The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG ENCE.

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY).

LLOYD V. WEST.—TUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, which was argued before his Lordship some
time since. His Lordship said that in this case the will
' had been filed by Richard'Lloyd against the personal re-
presentative of Martin Lloyd, who had obtained the as-
signment of a mortgage, and the object of the bill was
to redeem that mortgage. The principal discussion on
the question was with respect to a matter of fact as to
whether the plaintiff had made out his title as heir-at-
law of Martin Lloyd. It was contended under the cir-
cumstances of the case that it was proper the de-
fendant should have - the power' of taking the opi-
nion of a jury in a Court of Law—that he should
contest the question in a Court of Law. With re-
spect to the first question, the pedigree of the
plaintiff, he claimed under Richard Lloyd, who mar-
ried Ann Lloyd at Chesterton. The ascending line
from Martin Lloyd, appeared to his Lordship to he
clearly established ; the only point with respect to that
line was, whether Samuel Lloyd, the father of the in-
testate Samuel, the brother of William, was the son of
William Lloyd of Chesterton. William Lloyd married
Hannah Ingram, and it appeared to his Lordship, that
there was sufficient evidence in the case to show
that William and Samuel were the sons of Wil-
ham Lloyd, who married Hannah Ingram. If
any thing were wanting to prove that, it was
confirmed by the documents that had been brought
forward in the case ; he therefore thought it was clear
that the case had been made out in that respect, and
that there was no necessity to resort to any of the evi-
dence which had occasioned so much controversy at the
bar, such as the wills, and some of the written docu-
ments. With respect to the descending line that was
more complicated ; his Lordship, after going at some
considerable length into the evidence with respect to that
line, stated his opinion clearly to be that both the as-
cending and descending lines were clearly proved by the
documentary evidence that had been produced, and that
there was no necessity -whatever to resort, as had been
contended at the Bar, to the parole evidence. But,
looking at the parole evidence, the case was strengthened,
unless the witnesses had perjured thethselves. It had,
however, been said, that evidence had been given which
opposed the parole evidence ; the Court had carefully
considered that evidence, and had come to a different
result. On the whole, therefore, his Loidship was satis-
fied that the pedigree of the plaintiff had been clearly
made put and established. But then it was said
the defendant was entitled to contest the claim
of the plaintiff at law. Now, who was the de-
fendant ? Why, he. was one of the personal
representatives of the intestate, there was the mortgage
outstanding, he knew of the claim of the present plain-
tiff, and knowing it he obtained an assignment of the
mortgage. He said he did not do it to impede the claim,
but he knew of the claim and he obtained an assign-
ment of the mortgage, which had the effect of impeding
it. After he obtained the assignment, he gave notice to
the tenants, who paid their rents to him because he had
obtained possession of the mortgage. In his answer the
defendant stated that he claimed the possession not as mort-
' ganee, but as heir-apparent at law of the intestate; but
he had given no evidence of the truth of that assertion.
Such being the case,. his Lordship could only con-
sider him in the light of a mortgagee, and as
such he could have no right to have a trial at
law. In such a case as the present the Court would not
be justified in granting such a trial before the decree had
been pronounced for the redemption of the mortgage;
the adoption of such a course would, in his Lordship's
opinion, be a most improper exercise of the authority of
the Court, and would show a bad discretion on the part
of the Judge who presided in it, and in addition to that
it would create great expense. Such being the opinion
of the Court what would be the situation of the defen-
dant ? His right, if he was entitled to a trial at law,
would not be bound by the Court decreeing the redemp-
tion of the mortgage; that was all it would decide in the
present instance. The defendant by that decree would
have his principal and interest repaid, and after that had
been done, he would still be in a situation to contest the
claim of the plaintiff. .The defendant might, if he had
chosen, have had this question first decided at law, but
the pedigree of the plaintiff having been established, this
Court could not allow the defendant to have a trial at
law before pronouncing a decree for the redemption of
the mortgage. His Lordship must therefore pronounce
that decree.
The Coura, after disposing of a few unimportant
lunatic petitions, proceeded with the further arguments
on the part-heard appeals of Blundell v. Gladstone,
Blundell v. Stoner, and Blundell v. Blundell, which occu-
pied his Lordship the remainder of the day.

ViCE.CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.)
SALISBURY V. MORRICE.
His Hoxoun was occupied during the morning with
the hearing the further arguments in this case, which
has already been several days before the Court.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
MILLER V GOAN,.
The arguments of Counsel in this case, which stood
over from last week, to be spoke to on a question of law,
to be referred to a Common Law Court, engaged his
Honour the greater portion of the morning.
His }loxoun referred the case (the facts of which have
appeared in The Sun) to the Court of CommOn Pleas.

BAIL COURT-(THIS DAY).
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-THE QUEEN V. THE STAF-
FORDSHIRE GAZETTE.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOUBD moved fora rule calling upon
the printer of the Staffirdshire Gazette, also upon a
person named Stonyer, to show cause why Criminal in-
formation should not be filed against them, fbr the pub-
lication of a libel; reflecting on the character of Mr.
Parker, a magistrate, residing in Staffordshire. The
libel alluded to consisted of a letter written to the Editor
of that paper by Mr. Stonyer, imputing to Mr. Parker
utter unfitness for the office of a magistrate, and stating
the opinion of the writer that the Lord-Lieutenant must
have been imposed upon when he inserted his name in the
roll of Magistrates, and that he ought to be removed.
The applicant had made all the affidavits necessary to
entitle him to his rule.—Rule nisi granted.

MANDAMUS.—THE QUEEN V. TUE MAYOR OF SUDBURY.
Mr. BY LES move for a rule for a mandamus, calling on
the Mayor of Sudbury to place the names of two
persons on the Burgess Roll of the Borough. It ap-
peared that the Mayor had rejected the claims
of these persons on account of some informality
in giving notice of claim. Now he (Mr. Ryles) con-
tended that all such informalities and misnomers were
cured by the interpretation clause of the Act. —Rule
granted.
QUO WARRANTO.—TILE QUEEN V. GLUZE.

Mr. 'V. LEE applied for a rule for a quo warranto,
calling on the defendant to show by what right he
claimed to exercise the office of Town Councillor
of the borough of Bridgnorth. At the late ejection
for Town Councillors for Bridgnorth several can-
didates were equal on the poll, and the ➢layor of Bridg-
north had, as returning-officer; given his casting-vote for
the defendant, and he had, consequently, been returned.
Now; it appeared that there had been two polling booths
erected, and that some persons who had voted at booth
No. 1, ought to have voted at booth No. 2, and, discover.
ing such was the case, these persons had afterwards gone
and voted again at booth No. 2, for the defendant, and
that many persons had voted for property situated in
one portion of Bridgnorth, whereas they appeared in the
Burgess Roll as being qualified by other property than
that stated in the voting paper.—Rule granted.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN WELSH
AND THE GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY COM-

PANY.

Mr. ADDISON moved for a rule to Thow cause why. the
award should not be set aside in this case, on the ground
that the arbitrators had exceeded their jurisdiction, by
adjudicating upon matters that were not regularly before
them, and also that they were too late in giving their
award.—Rule granted.
Having disposed of the above cases, Mr. Justice Patte-
son left the Court at ten o'clock, and shortly afterwards
Mr. Justice Wightman took his seat upon the bench.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

WALKER V. NEEDHAM.

This was an action brought against the defendant, a
boatbuilder, to cornix-1 him to give up and restore to the
plaintiff a boat detained by him without just cause.
The ease was tried before the Sheriff of Middlesex,
and the Jury found for the plaintiff. Mr.
sergeant Channel] this term obtained a rule nisi
fur a new trial, on the ground:4, first, that the writ
to the Sheriff was improperly issued, as to the jurisdic-
tion of the Sheriffs Court extending only to actions of
(!cht, whereas the present action was brought as one of
detenue ;" secondly, that improper evidence was re-
ceived. The latter point was rested on the fact that a
person named Roberts was admitted witness, and that
the Jury fourri for the plaintiff in the cause of action, on
his.evidence alone, whereas they found specially that he
was partner with Walker in the boat."
Air. Sergeant BoMPAS this day showed cause against
the rule.
The COURT were of opinion that the preponderance of
former decisions was in favour of their Lordships' pre-
Sent view, that the writ had been rightly issued. The
Court had the power of issuing such writs to the Sheriffs
to save time and expense in a case which seemed to in-
volve no question of law, and no intricate question of
fact, and it was laid down by Lord Ccke and other au-
thorities that in cases analogous to the present
an action might be laid, either as one of debt
or of detenue. As to the objection that the
evidence of Roberts was improperly received.
It did not appear that the verdict •in the mate-
rial part was founded upon his testimony, and the
ocidence, on the whole, was conflicting. Their Lord-
ships saw sufficient reason to disturb the verdict, and
discharged tha rule.

BRYLISH FIRE OFFICE.
(T HIS DAY.)
A general meeting of. the proprietors of this Society,
pursuant to advertisemenst, was held this day, at the
Office, 429, Strand, for the PIN:Tose of declaring a divi-
dend. The usual routine busiriN:s was gone through, and
the fleeting adjourned at one o'clof4k.
A

NTI-CORN-LA DELEGATES. •--A meeting
of the delegates from the Metropolitan Anti-.Corn-law
Associations was held on Monday in the Hall of.liw Cen-
tral Society, Strand, to receive a report from the Con-
ference held at Manchester on the 17th inst., and to de-
termine on the best means to carry the resolutions passed
at that meeting into effect. 'There was a laic and in-
fluential attendance, and Mr. grout was Chairman. A
report was submitted from the Manchester, meeting,
which embodied the resolutions there carried,, and pro-
ceedings were adopted to give the reconnnenda Lions they
contained practical effect.