The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-30 00:00:00

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

- -
OXFORD, Nov. 27.—There will be an election on Fri-
day, Feb. 11, at Corpus Christi College of two Scholars,
open to natives of Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire, respec-
tively, candidates for which must be under 19 years of
age, and are required to present themselves to the Presi-
dent on Saturday, Feb. 5, at eleven o'clock, with the
usual certificates and testimonials ; also Latin epistles to
the electors. The following Scholars of Corpus Christi
College have been admitted Probationary Fellows of that
Society :—The Rev. M. Harrison, and the Rev. W. 11.
Wardale.

C. J. Dawson, of the Charterhouse School, and J.
Taylor, of St. John's College, have been elected Exhibi-
tioners on the Michel Foundation, at Queen's College.
J. 11. Latham, of Brazennose College, has been
elected to the Craven Scholarship.
E. Palmer, of Charterhouse School, and E. Walford,
late of that School, have been elected Scholars of Balliol
College. Thirty candidates offered themselves for these
Scholarships.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford will hold a .General Or-
dination at Christ Church, on Sunday, December 19.
The Master and Fellows of Balliol College have pre-
sented the Rev. R. Hill, Fellow of their Society, to the
Rectory of Timsbury, Somerset.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT. Nov. 29.

(Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.)
SALISBURY V. MORRIS.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in the
Court in Lincoln's Inn to-day, for the purpose of hearing
the remaining arguments in this part-heard case.
Mr. RICLIARDS replied at great length, and
His HoNotm stated, that he must consider the case
before he gave judgment.
In the course of the morning, his Honour intimated
that he would sit in his private room on Wednesday, to
hear the case of a ward.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 29.
ROSS V. CLIFTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff as proprie-
tor of certain cottages in St. George's-place, Pocock's-
fields, Holloway, to recover compensation for injury done
to the premises, in consequence of the erection of a
school-house immediately in the rear of No. 8, by which
the drainage was prevented, and the washhouses or
kitchens were caused to smoke very much. The case
had been under the consideration of a Jury once before,
and was now again submitted to them for the purpose
of ascertaining whether any and what damage had been
occasioned by the erection of the building in question.
Mr. Sergeant Shea appeared for the plaintiff and Mr.
Thesiger for the defendant.
James Tomset, the tenant, of No. 8, was first examined,
and proved the injury done to the house by the erection of
the school-house in the rear. The wash-house smoked
so much that they could not keep a fire in it, and the
walls were extremely damp from the water being turned
upon the roof instead of being allowed to run into the
ditch as formerly. He was a weekly tenant, and had
been residing for some time in the house. The putting
up of chimney pots did not cure the smoke.
Charles Fear—l am a builder in the Holloway-road.
I know St. George's-place for thirty years. The land
belonged to Mr. Cooper before Mr. Ross's houses were
built there. The land to the south, where the school-
house is built, is called Pocock's-fields, and was sepa-
rated by a hedge and an open ditch. The water flowed
through it from west to east, and emptied itself into a
public dam running towards Holloway. I recollect the
hedge being grubbed up by Mr. Pocock's orders, and a
wall was put in its place. Mr. Pocock was succeeded in
the possession of that land by Mr. Elliot. He built the
eight houses, and the wall was built upon as the back of
the houses. I recollect the school-house beinr,e• built ad-
joining No. 8. The school-house wall was built five or
six feet above the wash-house chimney of No. 8. I went
in 1838 to look at it by Captain Ross's orders. The place
was full of smoke, and nobody could remain in it. I put
two pots on the old chimney, and raised it as high as the
wall. The wet also came through the house, in con-
sequence of the spouts being turned. I undertook to
make the alterations that would cure the smoke and the
water for 251. About 51. would set the chimney right. I
found that raising the chimney with the pots did not pre-
vent the smoking.
George's
wall—l am a bricklayer. I know St.
',rtge's-ace about thirty-six years. I know there
'_"ass aa Watercourse next the hedge on the south side. I
ctwlhoB:lol,lseldogerndet from the neighbourhood for some time, and in
, when I returned, a wall had been substituted for
• repaired the wall in 1820 by Mr. Lay •
ersehl,iagbbhiutttfele'fteit)wvas.sitnhgrown down at night as people
rwaeirseedinittht:
across it. I subsequently
peelogb by his directions, to keep the
cattle in the field. sifiel fields
si
architect
tse
raaenpdinesocuter
surveyor.
built
ts.otlre
ground at the time. The
above six years afterwards.
William Warren--I am atiloalrics
know St. George's-place, and tllit,l,va attv;ae.rerse which
en thes housel No.
'iiegdravi :071
runs at the back of the hopses.
Bin April last. The fire in the kitchen
much in consequence of a school-house wallme being
above the chimney.
Thomas Lye—l am a builder, and know the
horse;
in question. The evidence of this witness was similar to
that of those previously examined.
Joseph Archer was employed to build No. 8, and the
others of Mr. Boss's houses. He built them for Mr.
Elliott, and used the wall running along the ditch to build
upon. The houses drained into the ditch—that from
the roof went over the wall with a shoot, or spout, and
the lower drainage went through the wall.
Deeds of lease and release from Pocock to Elliott,
and from Elliott to plaintiff;
were put in and read.
Mr. THESIGER then adddressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. It had been alleged on the other side that the
erection of the school-house was a wanton and gratui-
tous piece of mischief on the part of the defendant, but
there was nothing whatever disclosed by the evidence to
justify so unwarrantable an assertion. He did not know
what possible motives the trustees of the school-house,
which was a charitable institution, could have' had in
acting in such a manner. The plaintiff complained of
an injury to his reversionary interest, and alleged that
the damage had been such that his property was de-
teriorated in value, but it had been shown that the same
tenant still held the house at the same rent, although he '