The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-15 00:00:00

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor did not take his seat in his
court at Westminster to-day, till half-past eleven
o'clock, in consequence of having to come from
Windsor this morning, where his Lordship had been
on a visit to her Majesty.

WARE V. ROWLAND.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal
occupied his Lordship the whole morning. The case
possesses no interest except to the parties concerned.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

GIBBINS V. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT NORTH-EASTERN

DISTRICT ASYLUM.

This was a cause which came on for re-hearing. It
appeared that the plaintiff sold the defendants a piece
of ground at Mile-end for the erection of an asylum.
The defendants disputed the contract upon the
ground that it was not completed, the plaintiff not
having made a legal title, which, however, the plain-
tiff had offered to do.

The arguments having concluded,
The MASTER OF TIIR ROLLS considered that the
contract must be vitiated by the negotiations that had
taken place with reference to the question of title.
His Lordship granted a decree for the specific per-
formance of the contract, with a reference to the
Master to inquire if the plaintiff could give a good
title.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England heard
causes to. day.

WASTELL V. LESLIE.

This case came before the Court to-day, upon the
question whether the sum of 821/. 6s. 6d. ought to be
allowed for the expenses of an accountant in making
out the accounts of the estate of the testator, who
previous to his death kept a lunatic asylum in the
neighbourhood of Hoxton. The Master had reported
against the allowance of the amount, but no exceptions
had been taken to his report.
His HONOUR thought the amount ought to be
allowed, and ordered accordingly.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAII.)

JONES V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from proceeding with a portion of their
works, till the decision of a court of law had been
obtained, as to their exact powers, and the rights of
the plaintiff under the General Act.

His HONOUR delivered judgment this morning.
The plaintiff was the occupier of a public-house,
back of which was a small cutilege, bounded by a
wall, and having no entrance or exit, except by the
house. The defendants, under the powers of their
Act, proposed to' carry. their railway, back of the
house, at an elevation in no part exceeding thirteen
feet. The, plaintiff contended that the defendants
were bound to purchase the cutilege, which they
denied, and claimed to have the question decided
by law ; to facilitate which they admitted that the
messuage, or yard in question, was a cutilege. The
only point he bad then to decide was, as to what
way he should deal with the case in the mean-
time. Plaintiff said that the., railway would obstruct
the light, deteriorate his store of liquors, and destroy
his trade, and therefore that he ought at once to be
paid for his house, and to be placed in a position to
remove to some other place and there establish him-
self in business. The plans and models showed clearly
that the work Of the railway would deteriorate the
light and air of plaintiff's premises, and there was no
evidence to show that the defendants would be im-
peded in the construction of their line if they post-
poned their works at the plaintiff's premises till after
the trial. The conclusion to • which be came was
that the injunction should then be granted, with
liberty to the defendants to apply to dissolve it before
the question at issue was decided, in case the opening
of the railway should be prevented, or any other in-
convenience sustained by them. He believed in this
case he acted according to the authority laid down
by the Lord Chancellor.
The decree was accordingly made.

QUEEN'S BEN CH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
AN ATTORNEY STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS.— IN RE
CHARLES MASSEY WOOD V. I'ORTARLINGTON.
At the sitting of the Court to-day,
Lord DErnuAN gave judgment in this case. He
said—On the first day of the present term an appli-
cation was made to the Court to rescind a rule which
was made absolute last term, directing that Charles
Massey, an attorney of this Court, should be struck
off the rolls, for attempting to suborn a person
named Josiah 'Wallace, to give false evidence in the
case of " Wood v. the Earl of Portarlington. It was
an action to recover two bills of exchange which had
been drawn upon the defendant, and held by the
plaintiff. The Court had looked into the affidavits
on the part of the prosecution, and also into those on
which they were called upon to rescind the rule
The Court had thought the fact charged proved, and
though 'much imputation was cast upon the general
character of Wallace in this proceeding, it appeared
to the Court that Mr. Massey had admitted enough
in his own affidavit to convict him of the offence
with which he was charged. The case was tried at
the Summer assizes held at Lewes last year, and
Wallace was to be called to testify to the
handwriting of the defendant. It appeared that
Messrs. Pyne and Richards had been the defendants'
E olic i tors, and that Mr. Massey had been employed
by the defendants to conduct this matter. 'Wallace
was their clerk. The deposition drawn up by Massey
stated that Wallace would state that he was present
when the plaintiff Wood admitted that the bills were
given for losses at play, but the words—" Query 51. !"
appeared in pencil in the margin. This the Court
had thought a bribe given to the witness, for the pur-
pose of inducing him to give false testimony, and
expressed its .unhesitating opinion that this was his in-
tention. He swore he did not know what caused him
to write the words : he did not even enter into
a conjecture, nor did his counsel offer any plausible
excuse in palliation of it. He, however, swore he
did not mean to give it as a bribe. With this blot on
his conduct—with his memory still at fault, and with
a distinct admission of the falsehood of the evidence,
the Court was now required to reverse its judgment,
and to allow Mr. Massey to practise as an attorney of
that Court. The affidavits of Mr. Pyne, who had
been struck with paralysis, and who had been unable
to attend to his professional duties during the dis-
cussion of the rule, stated that a person calling him-
self Coin, whom he believed to be Wood, called upon
theformer,and admitted that the money was lost at play.
Subsequently the deponent; recollected that 'Wallace
was present at two interviews which he had with this
person, and added that Wood afterwards called and
said he should not proceed, as he had admitted some
time before that the bills were given for gambling
considerations, and that he led Mr. Massey to believe
that Wallace knew these facts. Now there was no
proof that the plaintiff had so called, and it was
strange that the particulars of these interviews, and
the admissions made at them, were not recorded, and
if 'Wallace had been present the Court could not con-
ceive why his name had not been recorded as a wit•
ness. But Mr. Pyne did not even now distinctly
state that 'Wallace was present. The Court, there-
fore, upon a careful consideration of the whole of the
'facts, had come to the conclusion that Mr. Pyne
never gave Mr. Massey such information as that
stated, and that if Mr. Pyne had been persuaded he
did, that he must have fallen into an error. The
' affidavits with respect to the character of Mr. Massey
were not important. The respectable persons who
had pronounced that in their opinion Mr. Massey was
incapable of offering a bribe, would, on the other
'hand, have no reasonable doubt if his handwriting
was shown to them that it was his. There was
one affidavit which the Court could not /overlook.
It was one by a person named Francis Ray-
nard, stating that one Frederick Fisher had told
him something. The statement was one merely
of a hearsay character, and was placed completely
aside when the Court formed its opinion ; and
the
rmnooeltlasn: Csaaosokufei rt
fituxseit hoof usguhe th ta
ffih a
dt a
vLi
tes a,renxecde p
tCounsel
as sh
tohuel
yd
i sadtsarsni est tt ytt
that
aar
tne ahotetehde(
rt to
rit
e. hee
it. seausbse jet eryci
)kt e
hu
aniudd err.o
ffdeerbeadt e
Massey , or as a
averredng a date.th a t
soTmhei s
na
effi affidavit t
toldwould
the ratherd efen
mo.fftothae
person to prove the fact he was desirous to prove,but
that he declined it. The Court believed
that M
Massey was guilty of the offence imputed
to him.
r.
For the penal consequences which might result
him he was alone to blame, and the Court hoped that
its decision, with respect to him, would act as a
warning to others. They thought that no one
should practise in that Court who. had committed such
an act. Those who thought him worthy of their
' confidence might employ him in some subordinate
capacity, but the Court could not allow him to prac-
tise longer in that court, and to rank with honour-
able men. The Learned Chief Justice was
particularly emphatic at the conclusion of
his address. He added, Mr. Massey's name
was not struck off the rolls when the order
was made. We cannot understand why this was so.
We think upon such, occasions that the roll ought to
be brought before us, and that the name of the person
should be struck off in our presence.
The name was then struck off the roll by the
Master.

THE QUEEN V. DOUGLAS.

Captain Douglas, the defendant, was found guilty
in this Court sometime ago of receiving money from
the Raja of Tangore contrary to the statute and his
duty as an officer in the East India Company's
service. He now appeared on the floor of the
Court ; and

The ATTORNEY•GENERAL (with whom was Sir
F. Thesiger) prayed the judgment of the Court
upon him.
Sir F. KELLY moved arrest of judgment on various

'413

-

;~~;

i