The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-11 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
FLIGHT V. PACE AND OTHERS—INJUNCTION.
Ceeildirtlg
STUART
. moved upon notice in this case for a
INcial injunction to restrain the defendants from pro-
with an action, in the Lord Mayor's Court,
1?°11 a policy of insurance on the life of a person named
t P, who died a short time ago, and whose widow had
out letters of administration to his effects. It
was stated that the policy had been improperly obtained
by Page, inasmnch as he had concealed from the parties
the fact that ho was subject to a disease in the throat,
Ahteh ultimately ended in his death. Although in
another policy, he had effected in a different officsi-em his
life, he had stated that fact, and had in consequence. to
111 a higher premium. There were also conflicting
that
to the policy, and it was therefore desirable
',oat the action should be stayed till that question was
decided.
nis HONOUR granted the injunction.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WiGnAu.)
GRIFFITH V. LIINNELL.
t The SOLICITOIt•GENERAL resumed his reply in this
it to day, which occupied the whole morning.
b e subject of the suit was the title of the plaintiff to
the
treated as mortgagor, entitled to redeem an estate In
t
County of Gloucester. The original mortgage was
Fttcle in the year Isoo, to one Ricketts. Ricketts trans-
"rod the mortgage in 1912 to Solomon Moore. Solo-
mon Moore died, leaving Ann Frost his heiress at law,
-1-10, with her husband, John Legh Frost, entered into
possession of the property. Ann Frost survived her
brigand, and in 1842 sold different portions of the pro-
keei,rtY, part of which leas purchased by the Great
estern Railway Company, part by a company called
the (ilreat Western Cotton Company, and part by other
The purchasers were defendants to the bill,
and claimed to hold the property by an absolute title,
not subject to redemption.
I_ The Viee-Chancellor Knight Bruce did not sit to-clay
consequence of having to attend the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council to hear the appeal of " Gor-
liSin D. The Bishop of Exeter."

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.)
DJOGOOD V. ROSE.

The plaintiff in this case is a Parliamentary repDrter
'ad short-hand writer, and the defendant, who holds a
situation as superintendent at the Coal Exchange, en-
tered into an agreement with him to teach his son short-
hand. The premium to be paid was GO/ , of which 51.
Wags to be paid down and the remainder in two bills for
2,,01. 'and one for 151. The boy remained with Doogood
fur about five months, during which time, it was said, he
Was taught the most approved system of shorthand as
used by Parliamentary and other reporters. The de-
nutria at the end of the time refused to complete the
agreement, and in consequence an action was brought to
recover the amount alleged to be due under the arrange-
ment Which was made.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. IEII appeared fo: the
Plat ;
ritdi; and Mr. E. James and Mr. Lush for the de-
°Want.
Dille defence was that the boy had been placed with
°(good on trial; and the father finding that the. pro.-
irsloo was not likely to enable his son to get a livell-
- he declined to complete the articles of apprentice-
P;., also, that the boy was employed during a great
Portion of the time in running errands instead of learn-
lug shorthand, and that the defendant was induced to
break off
the engagement owing to a statement made by
another apprentice named Jilt, that Doogood wanted the
in°,ley and not the boy.
„,4he CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up,
J-116) jury found a v;rdict for the defendant.

OW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
y, Young cam with a very youthful appearance,
-nled Moat, was charged with having assaulted and
,_ti
neatened the life of his own a ife.
The complainant, who had an equally juvenile aspect,
fatted that she had been married to the prisoner for
about two years, and during that time he had been in
re habit of ill-treating and abusing her. On Sunday,
I(3nsequence of her remonstrating with him for pro-
gutg her with no dinner, he struck her most violently
the face, and as this was by no means the first time he
ad assaulted her in this manner, she and her father
had him taken into custody.
Mr. HENRY asked when the former assault was com-
mitted? The complainant said about two months ago.
611 a then had him up on a peace warrant, but on his pro •
raising to reform she consentedto forego the charge. Tne
quarrel in the present instance arose out of his having
devoted 14s. out of his salary of I/. to redeeming a coat
and
ld pair of trousers, instead of applying it to their house-
purposes. On a recent occasion, when she was
con.fined, he threw her down and beat her most brutally,
We he had repeatee.ly told her that if she went to her
father's at Battersea without him he would murder her.
Ilr• HENRI' thought this bad been a most unfortunate
144rriage,,