The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-25 00:00:00

they should, respectively, within three years after his
decease, pay such his trustees and executors all such
sums of money as were due and owing from them or any
of them to him at the time of his decease ; and in case
of the death of any or either of them he gave the same
sum to his or their children. Catherine Paine survived
the testator, and died unmarried in 1840, but the above-
named legatees had not complied with the conditions
mentioned in the will of the testator, the whole of the
debts due from them to him at the time of his decease,
not having been paid until six years afterwards. The
question before the Court was whether, under these
circumstances, the plaintiffs, who were the children of the
legatees, were entitled to the legacies.
Mr. KINDERSLEY, for the plaintiffs, argued that as
there wad no limitation over upon non-compliance with
the condition, the legatees were entitled, in equity, upon
substantially performing it by payment of the sums due
from them with inttrest. The Learned Gentleman
cited several of the cases mentioned in Roper on Lega-
cies, i. 663, in support of his argument.
Mr. PURVIS, on the same side, contended that whe-
ther the above named legatees were entitled or not, the
plaintiffs were entitled as distinct legatees, and that the
gift to the children was not subject to the condition of the
payment of the debts within the time mentioned.
Mr. PEMBERTON (with whom was Mr. Wilcox and Mr.
Bevan) contended that the condition was a precedent con-
dition, and that unless it was performed the bequest could
not take effect, either to the legatees named or to the chit-.
dren.

The MASTER of the ROLLS said he would give judg-
ment to-morrow.

VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 24.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.)
SALISBURY V. MORRICE.
The further arguments in this part heard case were
resumed this morning and occupied the Court the whole
day. The argument not having concluded when his
Honor rose, the case was ordered to stand over till Mon-
day, to-morrow (this day) being the last day of Term, on
whichiloccasion the Court takes motions.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
MILLER V COW.
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 HONOUR referred the case (the facts of which have
appeared in The Sun) to the Court of Common Pleas.
PRENDERGAST V. TURTON.
This was a bill filed to obtain a decree of nullity
against a cancellation of shares held by the plaintiffs,
in the United Hills Mining Company, and which
had been, in a Court of the Directors of the Com-
pany, declared forfeited for non-payment of cer-
tain instalments demanded of the plaintiffs as
shareholders. The cause was but part-heard when the
Court rose. We reserve the facts till judgment is given.
His HoNoua will take motions to-morrow.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGHAM.)
His IloNotra disposed of several unopposed petitions,
which involved no feature of public interest.
DUNCOMBE V. DAVIS.
In this cause the bill was filed by Mr. Thomas Slingsby
Duncombe. The circumstances out of which the suit
arose were stated at great length. A bill bad been drawn
by: 'Mr. Duticoinhe, and accepted by Lord Edward
Thyme, on the 16th of April, 1834, and was given to a
George Pownall, one of the defendants in the suit, to
discount, but the bill alleged that it never was discounted
by him. On the 16th of May, 1834, another bill was
drawn by a person of the name of Wm. Read Knevitt,
and accepted by Lord Edward Thynne for 3,000 L, which
was also given to George Pownall to discount. This
bill the plaintiff was induced to indorse. Lord Edward
Thynne, for whose benefit it was drawn, after-
wards took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. The
second bill was then delivered over to the plaintiff, and he
received 60e/. in money, and pictures, and certain other
articles, of the value of 200/. as a consideration for in-
dorsing it. On the 6th of August, 1834, Mr. Duncombe
applied to Mr. Pownall to raise money for his own accom-
modation, and a bill was drawn upon him by George
Pownall for 5001. Neither of the bills drawn were paid;
and in the month of December, 1834, Mr. Pownall in-
duced the plaintiff to grant to him an annuity upon an
estate of which he was tenant in remainder, in consi-
deration of his liability upon these several bills, and
upon their delivery to him by the defendant Pownall,
the defendant Davis claimed to be assignee under that
annuity. The plaintiff stated that he had after-
wards discovered he had been deceived in these
transactions, and that Mr. Pownall had never
discounted the bills ; and that notice was imme-
diately given to Sir Samuel Scott and his partner,
in whose hands the annuity deed was, that Davis
had no legal claim in respect of it. The ob-
ject of the plaintiff in instituting the present suit
was to have that deed entirely cancelled, and to have an
examination of all the transactions. The cause now
came before the Master on exceptions to the Master's
report. The question was, whether, being examined to
five,separate points, he was to be excused from answer-
ing part because he alleged that he could not answer the
whole.

His HONOUR, having heard the arguments of Counsel
on both sides, said that upon the merits alone the plain-
tiff had a right to some answer from the defendant ;
but as points of some difficulty had been raised at the
bar, and as it was especially desirable now that there
were four Courts of Chancery to observe a uniform prac-
tice, he would defer his decision until he had lcoked
into the cases.
The CounT rose shortly after three.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 24.

THE QUEEN V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY CO3I•

PANY.

Lord DEsstAN gave judgment in this case which had
been argued during the present term. It was a rule for
a mandamus calling upon the defendants to impannel a
Jury, and asses damages, for injury done to the land of
a party immediately adjoining the railway. It appeared
that the land had not been taken or used by the Com-
pany, and it was urged in the course of the argument
that, as the land had not been taken or used for the pur-
poses of the railway, it did not come within the compen-
sation clauses of the Act of Parliament. Now, it ap-
peared that the Act of the 6th and 7th William IV. gave
the Company power to construct their railway without
the assent of the landowners in its immediate neigh-
bourhood, and it was but reasonable and just that the
owners and occupiers should ire compensated for any in-
jury that might be inflicted npon them by reason thereof.
The Company were authorised to raise, lower, or alter,
the highways, over or near which the railway passed, but
it was also provided that they were to make full satisfac-
tion for any injury arising therefrom. It was urged,
however, that the claim in the present case did not come
within the meaning of the Act. Now, in the 36th
section, the jury were empowered to consider; first,
the value of land taken; and, secondly, such other
damage as might be done to the land not taken
or used. It was for them to say whether the case now
before them could fairly be said to come within the
meaning of that clause. Now, it appeared that the
clause contemplated some ulterior damage be) and the
mere taking of the land, and that the present was one
of these cases. It had been said that if the present rule
was made absolute, injury inflicted in a remote degree
upon property situated at a distance from the rail-
way would be made the subject of a claim for
compensation. If these extreme cases often occurred the
Court would know how to deal with them upon their
merits, but in the present instance, the land being in the
immediate neighbourhood of the railway, and having
been injured and damaged by the lowering of the high-
way immediately adjoining, it appeared to them to
come within the meaning of the compensation clause.
The return, therefore, was insufficient, and the rule for
a peremptory mandamus must be made absolute.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-THE QUEEN V. JOHN SHEE

HAN AND SIR JOHN 3IILLEY DOYLE:

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. War-
ren) appeared to show cause against the rule obtained in
this case, calling upon the defendants to show cause why
a criminal information should not be Sled against them
for certain misdemeanors. His Learned Friend (the
Solicitor-General) appeared for Sir John Doyle, and he
appeared for Mr. Sheehan. He wished to know from
the Court whether it would be more convenient to take
the cases together?
Lord DEN ALAN said they might be taken 'together, al-
though they might not have the same result. The dourt
certainly did not think that there had been any joint act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had sdme doubts whether
his Learned Friend (Mr. Thesiger) meant to complain of
certain libels.
stehciLuoerid:EsmAN imagined that the complaint was, that
autileeirr TheLt
the
de
rnts
a message had been sent to Sir Alexander Grant, in con-
of which a long correspondence took place, and
posting Sir
defendant did what was considered equivalent to
to tegeiSricrulAo4.7aGEnrcyaelt by publishing that correspondence,
and imputingATT motives to Sir A. Grant.
?tEhNa ft; Rh Aa Ld
led wouldt o thatl 110 w
paudbliecsastihonin:asnelfd
inletnatree appeared
jescil
conduct
thatould ,b
had
de
btereuns
pursuedted, be
boyf
Sir
A opinion,.G rtahnat
,t
he had no right whatever to call upon that Court for its
that in protection.tite
represent the town of Cambridge by the affidavit of Sir A. Grant,
1840, he was a candidate to
rtibdge in Parliament ; that at
that time Mr. Sheehan was
r ent dteobenettjehciasrttt
ap-
peared on that occasion in the
ofin reference Sir A.conceived
Grant, paperparagraph,
g, raanpdh
d ceosaprssa.orfaAgaweektloy paper
called the Canibridge Indep
O n
the which
hustings he
he refe
`worthy of repro-
,, r
mosi
ni him.ratAet
a libellous character.
nounced the writer in language
bation as that which had been appliel.
whole affair might be fairly said to have tt
hTe
rhee.
There were some strong remarks respecting Grant,
in connection with the slave trade, and which ~
vere. re-
pelled in equally strong language by Sir A. Grant in a
speech which was subsequently published. From that
time it did not appear that Mr. Sheehan had
ever made any attack upon Sir Alexander Grant,
nor did it appear that down to the period of the last ge-
neral election Sir A. Grant had made any further com-
plaint. or had taken any further notice of what had oc-
curred in May, 1840. Sir A. Grant was, in June, 1841,
again a candidate for the town of Cambridge, and a flag
exhibiting •him as witnessing the flogging of a female
slave (but with which it did not appear, nor was it in-
sinuated that Mr. Sheehan had any thing whatever to
do) was paraded through the streets. That would
appear to have roused in Sir Alexander Grant's
mind the recollection of the paragraph which had
appeared in the paper a year before. The result was,
that Sir A. Grant made another public attack upon Mr.
Sheehan, and insinuated that he was acquainted with
his whole life, and would refer to it, but that he feared
the legal consequences that might result therefrom. His
conduct was denounced as ungentlemanly and black-
guardly, and he was in so many words stigmatized as
a pierjurer. Now, he apprehended, after having
made such an attack, and in so unprovoked a
manner upon Mr. Sheehan, Sir A. Grant had no
right whatever to come to that Court and ask for
its interference. At the end of a year, when the pro-
verb of "let bye-gones be bye-gones " would be sup-