The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-18 00:00:00

appal distnissf,d, the Corporation to have two months
to tnak~ (ESCov:?ry.

M VIHEWS Tll EARL Ol' CIRLISLE AND OTHERS.

The :Arguini:-nt in this part hard appeal from the
Vice Chancellor of Engl end was then proceeded with,
to obrain the dissolution of an injuction which had
been granted by his Honour, restraining the Earl of
Carlisle, as chief graveller of the Forest of Dean,
and he deputy gravellers, from granting a " gale "
to any person hut the plaintiff. The injunction was
granted ex parte during the long vacation, and on
motion having been made some days ago in the Cnirt
below for its dissolution, the Vice Chancellor, upon
hearing the argument, was of opinion that the irjunc-
lion should not be dissolved, and hence the present
appeal.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Bethel, Mr. Roll, Mr.
Malins, Mr. Bszelgate, and Mr. Maule, appeared fur
the different parties.
On the conclusion of the argument,
His Loansiiie said he did not see that there was
any necessity for the continuance of the injunction.
The plaintiff contended that he had preferable claims
to the other parties in the e iuse; but his Lord hip
said he could not decide between the parties in the
present state of the litigation, alth,ugh he was ready
to do so if the parties concurre 1. Under the circum-
stances he was of opinion that thri injunct:on should
be dissolved, and the appeal allowed.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 17.
(Before the Vick:- CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

Ifis Honour resumed his sittings to-day.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. GRAINGER.

The SOLICITOR-GENER U. applied in this case to
have the costs of the parties paid out of the estate.
It will be recollected that a short time ago the clain
of Christ's Hospital to certain property in the posses-
sion of the Corporation of Reading, was, after a
lengthened argument, decided in favour of Christ's
Hospital, and which decision was confirmed by the
Lord Chancellor upon the hearing of the appeal. The
information had, however, been originally filed a
number of years since, althcugh the case has only been
recently disposed of.
The application of the Solicitor• General having
been opposed by Mr. STUART on the part of Christ's
Hospital,
Ilis Hormuit said he did not think he should make
any order about the costs ; and certainly, as far as
Christ's Hospital was concerned, he thought it should
not be called on to pay.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT V. MORRIS.

His Honoua gave judgment in this case, which
was heard upon petition last term. The plaintiff
was owner of a colliery in the basin of the Tavey,
and the bill was filed to restrain the defendants from
making a drift from an adjoining colliery, whereby
the water would be let in from the latter into the
former, so as to injure the plaintiff's mine. At the
original hearing it was directed that the bill should
be retained, with liberty to the plaintiff to bring an
action, which was accordingly brought, but a verdict
was found for the defendant. A new trial was asked
for, on the ground that the real question had not been
tried. The bill had prayed for protection for a pros-
pective injury ; but upon the issue left to the jury,
they found that no damage had been committed. His
Honour dismissed the petition, with costs, with liberty
to apply to the Lord Chancellor for such order as he
may choose to make, without re-hearing the cause, or
re-hearing it if necessary.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII, Dcc. 17.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at
_Goil4lll2ll, before Mr

Justice Eami, and Special Juries.)
TUCKER V. ROB ARTS.

This was an issue from the Court of Chancery, to
ascertain by the decision of a jury, whether the de-
fendant, who was banker to the Pelican Life As-
surance Company, represen`ed by their secretary,
plaintiff in this action, was liable for .5,000/., which
his firm had paid on a policy of insurance effected in
the Pelican Office, believing the documents on which
the pAyrnent was made to be genuine. The cause
had been tried in this Court on a former occasion,
and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. A rule
was subsequently obtained for a new trial, on the
ground that the verdict was against evidence, and the
case now came on for trial again.
Mr. Martin, Q C., with whom were other Learned
Gentlemen, appeared for the plaintiff; the Attorney-
General, Sir Frederick Thesiger, and Mr. Sergeant
Shee, were for the defendant.

The cause of action arose out of the following
circumstances :—A gentleman named Sherwood
effected an insurance for 5,0001. on his life, in
the office of the Pelican Insurance Company. He
resided at the time at Stockport, and the in-
surance was effected through the agency of a
house at Manchester, acting on behalf of the com-
pany. He died, and by his will appointed Mrs.
Sherwood and his three daughters his executors, be-
queathing to them the 5,0001. due on the policy of
insurance. They employed Mr. Winterbottom, who
was deceased's confidential attorney, to take the
necessary steps to obtain payment of the money for
them. It was the custom of the insurance company
not to pay on any policies unless they were duly en-
dorsed by the parties interested, and Winterbottom
having gone through all the required forms presented
the papers to the compan's agent in Manchester,
who, believing all to be correct, transmitted notice
of the claim to the Pelican Company in London. Tne
agent subsequently sent the bill for payment through
a house in London, and it was in the usual course of
business presented to Mesers. Roberts, who seeing
that the acceptance was right paid it. It was soon
after wards discovered that Winterbottom had forged
the endorsements, and the Pelican Insurance
Company was obliged to pay four thousand
pounds on the policy to Mrs. Sherwood and
daughters, being a compromise of the 5,0001. The ques-
tion then arose who was to be the loser of the money,
the Pelican Insurance Company, or Messrs. Roberts.
For the company it was urged that Messrs. Roberts
were bound, as bankers of the company, to see that
the endorsements were genuine; and on the side of the
defendants it was contended that it was their duty
only, as bankers, to see that the acceptance was right ;
and that they were especially excused from investi-
gating the matter at five o'clock in the day, an hour
when business was pressing, and when it was, under
the circumstances, impossible for them to ascertain
whether the transaction was all right.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for 5,0001, on account
of the money, and ls. damages for a breach of duty.