The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-15 00:00:00

EVENING S triq

CHANCERY-CO ti ka-(THJS DAY'
LLOYD V. WAIT.
The arguments in this part-heard cause, which have
already occupied the Court three days, were resumed thie
morning, and had not concluded when we went to prt 59.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
MASSIE V. DRAKE.—SAME V. SADIE.
The MASTER of the Rolls gave judgment in the°
suits; the first of which came before the Court on the
petition of Captain Drake, to procure taxation of the
bills of costs of Messrs. Harper and Parry Jonest,
solicitors, which had been settled and paid by hial-w"--9
Lordship said that it appeared the bills had beeb.tle
livered to the plaintiff by the defendants, and had reci
mained in his possession some time, and that he
Y
,applied to them for an abatement, which they
had thereupon made. It also appeared that the
agent of. Captain Drake had waivedthe taxation
of the. bills,. and that all the parties hadinet together {or
the purpose of settlement, when the -accounts were a,
knowledged, and it was found that a balancP Was due. ')
Capt. Drake. , e had gone carefully. over. the 'tII
H t
t,.
the assistance: of a clerk of. Court, and had fundnot
the overcharges exceeded the abatement- ,thathltd-'4eg„e
made to Captain Drake. Under these circarnst„%n—t:
the petition must be dismissed Will • 7
In the second case, which prayed an account of: Jdertgle
sums of money alleged to be due to Mrs. Blake:frovx:,ll.,
sane parties, for money received by them intlivid° yo
and in partnership, on her account, his Lordship
certain portions of the account, dismissed the Peti° "„ot
but as to other portions of them, directed the acc
prayed for to be taken.

VICE-CHANCEI4Y—(THIS DAr.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT gntics;)
BROADHURST V. BALGUT AND ANOTIIED• big
In this cause, which had been heard at consl-g,derwhi4
length before the Court in the preceding wee•
Honour gave judgement this morning. defers'
The question to be decided was. whether the so
o
dant Hart had committed a breach of trust t 0 a to
of 3,00C1. Navy Five per Cent. Stock, with resP the
which he was liable to the extent of the interest, thee
plaintiff as cestique trust. The stock belone-ed
rifle Hert, and was, upon her marriage with'ihe 11;16
vested with her brother, Mr. Hert and the de' wed
Balguy, a solicitor, as trustees, upon trust, bye
tood
of settlement executed on the occasion of tbi.iittif4
riage. The trustees were to permit' the 13700.
after his marriage, to receive the interest and anns,reeel
of
duce of the funds for his own use, during the i,-fere
himself and wife, and upon their death the trustees, the
to receive the same upon trust for the benefit of the
children of the marriage. In the deed of sett`e-s of
there was a clause permitting the trustees, assigneei'tho
their survivors, with the consent and direction 0 anyf
plaintiff and his wife, to transfer or dispose of hem,
and
of the stock or funds which had been vested in the
to invest the monies arising from such sale, 8ce,e,,,„10 or
names of the trustees, the Parliamentary St 'e thw
Public Funds of Great Britain, for the benefit c'Sorel
plaintiff, his wife, or their children. Hert bad °fold,
Balguy to obtain sole dominion over the trust„lieci
which the latter was charged with not; hawing %sold
to the benefit of the trust. Balguy had bee°_,L3t-suett
vent, and the co-trustee, Hert, was in conseetwee;-
as liable fie- the repayment of the fund• ws foie
nour apprehended that the evidence of theh them
stated in the cause was not satisfactory, and t-at the
was re reasonable prospect of adding materially Wails
information before the Court, and he therefore tb°
it incumbent on him to direct further inquiries to be
Ole
tered into. His Honour, therefore, referred itritoef(
Master to inquire and report when first the pleitltlfiolte
or had notice that the stock was sold, and when ;nOS,
knew of the proceeds of the sale or any of the- sew
the trust; ied
having been invested in conformity to
when they had come into the possession of B4lo' 140
whether the plaintiff had ever agreed thereto,
liberty to state special circumstances:
(Before Vice-Chancellor. WrGuam.)
CLAYTON V. MEADOWS. kW °II
In this cause, which stood over from Iwee' f
Honour pronounced final judgment.
His HONOUR said, he had at the close of the arefibee
given a decided opinion that the plaintiff had establioo,
his case against Sir Arthur Brooke, and had made eehef
cree against him accordingly. With respect" the- 00'
defendant, Mr. Meadows, whilst he had stated his
nion that he had entirely failed in his defence tO theneiot,
he had reserved his decision upon the see°lld nra
whether or not the lands were extra- arochial, s,,p de'
had at the same time intimated that he P thought the de
thet e-
fendant would be entitled to an issue to try 'hp 0
tion. His reason for this reservation was, that Done
desirous of looking more attentively than he fin , ;041
into the cases in which the question had been
whether lands within the orbit of the Perisblio 1301
rounded by parish lands, were extra-parochied- peril
once done this, and had found no reason free:, hade'thelt,
sal of those cases to change the opinion he rt
expressed. The defendant's lands formed rite, se
Rockingham Forest, and consisted of lout 3,'°
Now the account given by Blackstone, Ist vol. ter. be'
of extra-parochial cases, was that some lands, eit feles#
cause they were in the hands of irreligious or es
or for
owners, or were situate in forests or desert places' e,.
some other now unsearchable reasons, were neve': of
tered to any parish, and therefore continued to this red
extra-parochial. From the reported cases it aPPloses
that districts of dimensions as small as Benefle-d",,dsh
and having no peculiar characteristics to alsol,i
them, had been admitted to be extra-parOCla*, he
ld
case reported in 2d Strange, 1,044, Southwold Wriolta
to be an extra-porochial place, though it cono,,,reci
two houses, and 300 acres of land, His Honour re"cud
to several other eases on the same point. NO serene-
uey
circumstances, or evidence more stringent than ffeltl'
Lion, had been proved, to establish the fact of Besefoieel
lawn being extra-parochial. He had been of 913,0
that the defendant had not so made out his co. ~a
entitle him to a decree, dismissing the bill on gr°;llO•ws'
the lands being extra-parochial; and the quest'lr de'
whether he should at once give a decree eeniest to
fendant, or give him an issue. He had hesitstefeleis
eotrvo
take the latter course, because the defendant had it
proper means to prove his case, not having sellr„ of °'
by the evidence of refutation. Where-the es,"'„'" eire'
party failed in equity from the neglect of the Pervs etit‘
self, his opinion was that the Court would 01:4 be or to'
too strictly in making a decree at the bearing eit'
cause. But the plaintiff himself had called Mall, el
nesses to speak to reputation ; and these witeesseh ether
their evidence in a way which left it doubtful
to"..ty thee
their testimony was not evasive. This, conpled, bierseiliv
evidence given on the part of the defendeo opte
showing the resistance uniformly made to at the 0;
rate, on the part of the occupiers of the land to '
C.
sence of evidence on the part of the pleinti'; et
that the attempts of the parish had I,3lthe
ceeded—and the direct testimony given the this
fendant, that upon the last occasion of 10
tempt being made prior to the institution he 101;
suit—namely, ten years ago, the occupiers of it, pa r,l3a,
resisted the demand of a poor -rate, and that the ices te
authorities gave up the demand; these circuu3sts:j
him to put the matter in a train for further inves'tfeet
He weuld suggest, as a point deserving the
to, es`o
ant's consideration, whether, if Benefield-lawn
tra parochial, and the tithes therefore the protitpevti_
le Leot ,
t.' „
Crown prior to the alienation of 1832, the
tithes might not now be in Lord Winchelsea• rolr
were extra-parochial, he thought the Crowno pee
have the power to transfer them. Biseed
then directed an issue to be tried by sp
" whether the lands called Benefield-liwir'o' °
the pleadings mentioned, are part of. the llser
Cottingham-cum-Middleton," the affirthative to
the plaintiff. - ift
SUTHERLAND V. BRIGGS. 1, 400
His HONOUR stated that he would give Put'
this cause on Thursday.
8r f)

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS
THE QUEEN V. JOHN SHEEHAN AND SIR SOIL'
DOYLE. (I ort
11
:‘,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to the 0-4
this case, which was a rule fora criminal
against the defendants, to enlarge the rule till a, ste:t
He made the application upon an affidavit whi.?,;:ki berl
that the rule was served some days after rdg to
°
obtained ; that the affidavits consisted of uPI oe
thirty brief sheets, and the defendants had ncith'ii.:; 11',;
prepare their answer. The Court was aware t',,et,ivee-
case arose out of some dispute at Cambridge, "
one of the defendants and Sir Alexander Giont.

---T1; 64;;;-gi;t.ed the application.
This was an actifTmEmoi‘ftnAsssuum. n6Ei
tEcuEp.on
two • 1 fedO
chheta.onrgee,starn.djunpstoifeteanpaact.cteosuoina sotnPatmedo.n-dTayl.olaes!,bs°lol:° •ef'
diet was had for the defendant. ta s I
, Vsei
Mr. BARSTOW now moved for a rule to str3v/ -I 'rig'
I.
why the verdict should not be set aside and a :Jew 0 1.10
had, on the ground of misdirection. At the trial, '7', jto
part of the plaintiff it was proved that with rega 00'
the bill fur 211. 175., a person went to the defer
_gee
who admitted his liability, but begged the plaintiff t Po .01'
set
(1,-),U
but
tene(t)phttep,:ra, and
.endorser, and that ail they did nit' , 40,,
3t't; turned ‘dy(o)uultd.to The
einPfa)livnefilitr, 2:lC4ilirdin': °l'
11.e''
appll.
to,„
.was again made to the defendant. Then the d'f:, ited I
established the fact that the bill had been pr.e7. i, thP
day too late ; but it was submitted for the plonV*;:t; the
he was entitled to recover on the account stated.,l9lyerf
.14,fithmed Judge was of opinion that he could ;la r, 'TOO
01 f( ttheiyin
new assigned ; and it was to take the 0,9 sob'
. Court upon that point that the case was now
mitted to their Lordships. •
The COURT took time to consider its decision.
THE QUEEN V. SCUOLFIELD AND OTIIEBS• 10:sia
This was an indictment for a conspiracy'. t'a () PO
goods under false pretences and repress ntatic.o'. ',i, i, a
i;lidaincetimmesntetrc‘l%;,aarrgeehd(jutsheemdaenfe,nccalarnr;s, Edward Se'iolict'i at,
ling-street, London, ; Arrani'eldti,ngh°isnpba7rifeer,gsli'e7;#Al* 1101
at Manchester ; Armand Cusell, and Lascell., a flat' ea'
liamburgh, carrying on business in London,
with jog.
from 0.
spiring to obtain goods under false preo,nees
Raleigh and Co., of Manchester, r.nd from 316; sol
Goolde, Smith, and Holland. The transactions d' it
o
place in the months of June and July, 1839 ; an t il°
clerk of Lascell, in the beginning of that yen., wen, j.to
Manchester, and on the suggestion of Arranfeldt we(7: f to
one of the prosecutors (Raleigh), and obtained g°' _ rot g
the amount of 1,6001. or 1,7001.
to Scholfield and other parties. (inc ogfi't'ihnegprrocsfece7 15'
Mr. Goolde, came to London in July, and made irqu 70,0
concerning the character of Lascell, and ultirnatelf 1 01,. •
goods were delivered, and shortly afterwards Las" 4. opt •
sconded, and the other defendants became bar Ile. So:',
The Jury found all the defendants guilty, and a ',II ~.kt
a new trial was subsequently obtained on tho gr,t7rfoT
Aot
misdirection, and upon affidavits in which the "de ca,
Scholfield deposed that the statement made 'ay the st
secutor Guolde was untrue— Goolde having dePc.„_,Liet:4 iii
the trial that he had a conversation _with Schr.4lll'-' 001$
London, on the 34 of July, while Seholfield 4woro