff was absolutely entitled to' the sum of
2,70G1., and any other. sum's now in the har.ds of the
defendants.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Nov. 19.
Walter v. ---, Evans v. Salvator, Henry v. HarriAcin,
Skarratt v. Ralfe, Roberts v. Ruer, were all undefeudit
actions, and verdicts were severally taken for - 'the
plaintiffs.

CLEMENTS V. TEAGUE.

This was an action to recover the sum of 301. for two
quarters' education to the soturof the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action is the proprietor of Bel-
mont-house school, at llamniersrpith. Itt Aptil last the
defendant sent her sons to plaintiff's 'school, agreeing
to pay fifteen guineas per quarter- for.: the board - and
education of the two. In June folloWing she removed
the boys from the school without any notice; and the
plaintiff commenced the present; action to recover the
amount of the quarter's education the boys bad received,'
and also for a fart her quarter's schooling in 'con*quence
of the • ol.aat. removilegalter ,son-s• from the' school
without previously giviaksititifireeeeThe• fifteen guineas
had been tendered to•tha•tilain tiff,: but he refused to re-
ceive it withdutt the further e amount of a quarter's
schooling.' ss4 c','^: • ,
The usher of the school. was put into the box to
prove that the boys had been under the plaintiff's care.
lie was also called upon to .prove the reasonableness of
the charges for " extras," and caused some amusement
by his replies to the various questions put to him. On
being asked what he thought would be' a fair charge
for a quarter's schooling, he replied " just what is set
down in the bill."
The Learned SECONDARY then read over the items in
the bill, inquiring of the witness what would be a
reasonable charge for each.
The COURT—What would be a reasonable charge for
washing ? Witness—Washing was not in my depart-
ment.—(Much laughter.)
The Learned SECONDARY summed up the evidence,
and said there was no doubt that the boys were at the
school ; and the only question for them to decide was as
to the amount of damage sustained -by the
defendant taking her sons from plaintiff's school with-
out a sufficient notice. In. assessing the amount,
they must bear in mind that although it was customary
to insert a clause in the prospectuses of schools, that in
the case of a boy being taken away without a quarter's
notice, a quarter's payment would be required, that
when such was the case the parties were relieved from
the trouble, expenses, and responsibility -orthe charge of
that boy, and therefore he did not tliink they were
entitled to the full amount to be paid if the boy had re-
mained. It was, however, altogether a question for
the Jury.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff damages 251.
SHARP V. LAMIIURN 'AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover compensation of the
defendants who are managing Directors of the Thames
Steam Navigation Company, for injuries sustained by
COURT OF QUEEN'S
the plaintiff through their negligence.—The damages
' BENii, Not' . 17.
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF WRAY V. THE were laid at 1,0001.
GOVERNORS OF THE DARLINGTON GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
Mr. KINCSLAKE said that in this case the plaintiff ap-
peered before them by his Counsel, to ask of them re-
Mr. CnEsswEaa showed cause against a rule fur a
mandamus to be directed to the defendants to readmit
paration for a very serious injury, which had nearly
Mr. Wray to the office of master of the grammar school,
proved fatal, and was caused by the negligence of the
of which office it was alleged that he had been unduly, defendants, or their servants. The defendants and
and without proper authority, deprived by the defendants. others, were the owners of the Father Thames steam-
boat., which plies between London Bridge and Gravesend,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in support of the rule, began
by rewarking that he had seldom known a case in which I and he need not tell the Jury it was the duty of the
such complicated questions of law and fact were raised on
Company to provide proper places for' erribarkae
the discussion .of a rule to, show cause why a mandamus lion and disembarkation, so that human life
..shoulde'.
should nut issue. not be placed in the imminent danger iwhiC)4, hee e etlPlile
The COURT thought that the mandamus must go, and show his client had been exposed, to. TheAtF.Fideek
those questions be raised on the return.—Rule absolute. nte
which he had to complain occurred at the. Oldifewana'iera
at London-bridge, whence the Father .Thatues started,-
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF JOHN MOURl-
ponierthaet
LYAN V. THE _MAYOR, &C., OF SANDWICH. 22dthat opflaileleayriliansst.outTihnetyo•
theu•oukl river,re remember
`theber
et
nh
da toaf
mr. Icamat and Mr. WATSONa showed cause against a
rule fora mandamus to be directed:to the defendants to
rises and. falls with. the tide, and from'this to the'ateam-
which was what is called the "dummy" or barge, whiCh
pay over to the pr?socutor the sum o‘f. 7,6 as cog. _-, ,
pass tiota: fro.' On the dav irt que Mr. Sharp was
boat atano•way board was placed
soonfe passengers to
Itieyisation to him for the loss of his odice as town-clerk .
ofthe late CorporatiOna.ana iseoseei4or had held that
ebminerotti - the Father Thames and the- board had
(ace for some i''ar:,.lie.)fo4,l,lie passing of the Municipal
; been sa'aidgligently placed, that when he reached the
loss of the office. The townZWincil
aeatapettatetion a foa the centre'of it, it gaVe way, and he was thrown into the
ns3A6.ct,l
bietitthw;nase,idaittneaseitiseed fruit} '`his office .n
The life of the plaintiff was in the utmost peril; he sank
.ChotfluPa°rrya,t,i°l
river, the tide at that time running down ,very strong.
osa which the prosecutor . appealed to the Lords of
two or three times, and most fortunate it was that the
the Treasmi, who aWardor:tTiat lie .shbuld have an
rejected the claim,
board fell with him, by which he succeeded -in' keeping
annuity of eO/. granted to him tta compe'nsatitia. The mem-
his head above the water until a waterman of the name of
bet's of Corporation at once 'submit tettO this avatrd,
Loder, succeeded in rescuing him from his. dangerous
and prepared the bond for' the annuit& and ten- .
g situation, and conveyed him in a deplorable 'state to the
tiered it'ao hina tut he claimed the itb•lfte sum o' Swan, where every. attention was paid to him 'and medical
ef
7ia•-.-20/. .and hail applied to this Court for.'
,pfule to that
. assistance procured. It would be no part,of-theduty of
fe ct, and the present rule required the paYa.ent,of teat
the 'Jury to inquire whether there had been--negligence
sum, and took no notice of any bond for tau annuity.
in the case, for the defendants admitted it, and they wore.
Under these circumstances it was cider tligdie had no
responsible for the consequences. They might have (his.
legal right to the interference of the Cematf, Here
the Council had adjudicated on the claim, and .theputed it, but they had been properly advised not to do so.
•
The evidence would prove that the gangway'board had
prosecutor himself had acknowledged that. there had,-
not been secured by any lashing, which was neoeSsary, or
been an adjudication by the Town Council, for he a watchfulness. would be required of the passengers
appealed against it to the Lords of the Treasury. whichethe CiiiiPany ,had no right to demand. It would
Tha whole of the proceedings had been regularly sea- for the "Jury to sar what compensation the plaiu-
conducted under the statute. and according to the , titT , was t ) receive for the serious injuries which
cases which had been decida I there was no right in a lie hara sustained, injuries from which he had not
claimant to appeal to this C4tirtetesitinst teregular decision
yet recovered, and "jell he might not be able to get
or
these booty Tn.Cdecida t S had ouncil nod oh thea;C Liaier
lto s e A reottet wo ttal\e'Teeasury.
uld If .
rid of for yeap. As soon as the plaintiff was sufficiently
ePtilttta lae if:i.
recOvered, he was taken home to his residence at Chel-
not sit as a tribunal of iiPPealaoexaminediao; a decisions. see, When, from the shock and nervous debility attendaTa
It would only interfere seater aithee olio thOe'lliorl,i94 ;upon it, he was confined for a month, and unable to at-
refused to raeke any adjudication., '
lija.t, was 1110041'e ""
, W 4.4 to hit business. This would be a part of the claim,
case here. .
There. had
..bee,,,.,en, wijudicaticin, and' t-fic .f.ts well as the charge for the necessary medical attend-
ToWn-council hitd tendelaScrtihse-b-Onft, to secure the an- r ''aticE But till wits not all for in the desperate struggle
tied ty• width the Lords ":alist4l4eastiry had awarded. for his life, at el when he WaS rolling over in the water,
a-ettl the statute required' had' been done here, and the,
je
_bad
rased the board With such force, that his arm
lade must,he discharged.
ThO Sotteei,oa-GENERAL and-Mr. WfmrEttunsr were.
use' it as he had done befea - ...e.
hearth oiitthe other side. '• ' '• ' . ' '..W•
• s., itnesses were then galled in proof of these state-
The COURT' took time to consider the judgment. '
,_ meats, and the Jury returned a; verdict for the plaintiff—
TuE QUERN ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE REV. J. TEB-
Damages 45/. . . - ,e• .-•- -- -
DUTT V. THE JUStipO,Ifia::iIDDLESEX.
Mr. Sergeant HaacoetnE 'sari, that he watinstructed INSOLVENT' I)..eRTOA'..§ .COURT, Nov. 19.
to move for a rule to show cause why a writ of manda- IN THE MATTEL-OF, WILLIAM LEACH.
inus should not issue to the Visiting Justices of the The insolvent in this case•was a brush-maker, residing
Pauper Lunatic Asylum at Hanwell -commanding them in Prospect-place, Bow, and appearedesn'• his petition to
to restore to the applicant, Mr. TebbOW:lb6. Ilse of
,the Ibe discharged. He was supported by Mr. Woodroffe,
chapel of that asylum, to which he was lawfully entitled I and opposed on behalf of several creditors by Mr. Cooke.
as chaplain, and to pay him the arre'ar'sof: his salary. 1 It appeared that he had been some time in, business,
The affidavits on which he moved containedtetetnenta 1 and gave a person into custody on an'iinfounded charge
as to the facts which .ntio.ht ..shortly be statea-„to lie ,_ of felony, for which an -action for damages was insti-
a
--. tes: ess. ze aa.........eva5e -..e, ' t -a• ea see
e. - a , : .
eas teasarefteeeesseaaa epee . ,
~ ~
-- aiaj,41,...q...k. .i:*,.. %,.. _ , ..,.
:tee—
m tat Aimee ...

Mr. CHANDLER appeared' for the infants, under the
marriage of, the:plaintiff with his wife.; ;. .
Atter Sonic discuSsPni amongst Counsel, as to the right
'of ifi several parti'es'inter6Sted under the'settlement.
ITV liotionn ordered the; it tie referred to the Master,
'to I.li4uitliat silinThr-S,l;Uiii ivere.in the hands of the
hruStice, and whether Caroline Ifornby, now Mrs.. Hoare,
Thad 'any and . what interest; in the same at the date of
'..the marriage settlement,„the Master to be at liberty to
:state special eireunistancmand die inquiries to be con-
ditional upon. the Master' finding that all the children
were before the Court.
SCAWIN' V. SCAIVIN.
The plaintiff in this case was William Scawin, the fa-
ther of the late husband of the defendant, Sarah Scawin.
The other defendants were the Managers . of the York
City and County Banking Company, and the object of
the bill was to compel the defendant, Sarah Scawin,
to transfer to the plaintiff fifty shares in that Bank,
and to have it declared that James Scawin, the late hus-
band of the defendant, was trustee for the plaintiff of
the said fifty shares.
Evidence was read by the Counsel for the plaintiff to
show that the husband of the defendant had never been
entitled to ,the shares.
Ow therpart of the defendant it was contended that in
the plfreliase of the shares, there had been an evident
intention on the part of the; father to advance his son,
and,,tliat the. presumption of law, therefore, was in the
judgment for the plaintiff, without
defendantslfiVour. ..
~ .
His .4i.,) u a gave
coi3t's-I-Tbe Court rose shortly after rout o'clock.
(Beforb Vice-Chancellor Wiuttim.)
. .;T ' BOWSER V. COLEY. .
The Cottrt•was occup.ed the whOle of the day in hear-
ing the argtunents and receiving exhibits in this'eause.
The case does not appear• to be one of sueli: public inte-
rest as will justify us in giving more tha‘i. bele! outline
of his Lordship's judgment, which we .sli,all .do when it
is pronounced. .

a;

, .....

__ ~'3} '