The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-09 00:00:00

(Before Vice-Chancellor Winn Am.)
CLAYTON V. MEADOWS.

In this cause the bill was filed by the plaintiff, the
Rev. Thomas Clayton, who is the Rector of the parish of
Cottingham, otherwise Cottingham-cum-Middleton, in
the county of Northampton, for the tithes of certain
lands alleged to be within the parish.
Mr. TEMPLE opened the case, at great length, for the
plaintiff; Mr. COLERIDGE followed on the same side.
The further hearing of the cause was adjourned till
to-morrow.

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY U. THE COOPER'S COMPANY.

This cause, which was the eighteenth on the paper,
on the application of Atr. Cooper, was ordered to stand
over generally.
• The Court rose at three o'clock.
(Before Vice -Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
BROADHURST V. BALGUY AND ANOTHER.

This cause, which had been part heard on Saturday,
was resumed at the sitting of the Court. It was a suit
instituted by the plaintiff for a breach of trust alleged to
have been committed by the defendants.
It appeared that the defendant, Mr. Bryan Thomas
Balguy, who was a solicitor of considerable repute in
Derby, and Mr. Francis Ilert, a gentleman of large es-
tate in the same county, and brother of the plaintiff's
first wife, had been appointed trustees under a settlement
executed upon the marriage of the plaintiff with his first
wife. It was charged against Mr. Ilert that he had, by
great imprudence and neglect, permitted his co-trustee,
Mr. Balguy, to obtain the entire and sole dominion of a
sum exceeding 3,0001., a portion of the trust-fund, which
sum the latter appropriated to his own purposes. The
suit was of course instituted against both Mr. Balguy
and Mr. Hert, but inasmuch as the former had become
reduced to a state of great pecuniary embarrassment,
amounting to almost total insolvency, Mr. fort, wh• was
liable for the acts of his co-trustee, was the only person
looked to to have the fund replaced. The bill, in addi-
tion to claiming repayment of the 3,0001., also prayed a
change of trustees. The plaintiff totally disclaimed any
imputation against Mr. Hert as having been wilfully or
fraudulently a party to the application of the money to
his own use by Mr. Balguy, and the consequent loss of
it ; but counsel on hi; behalf submitted that he (the
plaintiff) had an equitable right to sue him as being co-
trustee, and to obtain from him the repayment of the
sum claimed.

Mr. COOPER, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Loftus Wi-
gram), contended that the plaintiff must have been aware
of the manner in which the trust-fund was disposed of.
Certain accofints had been rendered to the plaintiff by
the defendant, whereby such a knowledge, namely, that
of the mode of disposal of the fund, must have been at-
tained by the plaintiff, and this circumstance, joined with
his acquiescence in the disposal of the money, which
consisted in placing the fund solely under the control
of Balguy, counsel submitted deprived the plaintiff of any
right to succeed in the claim now put forward.
The arguments in the cause were of great length, oc-
cupying the Court the whole of Saturday and to-day, to
within a short time of its rising.
His HONOUR stated that he would give judgment on
Monday next, and rose at half-past three o'clock.
Mr. Wilcock and Mr. James Russell appeared for the
plaintiff. •

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 8.
STONEHOUSE AND ANOTHER V. JENT.

This was an action brought to recover a sum of 12C1.
for work and labour done, and goods sold and delivered.
The action was brought by Stonehouse and Co. of New-
port, Monmouth, ship-brokers, against the defendant, a
shipowner of Plymouth, for repairs done to a vessel
called the Lady Hardy, and for necessaries supplied to
the crew. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Wil-
liams at the last Monmouth Assizes, and a verdict was
had for the plaintiff's, damages 1231. A rule for a new
trial, and to set aside the verdict on the ground of mis-
direction, and of its being against evidence, was after-
wards obtained by Mr. Richards.
Mr. WAKELY now appeared to show cause against the
rule. The facts, as they appeared at the trial, were
briefly these. The Lady Hardy was built in America,
where she was purchased by a person named Nichols, a
merchant of Plymouth. Being desirous to sell her, an
offer was made him by a man named llawksmith Of 800/.
Nichols accepted the offer, but Smith not having the
money, applied to the defendant, Jent, to advance a part
of it. and Jent accordingly gave two bills of exchange for
2501. each, Smith giving a mortgage upon some premises
to pay the remaining 3001. A bill of sale was accordingly
made out to Jent, who was thereby legally constituted the
owner of the vessel, and was to receive her earnings until the
money was paid, Smith having authority to pledge the
credit of the owners for the prosecution of the voyage. It
was then arranged that Hawksmith should be appointed
the Captain, but the revenue officers of Newport, where
the vessel was lying, objected to it, on the ground that
Smith had been previously engaged in some smuggling
transactions, in a vessel called the Good Intent. Jent
then said ho would fix him in another way, and Smith's
nephew was registered as nominal master, while Smith
himself, who acted as supercargo, was really master, and
Jent was registered as the owner. In the course of
the voyage the vessel sustained some damage, and
Smith had no means whatever of repairing her, ex-
cept by obtaining an advance of money, which he
accordingly procured from the plaintiffs. Application
was made to Smith for payment, in the first instance,
but he having become insolvent in about sixteen or
seventeen months after the debt was contracted, appli-
cation was made to the defendant, who denied the
authority of Smith to bind him, and refused to
pay it, The Learned Counsel contended that the
' evidence laid before the Jury at the trial was sufficient
to establish the fact of Jent and Smith being part
owners, in which case Jent was equally liable
with the other. Unless there was some ground for dis-
crediting the testimony of Smith, who distinctly deposed
to these facts there could be no other conclusion come
to, and he did not think it was very creditable to the
defendant now to attempt to shift the responsibility from
his own shoulders, more especially as Smith was since
dead, and there was no means of obtaining his evidence
in the case of a new trial. Under these circumstances
he submitted that there was no ground for granting a
new trial.

Mr. RICHARDS, on behalf of the defendant, said he
claimed to have the rule made absolute, first, on the
ground of misdirection ; and, secondly, on the ground
of surprise, and its being against evidence. Now it ap-
peared that the great bull: of the sum claimed, namely,
88i. 175., was for money borrowed by Smith, as he
to purchase necessaries, and pay the seamen, while
the balance was for certain repairs done to the
vessel. Before the act of Smith in borrowing that
money could be made binding upon the owner, it must
be shown that the advance was necessary for the prose-
cution of the voyage ; but he denied that that could be
alleged in the present case, because the captain could in
less than two days hare communicated with, and re•
ceived an answer from, his owner. Where advances
were made upon the credit of the vessel the parties
making these advances locked to the Captain and the
Captain only, unless he could show an express authority
from the owner to borrow money in his name. It was
a recognised rule of law that the Captain was the only
party who could charge the owner, but there must be
an express authority shown before that could be done.
After hearing the arguments of the Counsel the
Court took time to consider its decision.

(wilt. party, then that the original document ought to be
produced, and be (boeo Denhain) confessed that where
the object was to prove the identity of the party, he
thought the Court ought to have the .original document.
Mr. ALEXANDER submitted that the evidence of iden-
tity upon that point being so extremely inconclusive,
there was nothing on which the other party could rely
but the alleged interference of the defendant at the sale,
and that he had already explained as being by
no means sufficient to bind the defendant. and
render him liable. The Learned Counsel, after referring
to several authorities on the subject, concluded by sub-
mitting that the defendant was entitled to a nonsuit, and
that the rule ought to be made absolute.
The COURT thought there ought to be a new trial.
Rule for a new trial absolute.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nov. 8.

J./OW:JET V. EDWARDS AND ANOTHER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule nisi, to se
aside a nonsuit in this case, which had been directed to
be entered by the Lord Chief Baron at the trial, which
took place at the Sittings at Westminster after the last
Session. It was an action of trover, to recover certain
articles of plate from the executors to the will of the
father of the plaintiff's wife. The testator left the wife
of the plaintiff in trust for her brother, who, four years
ago, Inid gone to Van Diemen's Land ; in ease of his re-
turn, the plate became his ;' failing that, then it was to
be held in trust for the son of the plaintiff, until he was
14 years of age, and if he died before that period, then
it was to become the property of the wife of the plaintiff.
The executors were to hand over the property upon get-
ting a receipt for it from the wife of the plaintiff. The
executors were willing to hand over the articles, but the
wife of plaintiff objected to some salt-cellars as not being
those intended for her by her father, and she refused to
receive them, or give a receipt. His Lordship was of
opinion that trover could not be maintained, because
there had'in fact been no assent by. the executors.
The COURT were of the same opinion, and refused the
rule.

SMITH V. CLINCH.

This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff,
a widow, residing at Witney, in Oxfordshire, against the
defendant, a hanker and brewer of that place, for break-
ing and entering the plaintiff's premises and taking
away certain goods. The defendant pleaded not guilty,
and that the goods and chattels were not the property
of the plaintiff: The case was tried before Mr. Justice
Williams at the last Oxford Assizes, and a verdict had
for the plaintiff, subject to a motion for leave to stet aside
the verdict and enter a nonsuit. A rule. to that edfect
having been subsequently obtained,
Mr. WAKELY now appeared to show cause against the
rule, which had been obtained on the ground that there
was no evidence to fix the defendant with the proceed-
ings had under the writ. The facts of the case were as
follow :—ln November, 1835, the plaintiff, Smith (since
dead) executed a power of attorney to Clinch, fur a sunr
of 1,000/. money lent. In February, 1837, a mortgage
was made for a further security. In December, '1839,
judgment was entered up upon the warrant of attorney,
and on the morning of the 16th Dec., three days after-
wards, Smith died. On the same evening the writ issued,
clearly, and, as it was admitted on all hands, after Smith
died, and on the followirbee day the goods were seized
for a sum of 9071. 10s. The case afterwards came be-
fore Mr. Justice Coleridge, and on the 31st January,
1840, the writ was set aside on the ground of its having
issued after the death of Smith, and on the 13th Febru-
ary the order issued, on which the present action was
brought, the proceeds of the sale having been paid into
Court, and the action was brought to ascertain what
damages the plaintiff was entitled to for the seizure cef
her goods, it having. been proved that the goods
which were sold for 1751. were worth 501.
more. The Learned Counsel said the writ in this case
having been set aside, was the same as if no writ had
issued, and the question for the consideration of the Court
now was, whether there was evidence to fix the defendant
in the writ of fi. fa. The principal evidence on that point
was the similarity of the name, and the production of the
office copy of the affidavit, on which the execution
issued, from the rule office. Now, he apprehended,
that it would not be denied that that was a
document which might be received in evidence.
It appeared that the defendant had attended the sale
of the plaintiff's goods, and had given directions respect-
ing some of the articles, and it was quite clear, under all
the circumstances, that the defendant had acted in the
case, and had rendered himself liable.
Mr. ALEXANDER was heard in support of the rule.
The question was whether the defendant had done any-
thing by which he bad made himself liable to an action
of damages to Mrs. Smith.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE wished to knoW how the
Learned Counsel could get over the difficulty of the de-
fendant having interfered at the sale, and directed some
of his men to go and measure the potatoes ?
alsttlaitwieodri
sinul,e,bgyjgi
evoceuta-
Mr. ALEXANDER submitted that was merely hearsay
evidence, and that the defendant might have been a
purchaser. Besides, the evidence of the defendant's
eio3infd_ottthiddoistinctly to negative any interference
on his part, because, when the Sheriff's officer came
to him with
etndhoeefeanuNdet
thrlinottr.,ist)st,il47 defendant's attorney
The original
your duty on your own responsibility.
'which the writ issued,
was not produced in
n document
appearedd incon-
clusive.ntouNthuoirilet'xhttehreemeaveffiildydeanlee'itO(ll
Court, and there was ' means oft testing the witness's
knowledge of the defendaonesse
Lord DvotAN said it had been decidedu by Lord El-
lenborough that the original document ought to be
produced, and that opinion was concurred in by the
Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Justice Garrow, in com-
menting upon the opinion of Lord Ellenborough in
a subsequent case, thought the production of
an office copy sufficient where the affidavit it-
self was the only question, but where there
was an allegation that the affidavit was made by ti parti-

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER. 9, 1841.

ter. Application was made to the solicitor of Lady Har-
riet Clive on the sohject. report was made to the
Quarter Sessions, and negotiations were entered- into.
Everything that was done was done under the sanction
of the Committee and of the Quarter Sessions. The mat-
ter was referred to the Secretary of State, agreeably to
the provisions of the statute. The Secretary of State
suggested certain alterations which would have in-
creased the expense, and, in consequence of such
increase in the expense, the matter was abandoned.
After the abandonment of these negotiations, an article
appeared in the paper of the defendant, which was
headed ",Choice specimen of Tory Magisterial ignorance
and jobbing." The article imputed to Mr. Ricketts
that he had moved at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions
for a grant of money, for a station at Bromsgrove. This
Mr. Ricketts declared was untrue. The article then
went on to impute to Mr. Ricketts that he had applied
for estimates to two Tory tradesmen of Bromsgrove, and
had subsequently given a contract for fitting up this
station-house, to a Tory tradesman named Wood, residing
at Droitwich. It then went on to state, that Mr. Ricketts
had, in ignorance of the law, proceeded to enter into a
treaty with the Clive family for the premises in ques-
tion, without considering that it was Dean and Chapter
land, and that the Dean and Chapter might refuse to
renew the lease ; and then the article went on to state,
that a sister of Mr. Ricketts had married a Mr. Cutter,
and that Mr. Cutter had land adjacent to the premises
in question, on which land there was a brick manufac-
tory close to the proposed dation-house, and that Cutter
was to supply the bricks, which some spiteful people, per-
haps, might say were rather small, but that, fortunately, the
the law was stronger even than the Court of Quarter
Sessions, and that wauld not permit him to erect this
station-house on the quicksands of Church property in
preference to the rock of freehold or copyhold. This
appeared as an article from a correspondent, and the
editor proceeded to remark on the conduct of Mr. Ricketts,
in what he called this ridiculous affair. It would be
perceived from this article that it attributed to Mr.
Ricketts, that he had been actuated by party motives
with regard to the tradesmen employed, and that he had
been actuated by private and family motives in the choice
of a site for the proposed station house. Mr. Ricketts in his
affidavit denied on oath all these imputations. He stated
that he was ignorant of the politics of the two tradesmen
at Bromsgrove, who had given in estimates ; that he did
know the politics of Mr. Wood of Droitwich, but that
the only reason he was employed was, because his con-
tract was the lowest. Mr. Ricketts admitted that his
sister was married • to a Mr. Cutter, and that the brother
of Mr. Cutter, Mr. John Cutter, possessed property in
the neighbourhood of Bromsgrove, but that he was not
aware, until he saw it in the article complained of,
that there were any brickworks on that property,
that since the article appeared he had learned that bricks
were made on Mr. John Cutter's property, but..that the
brick works were at the distance of a mile from the pro-
posed station-house at Bromsgrove, and were situated in
a different parish. The applicant denied that he had
been actuated by any improper motives, and stated that
every step taken had been approved by the Committee,
and by the Quarter Sessions, and that he should have
acted precisely as he had done if he had been acting on
his own private account.
Mr. Justice PATTESON--Take a rule.—Rule nisi
granted.

INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT, Nov. 8.
IN RE CHRISTOPHER SMITH.

The insolvent in this case had been a commission
agent, a money-lender, and lastly, by means of accom-
modation bills, succeeded in getting from Mr. Edmonds,,
an extensive wholesale button-manufacturer, a large
quantity of goods with which he set up business in St.
In the many cases which come before this Court,
arising from what is vulgarly called " kite flying"
few equalled, and certainly none exceeded the facts in
relation to this one, as detailed in evidence. _ _ _

It appeared from the testimony of Mr. Edmonds, the
opposing creditor, and several other witnesses, that the
insolvent had been at first a bankrupt, afterwards in
1832, he passed through this Court as an insolvent, and
thirdly had been tried at the Old Bailey, 'on a
charge of forging the name of a person purporting
to be the acceptor of a bill of exchange within four
Months previous to his arrest, at , the suit of the oppos-
ing creditor. He managed to get 40C1. worth of goods
from him, for which he gave him bills drawn by him-
self, and accepted, or purporting to be accepted by per-
sons without a local habitation or a name.

The Learned COMMISSIONER said this was a case
which required the attention of the Court in no ordi-
nary degree, and he should therefore order it to stand
over till to-morrow.

POLICE INTELLO_,ENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Three wretched girls were brought before Alderman
HOOPER, charged with having broken windows for the
purpose of being sent to Bridewell.
A policeman stated that having, between one and two
o'clock in the morning, heard a smashing of glass, he
went to ascertain the cause, and saw the three girls, who
told him that they had committed the offence, and that
they wished to be locked up out of the cold. He took
them to the station-house, and from thence, by order of
the Inspector, to the union in Cannon-street, where Mr.
Thwaites, the relieving officer, immediately attended to
the case, and offered them orders of admission to the
house at Peckham, but they refused to go that establish-
ment, and witness conveyed them to the station-house.
Mr. Thwaites said that, as was frequently the case, he
was knocked up at an unseasonable hour, after the regular
labours of the day, and he offered the orders to the girls,
all of whom had been at Peckham before, but they re-
jected the orders, and he had no alternative but to send
them back to the station-house.

Mr. Nobler intimated to the Alderman that the rejec-
tion of the oftbr was by no means to be wondered at, as
it was no trifle to walk four or five miles between one and
two in the morning, after the exhaustion of the day.
Alderman HOOPER—lndeed, it is a hard sentence upon
poor fatigued persons to send them at such an hour to
such a distance. lam sure that is not what ought to be
called relief.

Mr. 'fhw•aites said that he had it not in his power to
do anything more for those who were brought to him.
The multitudes received at Peckham were beyond all
credibility. They had 240 persons in the house a couple
of weeks ago, and a strong spirit of insubordination had
exhibited itself of late there.

The girls stated that they 11:.d broken the windows in
order to be sent to prison, as prison, bad as it was, was
better than the Peckam house, of which they knew
quite enough. All that they could expect at Peckham-
house was to be turned out in the morning with a little
bread. They had been all round London Unions, and
they must say that prison was greatly preferable, what-
ever people might state.
Mr. Booker, the overseer of Bishopsgate parish, stated,
that the Guardians of the East London Union were to
hold a meeting next day on the subject of purchasing
premises in town, for the reception of destitute persons
like the defendants. All the Guardians of the Unions in
the City would, he believed, attend on so important an
occasion. The East London Union Guardians had seen
one of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners on the
subject, and it was believed that premises would be pur-
chased. The conduct of the younger prisoners in the
workhouse was so bad, that the old people, who were en-
titled to some little comfort, had the most miserable lives
in that asylum. Girls like those at the bar were in the
habit of pelting each other with bread and pudding, and
the house was really a hell upon earth.
Alderman HOOPER perceiving that one of the girls was
ill, sent her to Bartholeniew Hospital. and ordered that
the other two should pay the sum of 20s. each for the mis-
chief they had done, or suffer imprisonment for a month
in Bridewell.

One of the girls—Thanlc you, Sir, for sending us to
Bridewell. Any place is to be preferred to Peckham,
and no mistake. We shall never go there again, at
any rate.
Alderman HOOPER—I do not attribute any blame to
the relieving officer, for he cannot remedy the evil ; but
it is quite a mockery of relief to give poor destitute crea-
tures orders to go to Peckham between one and two in
the morning. I hope such a mode of relief will be as
quickly as possible substituted by one more according
with ordinary humanity.
Mr. Marklew, the proprietor of the Ship tavern, in
Talbot-court, Gracechurch-street, applied to Alderman
Hooper for advice in what manner to act in a case of a
very remarkable kind.
Mr. Hobler, jun., by whose advice the applicant
waited upon the. Alderman, stated the circumstances
briefly :—Edward Marklew, the son of Mr. Marklew,
and another young man, whose name was John Williams,
became acquainted with a Mr. Snow, who had lately ar-
rived from Australia, and was induced by the represen-
tations of that person to make preparations to go to Port
Philip, in the expectation of a prosperous result. Mr. Mark-
lew went to very considerable expense to fit out his son for
the voyage, and Mr. Snow, who was a very plausible
person, and appeared to be qualified to advise young
people upon such an adventure, undertook to superin-
tend the arrangements, and was unfortunately entrusted
with the greater part of the money which was to be paid
for the voyage. What gave a singular complexion of
villany to the affair was the fact, that Mr. Snow not only
decamped with the money of the two young men, but
actually took off the property of his own sister, who was
also going out to Australia, and whom lie had prevailed
upon to marry John Williams for the purpose, as now
was manifest, of stripping her of all the property she
had in the world. Having undertaken to manage the
affairs of the voyage for the young people, Mr. Snow
sent on board some heavy trunks which he said
contained much valuable property, and the
ship, which was called the Pathfinder, sailed from Lon-
don about these weeks ago. As soon, however, as she
arrived in the Downs, Mr. Snow and his wife left her,
and appointed to meet her at Plymouth, but upon the
arrival of the Pathfinder at that port, no such individuals
were to be found. Edward Marklevv, John Williams, and
Mrs. Williams, a poor young creature of not more than
fifteen years of age, then ascertained, to their surprise
and grief, that no settlement had been made for their
passage by Mr. Sr.ow, and they were obliged to leave the
vessel, and make the best of their way to London. Be-
fore, however, they quitted the ship, they, by the advice
of the Captain, broke open Mr. Snow's trunks, and on
their opening, his baseness was confirmed by what they
saw in them, for the valuable property was mere rubbish.
Alderman HOOFER said that the case was really the
most heartless lie had ever heard of.

Mr. Marklew stated that the condition of the poor
young girl, Mrs. 'Williams, was calculated to excite
the deepest compassion, and the conduct of . her
brother betrayed, without doubt, the greatest possible
enormity. Mr. Snow had actually persuaded. her
to give up 38/. a year, which she had to
live upon, in order to supply her with the money of
which he subsequently deprived her. The poor girl
had 181. a-year, as the daughter of a deceased Lieute-
nant, and bhe was allowed 151. a-year by the second
husband of her mother, and her matrimonial adventure
destroyed those means completely. She was now at bis
(Mr. Marklew's house ;possessed of no more clothes
than ti.tti