The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-25 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
His Lordship was occupicd all the morning wi:h peti-
tions, which were destitutf• of public interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour was occupied the whole day with cause
petitions, whic contained not the slightest feature of in-
terest.

(Before Vice Chancellor Sir KNIGHT BRUCE.)
INDIGENT BLIND ASYLUM V. HIED.
This was a suit on the will of the late Mrs. Mary
Elizabeth Bird, instituted by the trustees of the Indigent
Blind Asylum and the Attorney-General against the
executrix, Susanna Bird.
Mr. WzGR2./4 said the deceased by her will left 1,0001.
consolidated annuities to the trustees of the Blind Asy-
lum, to be applied to the purposes of the institution, and
the interest of 1,0001. more to be divided among six non-
resident, patients, at the rate of 5/. each annually. The
executrix refused to pay over the legacies to the trustees
of the Indigent Blind As)luni. A suit was therefore
instituted, and a reference was made to the Master, from
whom it now came back for further directions. The
only question seemed to be the identity of the charity
suing with that named in the will of the deceased.
Vice-Chancellor K. BRUCE—Why, there's only the
Institution in the Surrey suburbs ; then what is the rea
son for such a suit? Why, it is a reflection on Chan
eery. Where did the lady live ?
Mr. BACON—In London.
Vice-Chancellor K. BRUCE—Where, when we Len.
doners speak of the Blind Asylum, do we look but te
the large building in St. George's-fields ? Can there bt
a doubt about that ?
Mr. BACON said the executrix would have paid ever
the legacies at once if the plaintiffs had undertaken to
indemnify her against all future claims. She had the
greatest antipathy to coming into Chancery.
Vice• Chancellor K. BRUCE—That is not an admis.sion
which I could have expected from that side of the cause.
Mr. BACON—Truth exacted it from me.
An order was then made for the payment of the lega-
cies to the trustees of the Indigent Blind Asylum, St.
George's-fields, a separate account to be kept of the
legacy for non-resident patients, and to be called Mrs.
Bird's Charity Account.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr. Wigrem and Mr.
Nichols; for the defendants, Mr. Bacon aaiii Mr. Ray.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WrcaAar.)
PENROSE v. MORTLAKE.
In this case an injunction was applied for in order to
restrain the defendant, who was mortgagor in possession
of a large tract of property in Westmoreland, from cut-
-61)4 timber. It appeared that the plaintiff had become
embarrassed, and had carted with the possession of his
property for a sum of money far inferior to its real
worth. Be was only tenant in tail, and therefore was
not empowered to sell it entirely. Not being able to
tulfil his engagements with the mortgagor, the Latta r had
cut down a great deal of valuable timber in order to re
imburse himself, and this application was made
Court for the purpose of restraining him.
His HONOUR said he would grant the application. The
defendant had not pursued the proper course. Be would
also refer the case to the Master. to inquire and repor
upon what loss the property had sustained.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
MUNDELL V. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.
Lord I)ENmAs gave judgment in this case at the
sitting of the Court. It was an action brought by the
plaintiff, a lady, to recover the amount of a bond made
in her behalf by the defendant in Brunswick. The de-
fendant pleaded that he was a "sovereign prince" at
the time he entered into the contract, and that he was,
therefore, not amenable to.the laws of this country wi:h
reference to this matter. To this the plaintiff demurred
and the case in this state was argued at great length
His Lordship said that the Court thought that tti
plea was bad, because it stated nothing
_more than tha
the defendant was a " sovereign prince" at the time o.
the commencement of the suit. That he was a
" sovereign prince " when he made the con-
tract was an immaterial fact ; if he was
he was justly entitled to the privileges and prerogatives
belonging to that character, but that he was so entitled
was merely a matter of opinion, and whether he had for-
mally abdicated in favour of another better entitled to
the character was equally a matter of opinion. If, in-
deed, he had been a " sovereign prince" de facto, and
had in that character entered into such a contract with
the plaintiff, and had not bound himself as an individual,
but in his sovereign capacity, the defence si t up might
have been a good one ; but " sovereign princes" might
contract obligations in their private character, and on
considerations of a purely personal nature. Neither was
there any presumption that this was an act of state, and
without an averment to that effect the plea simply told
them nothing except that the defendant was a " so-
vereign prince" at the time of entering. into the con-
tract. The plea was therefore bad, and the judgment of
the Court must be for the plaintiff, as they considered
that the plea could not he maintained.
MASTERS V. BUTLER.
The rule in this case was discharged with costs.
BOYD V. THE ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE COMPANY
Mr. CRAMPTON proceeded to address the Court i
support of the rule which had been obtained by the
plaintiff in this case. (The arguments adduced yester-
day will be found fully reported in our law report of
yesterday.) The Learned Gentleman first addressed
himself to the alleged misdirection of the Learned Judge
—namely, that it was for the jury to say whether the
plaintiff had abandoned the snip hastily or not, and
whether he had or had not used all the means at hand
to ascertain the real nature of the injuries which the
ship had sustained. He conceived that the sug-
gestion, that the plaintiff might have acted in
haste, might have !rad a prejudicial effect upon
the minds of the jury, and induced them to decide in
favour of the defendant. The evidence adduced at the
trial went to show that the plaintiff did not act with
haste that he had the ship carefully and efficiently sur•
veyed, and only decided upon abandoning the ship when
it was clearly ascertained that she had been so injured
that she was not worth being carried to a distant port,
where she could have been repaired. The Learned
Counsel was proceeding to deal with the question of the
verdict being against evidence, but
Lord DENMAN said—Was it not rather, unusual, after a
leader had addressed the court or a jury on this point,
against evidence which he had himself adduced, for a
junior to follow on the same side?
Mr. CRAMPTON then concluded by submitting that
the plaintiff had made out a case for a new trial.
Mr. CLEASPY followed on the same side, and con-
tended that the evidence rejected at the trial was a ne-
cessary part of the case, and that it would have enabled
the Court and the jury to decide whether the ship cod
or could not have been repaired, and whether she Ohs
seaworthy or not. He apprehended that the direction
of the Learned Judge was one which might have led the
jury to come to an adverse decision.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was about to reply, when
Lord DENMAN said—We are quite agreed that the
course taken at the trial may be very important, as
showing altogether the meaning of the direction. We
should like, therefore, to see the short-hand writer's
notes, the fullest that have been taken. We will con
sider the points raised.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
:Sittifigs in Banco, before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.

IN RE TURNER.

Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., moved fora rule calling upon a
gentleman named Turner, an attorney of this court, to
• show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls.
It appeared by the affidavit that in the month cf
August, 1845, a gentleman named Beckford was anxious
to lend out a sum of money. He applied to Mr. Turner,
who was an attorney at Wolverhampton, in respect of
the loan, and on the following morning that gentlemen
communicated to Mr. Beckford that he himself would
borrow the money, which amowited to 6001., and give
as security a house and about thirty acres of copyhold
premises. Mr. Beckfbrd having looked at the property,
and Mr. Turner having told him that it was free from
mortgage, Mr. Beckford proposed employing another
attorney to arrange the business, but Mr. Turner said
that he did not wish any other attorney to know that he
was borrowing money, and that he would do all the
business, and would sooner cut off his hand than
do anything unfair. A few days afterwards he
handed to Mr. Beckford three admittances of ano-
ther party, to the effect that he was seised
and possessed of certain premises, as security for the
sutn of 6001., which was to be repaid as thereinafter
mentioned. Mr. Beckford afterwards applied to Mr.
Turner for his own admittance, but was informed that it
had not came from London. Having no suspicion, Mr.
Beckford permitted the matter to rest until the present
year, when he heard that Mr. Turner's circumstances
were becoming embarrassed. Ha applied to some gm-
tlernen named Foster, attorneys, to inquire into the
matter, and it was found by these gentlemen that Mr.
Turner had deposited the surrender to himself at a
banker's in Wolverhampton, at a period nearly approach.
mg the time when the advance was received from Mr,
Beckford, and that upon the Ist of May in the present
year he had executed a legal conveyance to the bank.
He (Mr. Martin) apprehended that these facts were suffi-
ciently strong to warrant an application of this nature.
Application granted.
The Court adjourned at an early hour.