The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-26 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.—',THIS bAY.)

The Vice-Chancellor of England heard exceptions and
further directions to-day, none of which were of any public
interest.

ROLLS' COURT-(THIS DAY.)

ATTORNET-OKNERAL V. WIMBOURN SCHOOL.
This was a petition iu the suit, praying that the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners might be admitted as parties to the
suit.
His LORDSHIP delivered judgment this morning. The
Ecclesiastical Commissioners sought to administer to the
charity of Queen Elizabeth's school at Wimbourn, in the
county of Dorset. It appeared that the Attorney-General
had laid before the Master to whom the subject had been re-
ferred, a scheme respecting this charity upon which the
master had not expressed any opinion. The Ecclesiastical
Commissioners prayed that they might be at liberty to be
heard before the Master. These Commissioners were first
incorporated in the year 1836, it was their duty to lay before
her Majesty in council schemes in reference to charities
which, when ratified by the consent of the Crown, were to
have the same force and effect as if contained in the Acts.
In the Act of this charity there was a clause providing for
" the better provision of the poor of the parish." He appre-
hended that the ecclesiastical commissioners had no vested
trust direction or control over any portion of the property of
that charity, the powers which the commissioners claimed
in those petitions was not to be conceded. In the matter of
charities they might give, from their position, judicious ad-
vice, and render considerable assistance, and there could be
no bjection to receive such advice and assistance ; but the
question was not, whether or no it would be desirable to
have the advice and assistance of the ecclesiastical
commissioners, but whether or no they had the right which
they claimed? And they made an application to the Attor-
ney-General to be present at the inquiry before the Master,
it was not likely that they would be refused; but instead of
that they think they had a right, and litigate the matter
with him. It was contended that the ecclesiastical commis-
sioners were independent of the jurisdiction of this Court; but
it was clear that all they were competent to do was to lay a
scheme before the Queen in council, which scheme they could
not ratify. What powers of the Court might be opposed by 1,
her Majesty in council might be urged by the Attorney-
General, but it was his £Lord Langdale's) opi-
nion that it should not be urged- by the ecclesiastical
commissioners. It was not likely that the Crown would
oppose the Court, or act contrary to the law laid down by
that or any other Court. It seems, that having instituted
an inquiry respecting this charity, the ecclesiastical 'com-
missioners were informed that there was property for the
collegiate church of Wimbourn Minster; but it did not ap-
pear that it was intended by the Act that it should, as was
contended, rest in them. That must depend upon the
Court, according to the principles by which it was
governed in such cases. The ecclesiastical commis-
sioners, it must be admitted, had a very important
duty to perform ; but in the present case they
had no trust that the case could be recognised in this Court.
They had in this suit, the Attorney-General, the governors
of the charity, the Bishop of Bristol, who was said to be a
visitor, together with other parties, so that there -were quite
sufficient to give the Court all the information and assistance
requisite ; and he trusted they would be able to proceed with-
out any conflict with the Queen in Council. If the ecclesias-
tical commissioners would not consent to act in the way he
had pointed out, he would dismiss the bill with costs.
Oa the application of Mr. TURNER, the case was ordered
to be mentioned on Friday next.
JORDAN V. YORTESCUI.
This cause turned upon the construction of a will. It ap-
peared that the testator by the last codicil to his will be-
queathed a. sum of 5001. to the plaintiff in these terms I
give and bequeath to John Jordan 5001., in addition to
1,5001. which I have bequeathed him by my will." It ap-
peared, however, that the testator had by his will, to which
he alluded, left the plaintiff but 1,000/., and it was contended
by the defendant consequently that the plaintiff was
entitled to only 1,500/.
His LORDIIIIP decided that the plaintiff was entitled to
the 2,0004 and overruled the demurrer of the defendant.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice DZtiMAN anti a
full Court.

JunissicrloN OF THZ COURT IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS,

In this case, in which two boys had been brought up to
this court by writ of habeas,
The ATToRNEY-GENERAL applied for a further postpone-
ment, in consequence of the insufficiency of the return to the
writ.

Mr. CROWDER urged that the case ought to be proceeded
with, as ample time bad been given to obtain all the neces-
sary returns on the `art of the Crown.
. .

Mr. Justice DILE wished to know whether there was not
enough on the face of the returns to warrant the removal of
the parties from the country?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that they had been sen-
tenced to be transported for seven years, and had been
brought over to this country from Jersey and placed in the
Penitentiary, by the order of Sir G. Grey, until the legal
decision upon the case should have been given.
The case was then ordered to stand over until Thursday.

THE QUEEN V. BATEMAN.

The defendant in this case, who had been convicted of
stopping up an alley in the city of London, was brought up
to receive judgment.
_ _

Mr. Juslice—PArrEsog said that he had been convicted of
stopping up an alley, upon the order of two magistrates,
which order was not valid. The sentence was that he should
pay a fine of 51. to the Queen, and remain in custody until
the fine was paid.
No other case of any importance occurred during the day.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
COON V. SMITH.

This was an action tried before Lord Denman, atKingston,
when a verdict was entered for the plaintiff for 306/. 4s.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL now moved for a rule to show
cause why that verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial had, on the ground of misdirection and the verdict
being against evidence. The plaintiff was a lithographer,
and the defendant, registered proprietor of the Brighton,
Lewes, Gravesend, Tunbridge Wells, and Eastern Counties
Junction Railway Company, and the action was brought
for work and labour done. The plea was that defen-
dant was not indebted, and a set-off. The Learned
Counsel contended that the company, who were connected
with defendant in the projected railway, and not the de-
fendant alone, should have been made liable, and that,
therefore, the Learned Judge, in putting the case to the
jury, had on this point given a misdirection.—Rule refused,

WAINMAN V. KINMAN.
Mr. Lush moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict
in this case should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered
or a new trial had. The action was brought on a promissory
note and an account stated, and the pleas were a denial of
the making of the note, of due notice having been given, and
of the account stated, but the material plea was the statute
of limitations. The verdict was entered for the plaintiff for
242/. lls.—Rule granted.

MARLBRO'-STREET-(THIS DAY.)
Samuel Johnson was placed at the bar for assaulting Mr.
H. Hunt, landlord of the Duke's Head, No. 10, Little Pal-
teney-street, Soho, and threatening to take his life.
Mr. BINGHAM fined him 55., and held him to bail in one
surety to keep the peace to all her Majesty's subjects for
three months.

John Dixon, a man of colour, and John Randall, two stout
well-fed fellows, were charged, with being found begging fn
the public streets.
It appeared that on the preceding evening, about five
o'clock, as police-sergeant Newman, E 9, was proceeding along
Oxford-street, he observed, the two prisoners lying on the
pavement, on which they bad chalked the words, ‘‘. We are
destitute and starving, he watched them for a few minutes,
and saw them receive several pence. He then took them
into custody, and conveyed them to the station, where, on
being searched, 2s. Bd. was found on Randall, and 2s. 7id. on
Dixon.
The prisoners, who denied the charge, were committed for
one month to the House of Correction, and the money found
upon them to go towards their subsistence.sii
Francis Shipp., a gentleman red
knockingdnat Fdoinwcnbllra
e4v,
prances
charged with furiously driving, an
and Elizabeth Price, thereby endangering their lives.
It appeared, that about twenty minutes past nine o'clock,
the defendant was driving a phaeton and pair of high-spirited
horses, at a furious rate along Leicester-street, and, after
coming in collision with a cab which was much damaged,
ran against the two females, who were crossing the end of
Cranbourne-street. The complainant, Francis Price, re-
ceived such injuries that she was picked up in an insensible
state, and conveyed into the nearest surgeon's, where it was
found that her arm was fractured, and her leg severely
grazed by the wheel. The other complainant was also much'
injured.
James Dymes, cab-driver 2,021, proved seeing the de-
fendant driving at a great rate, and that he ran against
(witness's) cab, the springs of which were broken, andother!
wise so severely damaged as to be unfit fur service.
Police-sergeant, C 20, and constable, 53 C, also proved the
furious rate at which the defendant was dm-4)g, and that he
was in liquor at the time.

The defendant denied driving at such a rate as had
been described, and called his groom as a witness to the same,
who endeavoured to prove that the accident was owing to
no fault of the defendant, who was a most experienced driver.
The horses became restive through running against the cab.
He did not think him much the worse for liquor at the time.
The defendant said he would make ample compensation fur
the damage which he had caused.
Mr. BINGHAM fined him 40s. tor furious'y driving, 30s. for
damage done to the cab, and recommended him to pay 10/.
each to the females.