The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-31 00:00:00

TRH SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, MAY 31, ISM

of public tranquillity. The qualifications he displayed there I
have raised some hopes of him on the present occasion, especi-
ally as he has, moreover, :be reputation of being a steady man
of business, although by no means a brilliant orator Senor San '
Miguel, appointed Minister of War, i 3 the same who in Feb., I
1823, rendered himself celebrated in Spain by the notes he wrote
to the Northern Powers when he thought they were assuming a
tone too domineering to Spaniards. Of the others, Senor Surra-
y-Rull has been known to the mercantile world in this country.
Senor Garcia Gamba is an old comrade of Espartero, who has
come from Manilla, where he held an important military post ;
and Senor Alonzo is one of the chief Magistrates of Spain, and
a very respectable man. All seem more or less to be of libel el
principles, but are decidedly Conservative on the present occa-
sion. However, the only hopes of the Spaniards in the city, who
regard their native politics with interest, are placed in Gonzale-
and Infante ; and it is thought that the other names, however
respectable, will scarcely have weight enough at a crisis like
this, and with a formidable party in the lower house ready to
oppose every Ministerial act. These two would not alone be
sufficient to make a stand against political adversaries, and
therefore, as is observed above, the prospect of a dissolution is
thought to be more certain than ever, although it is said the
Ministers have entertained a hope of carrying on a government
with the present Cortes.
l'OST.—Nothing special occurred at the Stock Exchangl
to day. The Bank notice issued yesterday appears, however,
to have rendered money already more easy.

LAW INTELLIGENCE
COURT OF CHANCERY, May 29.
SANETER V. FOSTER.

This case was argued on Friday. It was a motion to
dissolve an injunction granted by the Vice-Chancellor to
restrain the defendants from levying a distress on the
plaintiff's effects on bringing an action against him for
any penalty under such covenants in a lease granted to
the plaintiff by the defendant, as were not contained in
an agreement for the lease entered into by the parties.
The plaintiff, a farmer in Norfolk, rented a farm of
700 acres at a rent of 4201. per annum, from the defend-
ant, who is a banker at Cambridge. An agreement was
entered into and signed, and a lease drawn by the de-
fendant's son, an attorney, was tendered to the plaintiff
for execution on the 11 th of October. The lease con-
tained a covenant, imposing a penalty of 10/. per acre
on the plaintiff for every deviation from the prescribed
mode of cultivation, which covenant vas not contained
in the agreement. The plaintiff having, as the defend-
ant alleged, violated the covenant, an action was brought
against him for a penal sum, amounting to 8004 and a
distress put in for rent alleged to be due.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after going through the facts
of the case, said the injunction must be dissolved with,
costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 29.

THE QUEEN V. WM. WEST, AND THE HULL AND SELIIY

RAILWAY COMPANY.

The ArronNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Sir Fre-
derick Pollock and Mr. Waddington) showed cause
against a rule for quashing the inquisition of the Coro-
ner upon three persons who were killed when travelling
on the Hull and Selby Railway. There were three ob-
jections : Ist. " That the inquisition was taken upon
three bodies, instead of separate inquisitions. 2dly. That
it was found that the engines and carriages were moving
to the death, and it was not shown that a piece of iron,
which was the cause of upsetting the carriage, was of
any property or value, nor was it found that it moved to
the death. idly. That the property moving to the death
was not properly found as belonging to any one." The in-
quisition stated that these three perm ms were travelling in at
carriage drawn by an engine called the " Collingwood,"
and it happened that a large piece of cast-iron, having
worn through a rope, fell upon the railway, by mewls
whereof these three Persons were forced to the ground,
and so much injured that they died, and that the car-
riage and the engine were moving to the death. The
Learned Counsel contended that it was unnecessary to
mention the iron bar, as the engine and carriages were
the moving cause of the death. As to the last point, it
was stated that the-engines and carriages were the pro-
perty of the Hull and Selby and the Leeds and Selby
Railway Company. This, he urged, was sufficient ;
that these Companies were corporate bodies, and there-
fore it was not necessary to give any further description
of the parties to whom the engine belonged, lle sub-
mitted the rule must be discharged.
Sir William Follett (assisted by Mr. Baines) appeared
in support of the rule, and contended that the pt,o-
prietorship had not been properly set out.
Lord I)EN3LAN said they could not make anything
more of the description, " Hull and Selby Railway
Company," than the :proprietors of a tavern in London,
and therefore the rule must be made absolute. It was
requisite that it should be properly stated in whom the
property was, because the deodand (500/.) was to be
levied upon the proprietors.
Rule absolute for quashing the inquisition.
THE QUEEN V. THE YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.

This was a rule for quashing the Coroner's inquisition
in this case, where, after the Jury had been discharged,
the Coroner re-assembled them, and they found a deo-
dand of 500/.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the objection was
too formidable ; he could not see what power the Co-
roner had to re-assemble the Jury. It was necessary
the Legislature should interfere in the subject of deo-
dands, but he was afraid it would not be done by the
present Parliament.—(Loud laughter.)
Inquisition quashed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 29.
PUNTER V. LORD GRANTLEY.
This was an action for trespass for turning the plain-
tiff out of a cottage on Lord Grantlev's property in
Surrey, which was tried at Guildford before Lord Abin-
ger and a common Jury during the last summer assizes,
when the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 250/. The pleas were, first, not guilty ; secondly,
that the cottage was not the property of the plaintiff ;
and thirdly, that it was the property of the defendant.
The plaintiff sued in farina pauperis, and it appeared at
the trial that, about 1795, the plaintiff's father, also a
pauper, came into possession of the cottage in question—
that he died in the workhouse—but that subsequently to
that the mother continued to occupy the cottage, receiv-
ing relief from the parish—and that it was not until
about eight: or nine years ago that the plaintiff himself
came into possession of it. The manner of his ob-
taining posseseion appeared to be this ; that he
went drunk to the cottage one night and turned
out his mother and sister, who went to Lord Grantley
and complained of what had happened. The plaintiff was
consequently brought before the defendant, and he
stated that he meant nothing by it, alleging as the ex-
cuse for his conduct that he was in liquor at the time.
Mrs. Punter, hoWever, ran away one night about that
time, and the plaintiff continued to occupy the cottage
until the 14th April, 1840, when he was turned out un-
der a Magistrate's warrant to that effect. For that
ejection the present action was brought, and the title of
the parties to this cottage was the main point at issue.
On the part of the plaintiff there was no evidence as to
to a node' in which the plaintiff's father first obtained
possession nf thistage
show that some a'!terat"s
but evidence was given to
repairs had been effected
the punters during.:' the
Gir oce4pation, though Lord
Grantley was admitted to have'
bon tteuently there.
On the behalf of Lord Grantley there- w" Pa"Atitit3k"l
q
evidence of persons who had been employ ::'
Lordship to effect repairs—there was evidence than
cottage had been repaired by him 10 or 15 times (luring
the occupation of the widow Punter—that trees had been
brought and planted there at his request and by his gar-
dener—that after these things had been done Lord Grantley
said on one occasion, "Well, dame, you have got your cot-
tage nicely done up now, and you shall have it to live in
as long as you live"—that more recently, since 1833, the
plaintiff himself went to. a parish meeting, and said, " If
you don't pay my rent I shall be turned out ; Lord
Grantley's steward has been to demand rent of me"—
and that the parish agreed to pay a certain sum. Fur-
ther, there was evidence that the plaintiff, having thought
of cutting down a tree, had said to one of the defendant's
witnesses that Lord Grantley had purchased the pro-
perty from the parish, and he should burn his fingers if
he did repairs or cut the trees ; and that accordingly the
woodcutter of Lord Grantley cut down the tree, which
was taken to his Lordship's timber yard. At the trial
Lord Abinger directed the jury to find the issue as to
the property for the defendant, but the jury persisted in'
finding it for the plaintiff upon all the issues. Conse-
quently a rule nisi for a new trial was obtained a term or
two ago, on the ground that the verdict was against evi-
dence.
Mr. Sergeant SREE showed cause against that rule,
and submitted that upon the evidence the defendant had
no pretence of title to the cottage in .queition.. The case.
was one of the grossest hardship'and oppression. This
poor family had for years occupied this cottage without
any dispute as to their title, and were they now to be
turned out by a -powerful and influential nobleman, as-
sisted by his brother Magistrates, although he showed no
title in himself ? . What title had the defendant shown ?
He had not proved the origin of his title, and the
tiff's possession of twenty years was at all events a com-
plete bar ; because, by the 3d and 4th William IV., c-
-27, the doctrine of non-adverse possession had been abo-
lished ; and the question now was, whether twenty years
had elapsed since the right accrued, whatever the nature
of the possession, unless the party claiming the property
proved that he had within that time rent or profits from
the land or an acknowledgment of the title. In this case
there had been none of these ; and if he could not prove
that the cottage was his, did it become a peer of the
realm to interfere with the rights of his poor neighbours
and endeavour to turn this pauper family from the cot-
tage in which they had lived since 1792 ? It had been
said that the cause was tried by a common jury
only, but their Lordship's knew that the common
juries were, by recent Acts of Parliament, composed not
of the lowest grades of society, it was a Jury taken
from the honest and respectable yeomanry of the coun-
try, and they, the best and proper judges in such a case,
had come to the deliberate conclusion that the peer was
wrong and the peasant right. Would it have been better
tried if the Jury had been composed of those Magistrates
who gave the warrant to pull down his cottage about
this poor man's ears ? He thought not ; but, at all'
events, if the defendant complained of the Jury, he had
no reason to complain of the Judge, for a more favour-
able Judge he certainly could not have had. Lord
Abinger, no doubt, might have known something of the
case before he came into Court, and it appeared that he
did ; for when it was called, and lie (Mr. Sergeant Shee)
had suggested that it would occupy a considerable time,
Lord Abinger said, " Oh, no ! it's brought for costs ;
probably it brought for costs." Now, he must be per-
mitted to say that one of the dearest privileges which
Englishmen have enjoyed since the reign of Henry VII.
was the right of suing in forma pauperis. In this case
the right had been granted, not upon his certificate, but
upon the certificate of the leader of the English bar after
the officers of the Crown ; and, he asked, was it fitting
that counsel thus engaged in advocating the cause of the
poor man should, at the very outset, be discouraged by the
Judge prejudging the case before the Jury, in consequence
of knowledge previously obtained ? Then, again, wheulie
had objected to hearsay evidence, Lord Abinger made
so light of his objection that at the time he had coin-
plained of being treated like a child in the nursery. He

went for damages ; he felt that he was justified in so
doing ; 2501. was too little ; he had wanted to prove the
length of time these poor people had been kept in the
lane ; but Lord • Abinger asked a little girl, who was
called, why they didn't go to the workhouse ; and she
replied that they had no order ; he might as well have
asked her why they didn't go to the London Tavern. It
was very well for those who slept on down every night,
not to understand the attachment which poor people felt
to the hard bed and poor dwelling in which they had
been brought up ; but those feelings were not less real
on that account. Finally, the Noble Lord pronounced a
glowing panegyric on the Magistrates of the county :
no doubt they were better acquainted with the noble de-
fendant than with the plaintffi ; and certainly they had
exhibited a decided preference for the case of the peer
over that of the peasant. Their conduct and that of the
defendant was marked by unbridled and unprincipled
licence ; the jury thought so ; they returned a verdict
accordingly ; and it would be the worst example for the
peace and security of the people, if, when a case of gross
oppression by a man of high rank and station came
fore them, her Majesty's Judge of Assize, and afterwards
the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, were not
scrupulous to see justice done to the last farthing.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in support of the rule, Laid
that this was a verdict marked by vengeance, and utter'y
unsupported by the evidence. It might sometimes cer7
tainly become the duty of counsel to make animadver-
sions upon the conduct of a Judge who had presided at
the trial of a cause ; but when that was the case it ought
at least to be done in some tempered language. lie
hoped and believed that their Lordships would not
shrink from trying fairly any question between a peer
and a peasant ; but he need not say that it was not be-
cause a man was a peer that his property was to be
taken from him. If their Lordships considered the in-
fluence which the inflammatory- topics that his Learned
Friend had even thought it right to address to their
Lordships must have upon a common Jury, it would
not surprise them to find that they had not come to a
fair, just, and deliberate determination in the case.
With regard to the panegyric which Lord Abinger was
said to have passed upon the Magistrates, it was by no
means unusual or improper for a Judge, upon certain
persons being named, to say, " I know that such a per-
son fills a respectable situation ;" -and it was exceedingly
unjust that Magistrates should be exposed to attacks
such as these, made upon them in their absence, when, if
there were any grounds for those attacks, they might be
Called upon to answer them in the regular way. His
Learned Friend had exhausted alarge fund of sympathy
for this poor man, though it did not appear that he de-
served much ; there' was no evidence that he had ever
done a day's work ; and he got possession of this cottage
by going at night when he was drunk and frightening his
mother and sister out of it. The Learned Counsel then
went through the evidence, and contended that it dis-
closed a series of facts which were sufficient to support
the defendant's title. The repairs effected by Lord
Grantley from time to time, his saying, "'There, dame,
the cottage is done up nicely now, and you shall have it
to live in as long as you live," were , sufficient evidence
that the widow Punter was at most a tenant at will of
Lord Grantley. Then, by the, statute of limitations,
which passed in 1833, where the possession was not ad-
verse, the party hail five years to enter or demand rent and
distrain ; and long before that time Lord Grantley, it was
clear, had demanded rent, had received a promise to pay,
and had entered and cut timber, .Now, he would not pre-
sume to offer any defence of Lord Abinger's conduct ;
none was needed ; but he must be allowed to say; that
it' at the bar inflammatory topics were urged calculated
to excite the passions of a Jury, a Judge did but half his
duty who sat still and saw parties deprived of their just
rights, without endeavouring to do away with the in-
fluence of those inflammatory topics ; and if anything
appeared irregular and unusual in the conduct of the
Lord Chief Baron on this occasion, it was perfectly re-
concileable with a just sense of his duty, when they re-
garded the character of the address which his Learned
Friend had made to the Jury. There could be no doubt
that this was a grossly perverse verdict : lie therefore
prayed the rule for a new trial might be made absolute
without costs.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—We desire to have a little
more consideration of the facts of this case, without
ference to the bearing of the statute, before we give our
decision.-

COMMON PLF,AS—GeiLDRALL, May 29:
BROMLEY V. HIGHWAY.
This was an action brought to recover a sum of 500/.
by the plaintiff from the defendant, under the following
circumstances :---•
It appeared that the plaintiff, .who is a butler in a
gentleman'S family in Wimpole-street, in the year 1819
married a woman of thei'name of Cotterell, who was also
a servant in a gentleman's family ; both having saved
money, they took the Crown public-house, in Silver-
street, Golden- square. The plaintiff having had a fa-
mily by a- former wife, brought the children home, in
consequence.of which disputes arose, and plaintiff and his
wife separated. Both went to service, and lived apart
until lithe year 1831, when the plaintiff took a house
in Barlow- street.. His wife finding that to be the
case, summoned him to the Marylebone police-office
for a maintenance, and the Magistrates ordered him
to pay five shillings a week. which he did up to the
period of her death in 1839, though she had then consi-
derable funded property. When plaintiff's wife's health
began to decline she went to reside with her sister, a
Mrs. Cage, and on her death-bed, in 1639, took 5001.
from under her pillow and gave it to her sister, who gave
it to the defendant's wife (a cousin of the deceased), upon
the understanding that she was to get the interest for it.
However, the defendant being
.applied, to for the inte-
rest did not pay it, and refused to return the principal,
upon which Mrs. Cage brought an action in the Exche-
quer, which was tried before Baron Rolfe ; and the defend-
ant pleaded; in 'answer to this action, that the husband
of the deceased was alive, and she. could not recover the
money, being legally his. Upon. the plaintiff hearing
of the action he made inquiries, in consequence of which
he brought the present action. •
Mr. Justice BOSANQUET told the Jury that it was clear
from the evidence that the money was received by the
defendant, and it was legally the property of the plaintiff:
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found a
verdict for the plaintiff for 500/. .

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.

THE QUEEN V. DANIEL GRUNDY, ESQ,

The defendant in this case was indicted charged with
having assaulted Timothy Giblett, one of the Metropoli-
tan police, on the 16th February last.
Mr. Hughes appeared for the defendant.
The appearance of the defendant, who is a gentleman
of considerable fortune, and occupied chambers in the
Albany, in Piccadilly, when placed at the bar presented
that of a person whose mind was in anything but a pro-
per state. He, however, maintained a quiet and calm
demeanour, during the proceedings, occasionally asking
questions of the gaoler, to whom he repeatedly in an
undertone of voice said, " It was all a mockery and a
farce, and that it was a case of perjury." The prosecu-
tor, it will be remembered, from what has already been
published in the police reports, went to the Albany. to
execute a warrant on the defendant, who, on being in-
formed of the nature of his mission, exclaimed, " You
-7-you rascal !" and instantly collared him. A struggle
The defendant then drew out
On the course of which the prosecutor was thrown
ensue—,
and, piing the latter at
on the floor of the ball.
Murder,. help, help !" and then
his sword stick and a
his head, called out
made his escape, followed tlt 'la-Once by the prosecutor,
up the stairs. This was the assatilt p9Nplained of. The
fact was proved by several witnesses,
Mr. HUGHES, on the part of the defendant, told the
jury that the case was one which the circumstances ren-
dered it necessary for him to leave entirely in their
hands. He was unable to rebut the evidence which had
been given, but would call a wlt9P99 to show that his
client was intemperate in regard ,to paphot 4t14 tiNeite-
nient, both of which feelings had doubtless been anawd
by being told that the party addressing Um_ had a war=
rant against him.
The COURT inquired what object the Learned Couttse,
proposed to effect by calling his witness ?
Mr. HUGHES—Merely that of showing how easily lila
client became extremely excited..
The COURT said, if that was the only object, the pro-
per time to put such a witness into the box would be
with a view to a mitigation of punishment after the jury
might have found the defendant guilty.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
Ater a long discussion between the Magistrates who
were on the bench, ~
The CHAIRMAN said that --tlagefendant in this case
was a gentleman, and, as th. 4 Court understood, possessed
of. very considerable property. They therefore thought
his case was one, the justice of which would be met by
his putting in sureties to keep the peace.
The defendant—l have -no means of repelling the
charge, Sir ;itis a case-Of perjury.
The CHAIRMAN—But must be guided by the evi-
dence which is before us. It is a great pity.
The defendant—l think not ;
the thing ought, I am
aware, to have been settled at ihe Police-office for a so-
vereign. I know that very well:.
The CHAIRMAN—WeII, what .we must do here is to
take care to place you in such a position as to prevent a
recurrence of the assault. You must put in bail.
The defendant—What ! after having had something
1ik4600/. to pay for a twopenny thing like this. Three
months have elapsed too. But I know it should have
been settled at once for a sovereign.
The CHAIRMAN—We cannot help that. The sentence
of the Court is that you. pay a fine to the Queen of Is.,
and that you enter into your own recognizances for
1,000/., and find two suretiea of 5001. each to keep the
peace.
The defendant—Oh ! that'S it, is it ? Well, then,
what I have to say is, that I think the whole of the con-
duct in this concern is a gross abuse ; it is a gross per-
jury ; it is all a mockery and a farce ; it is a gross abuse
on the part of the police and the 3lagistiates. Now I beg
to be allowed to say that I wish to have that expression
registered as my opinion. I say that that is may Opinion
of the whole affair. I wish you good morning, gentlemen.
The defendant then accompanied the Governor of the
House of Correction from the Court, whence, not being
prepared with the necessary' hail, be
was driven in his
own carriage to the prison.
_—

THE FRUIT Cnors.—Apples appeared to set
well after a fine bloom, hut the maggot has since made great
havoc, in many places not only devouring the apples, but even
the leaves. Under the hills'in some places the gooseberry
Lushes may be seen completely stripped of both fruit and leaves
by this destructive insect. Pears are variable, and plums
have also in some places suffered much from blight. The for-
ward cherries will probably be very " platty" or unequal; of
the. prospect of 'the backward cherries it is too early yet to
form a correct judgment.
et
MAILTRAINS ON SUNDAY IN SCOTLAND.
—We notice that the Dundee and Arbroath Railway
_Company have commenced carrying the mail bags on
Sunday,. ..This, as a matter of course, is only the cona-
mertcemFrit to all the other railways in Scotland running
mail trams on the same day.—Glasgow Chronicle.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
An examination on several cases of alleged forgery,
which excited much curiosity, took place before the Lord
Mayor. Mr. Humphreys, the Solicitor, appeared for 1
the prosecution, and Mr. Wolff, from Mr. Flower's
office, attended for the prisoner, whose name is John
Smith, and who was brought up by habeas corpus from
Whitecross-street prison.
Mr. Humphreys said, that the warrant having been
obtained against the prisoner for forgery, Mr. Barrett,
the keeper of Whitecross-street prison, in whose custody
he was, attended to await the ..result. The prosecutor,
Mr. Moss, a Solicitor, became acquainted in the year
1828 with the prisoner, in a business transaction, and
subsequently discounted a great number of bills for him.
The bills first discounted were for small amounts, and
were regularly paid. After a variety of transactions
the kind, however, a crisis arrived—a number of the
bills which remained in the prosecutor's hands proved to
be forgeries, and it afterwards appeared that the whole
of the instruments which the prisoner had thus got
I cashed were of the same character.
Mr. William Moss stated that he was a solicitor, and
that his office was at No. 4, Cloak-lane. His first ac-
quaintance with the prisoner took place when the pri-
soner was his client. Ile was in the habit of discounting
bills for the prisoner. Amongst the bills was the one
produced, bearing date the 15th December, 1840, for
851., purporting to be drawn by Brock and Son, and ac-
cepted by Martin Gale, Orchard-street, Oxford-street,
at Hopkinson's, No. 3, Regent-street, at four months
date. Witness had discounted other bills purporting to
be drawn by Brock and Son, whom the prisoner de-
scribed as being tailors, residing at No. 10, Sackville-
street, Piccadilly.
The prosecutor, in his cross-examination by. Mr.
Wolff, said that he had paid the prisoner a considera-
tion for the bill, but whether it was in money or not for
that identical bill•he could not tell. When first witness
became acquainted with the prisoner, in 1828, the latter
was a bankrupt and employed him to get his certificate.
Witness began to discount bills . for him in 1838, and
continued to do so up to January last. He could not
tell to what amount. It was upwards of 3,0001. or
4,000/. In the whole it might have amounted to 10,000/.
Witness never depended upon the prisoner's circum-
stances, but upon his character, in the course of their
dealings. Witness gave him 100/. in February last, but
did not know that the prisoner had paid 401. of that sum
for him.
Mr. Edward Brock, jun., stated that he was in partner-
ship with his father, a tailor, residing at No. 10, Sack-
ville-street, Piccadilly. They knew nothing whatever of
the bill produced. Neither his writing nor the writing
of his father )vas upon the bill, and neither of them had
authorised any person to write upon it. Three others
were exhibited of a similar character, of which they
knew nothing.
The prosecutor stated that he believed the body of the
bill produced to be in the handwriting of the prisoner.
Mr. Ilitinphreys here produced another bill. It was
for 701., and purported to be drawn by Allan upon
11. Atwood, of Harley-street, Cavendish-square.
The prosecutor stated that the prisoner had given a
great number of bills, purporting to be the acceptances
of Mr. Allan, described as a tailor residing at No. 42,
New Bond-street.
Mr. Daniel Allan stated that he was a tailor, and re-
sided at 42, New Bond-street. The acceptance on the
bi!l produced was not in his writing, not' was it written
by his authority. Ile knew nothing of it, nor of any of
the other bills on which his name was written. All the
parties were perfect strangers to him.
Mr. Humphreys said that he should leave the cases,
of which there were a great many more of a similar cha-
racter, to be dealt with by the Lord Mayor as his
Lordship should think fit, either to transfer the pri-
setter to Newgate, or to send him back in the custody of
Mr. Barrett. Ilis object was to have the prisoner in
safe custody.
The prisoner was then delivered to Mr. Barrett, and
will he brought up by habeas corpus on the 14th of June
to the Central Criminal Court for trial.
TUE INDEPENDENT I.:CD WEST MIDDLESEX ASSURANCE