The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-23 00:00:00

HUNTING APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Drake's hounds will meet to-morrow, at Middle-
ton Toll-bar ' • Thursday, Charndon Common ; Saturday,
Farthinghoe Town-101.
lieythrop hounds Wednesday, at Bradwell Grove ;
Friday, Addlestrop Gate.

Berkshire hounds Friday, at Cokethorp Park.
Mr. Philip's hounds to morrow, at Timing Park-101.
Earl Ducie's hounds to-morrow, at the Seven Bridges
—ll ; Thursday, Barnsley House ; Saturday, Charton
Turnpike-10i.
Duke of Grafton's hounds, Wednesday, at William's
Bridge ' • Friday, Cueslow-1044. •
East Kent hounds, Wednesday, at Sandline Park
Friday, Sweech Gate-10.
Thanet harriers, Wednesday, at Allan's Court-10.
Mr. Robertson's hounds Wednesday, at Cornhill ;
Friday Bourden Moor ; Saturday, Paston-10k.
Oakley hounds to-morrow, at Odell Village; Thursday,
Ledlington ; Saturday, Cowper's Oak, "Yardley Chase-11.
Boroughbridge harriers to-morrow,' at Shelton Wind-
mills; Friday, Thornton Bridge-10,
York and Ainsty hounds to-morrow, at Copmanthorpe;
Thursday, Walshbridge Bridge; SatUrday, Eseriek-10f.
Earl of Harewood's hounds Wednesday,' at Cliffbrd
Moor; Friday, Wighill Village-101.
Eddlethorpe hounds Thursday, at Bossall; Saturday,
Pluelcham---10i.
Bedale hounds Wednesday, at Blows Hall, Hutton
Moor; Friday, Kiplin-14
Sinnington hounds to morrow, at Cowsby Wood; Fri-
day, Sinnington.,. . • ,
Cleveland hounds Thursday, at Kirkpleatham.--10.

Hurworth hounds to-naoriw, at Hilton; Thursday,
Haughton Bridge; Saturday, COekertiß-114, .
ohy.()
111.41 not drIG.S
oorwn.c:Ta t ass icillaattly:,:a.;i
,IBWlar)r.ronßnYußasrosdethlhlso,csuhnhildsoduisnFsdtrasigd
at
Newton Hall-10.

Forfarshire hounds Wednesday, at Inverpepper ;
Friday, Ingliston-101,
Badsworth hounds to-morrow, at Marr. . ;
Thursday, Wentbridge ; Saturday, Kingston Hill-10i.
Mr. Foljarnbe's hounds to-morrow, at Dalton ; Thurs-
day, Maltby Toll-bar ; Friday, Rossington Village.
Perthshire hounds to-morrow at. Kincardine ; Satur-
day, Tenth Mile-stone Bridge oflsla-road-101F.
Mr. A. Smith's hounds to-morrow at South Grove
Thursday, Tangley Clumps-11. ,
East Essex hounds to-morrow, at Yeldham White
Hart ; Thursday, Stanway Street ; Saturday, Topingo
Essex Union hounds to-morrow, at Mundon Wash
Saturday, Prittlewell-101.
Mr. Villebois' stag hounds Thursday, at Bradenham
Green ' • Saturday, Fincham Toll Gate.
East S ussex hounds Thursday, at the Rainbow; Satur-
day, White Horse, Rottingdean-10i.

COURT OF CHANCERY. ..
ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERX,,MADE
THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER, 184,1:.
Whereas, it is expedient that further orders shettlil be
made for the better administration of justice in the Court
of Chancery, with reference to the matters., to which•the
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth orders of the 26th
day of August last apply, and that in.the meantime the
operation of the same orders should be suspended ; now,
therefore, I, the Ryglit 'Hon. John Singleton Lord Lynd-
hurst, Lord Hioll-,Chineellor of Great Britain, by and
with the advice and assistance of the Right Hon. Henry
Lord Langdale, Master of the Rolls, the Right Hon. Sir
Lancelot Shadwell,. Vice-Chancellor of England, the
Hon. the Vice-Chancellor James Lewis Knight Bruce,
and the Hon. the Vice-Chancellor James Wigram, do
hereby, in pursuance of an Act of Parlian:ent made and
passed in the fourth year of the reign of her present
Majesty, intituled " An Act for facilitating the Admi-
nistration of Justice in the Court of Chancery," and of
an Act made and passed in the session of Parliament
held in the fourth and fifth years of the reign of ker said
Majesty, intituled " An Act to amend an Act of the
fourth year of her present Majesty, intituled An Act
for facilitating the Administration of Justice in the
Court of Chancery,' " order and direct that the first,
second, third, fourth, and fifth orders of the 26th day of
August last shall not take effect till the first day of
Easter Term, 1842.
LYNDHURST, C.
LANGDALE, M.R.
LANCELOT SHADWELL, V.C.
J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, V.C.
JAMES WIGRAM, V.C.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 22.
• Thelon')
•CIIACELL9U:Was occupied the whole day
with causes, node of which possessed any point of inte-
rest, except to the parties concrned.
' ' '•
ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 22.
Nottnints V. OLLETT.

gave judgment in this suit,
whichT he
wasAt.T
t s
heard on Saturday,
that day. His Lordship said that it did not appear.to him from the evidence that the defendant had occu-
pied the farm as a tenant subject to rent, but, neverthe-
Ert orthe ll°LLs
and
neverthe-
less, if the plaintiff required an inquiry on this point he
was entitled to it. With respect to the account prayed,
for, it must be made by both parties, each having re-
ceived money on account of the personal estate. A re-
ceiver must be appointed, unless security was given by
the defendant

SHEFFIELD CANAL COMPANY V. SHEFFIELD AND RO-
THERHAM RAILWAY COMPANY.
The COURT was occupied the remainder of the morning
in hearing the arguments in this suit, which was insti-
tuted to compel the performance of an agreement en-
tered into on behalf of the parishes. We reserve our
report until the conclusion.

VICE CHANCELLORS'
COURT Nov. 22.
The cases of Goodchild v. the Greenwich Railway
Company, and Salisbury v. Morrice, occupied his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor of England the whole day. The
arguments in the latter case, which, have already occu-
pied the Court several days, not being concluded, will be
resumed to-morrow (this day).
: .
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.) .... „
-
SMITH AND OTHERS V. SPENCER.
. .
hick
certain nPplarionpteiffrts; as devisees, claimed to be en-
tintid„ed r 4
to h c
*. The plaintiffs were James
This
_spit related to the alleged suppression of a will,
u
Smith,POlers, who claimed
to
be Dorothybeeefi beneficially
Guy,a l I
yln
Mary
datiten
under a will
made by her
namedthe real estate
of a lady,
in their favour, in the year 1835.
The defendant ,Spencer . was the nephew and heir-at-
law, of that'lady ;. and ,upon her death, in September,
1838, took possession of the estate of the testa-
trix, and of her papers and title-deeds, among which
was her will, by which she had bequeathed to the plain-
tiffs certain portions of her property, consisting of mes-
suages and lands at Dalton, in York Shire ; and this will,
it was alleged, the.cletendant had suppressed. The bill
prayed'that incase the will was not forthcoming Spen-
cer might be declared the trustee of the testator's estate,

His Hosoun, in giving judgment, said that the plain-
tiffs had not established a case of spoliation or suppres-
sion of the wilgagainst thedefendant, and the question was,
whether the circumstances of thecase were not such as to
call upon the Court to direct an inquiry into the matter.
On that point his Honour had some hesitation; but after
hearing: all the arguments and evidence, he had come to the
conclusion that the bill ought not to be dismissed. The
first issue which he would suggest, therefore, would be
—not an issue containing a proposition of fraud, as was
the case in the issue of Barker and Ray, cited in the
course of Counsel's argument, but simply an issue
whether, by the will of 1835, duly executed and attested,
so as to pass freehold estates, Mrs. Carter did devise
her real estate in the manner alleged ; and supposing
the Jury to find that a devise was made, he would pro-
pose an issue devisavit vel non upon the will of January,
1837, with the usual directions.
Mr. COOPER observed, that his client was but an agent,
and could not state positively whether the will of 1835
would be admitted, but was strongly inclined to think
that it would.

His HONOUR said, that in that case he would merely
direct an issue devisavit vel non upon the will of 1837.
Mr. COOPER then stated that by Thursday next he
would be able to inform the Court whether the will of
1835 would be admitted, and that was accordingly fixed
with his Honour's permission for mentioning the point.
Several other causes were called on, but the parties
not being ready, the Court rose at half-past two o'clock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wtonam.)
DODD V. LYALL.

This was a foreclosure suit. His HONOUR pronounced
an opinion upon several of the points raised, but reserved
his final decision until to-morrow looming.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 22.

At the sitting of the Court this morning Lord Camp-
bell took the usual oaths of supremacy and abjuration,
on beinc, appointed a Member of her Majesty's Most
Honourable Privy Council.

STONEHOUSE U. JENNY.

Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which had
been argued during the present term. It was an action
brought by the plaintiffs to recover the amount of certain
sums of money, and the value of certain goods advanced
on behalf of the defendant, who was owner of a vessel
called the Good Intent. The vessel had put into New-
port in distress, and a person named Hawk Smith, who
represented himself as captain, obtained the money
and goods in question by virtue of an authority
which he alleged he had from the owner,
who was at that time residing at Plymouth. It
appeared that Smith was not the registered Captain, but
he alleged that as supercargo he had a right to obtain a
supply of necessaries for the benefit of the ship and
crew. There were two answers to the action; first, that
he was not the party who had authority to obtain money
and goods on behalf of the owner; and secondly, that that
authority was limited when the owner resided so near
that a communication could be had with him in two
days. It was unnecessary to consider whether, after a
party had been constituted acting-master by the owner,
he could waive his responsibility by alleging that he was
not the registered owner, because the Court was
of opinion that the second answer was a good one, inas-
much as the advances had been made at considerable in-
tervals of time. At the trial great stress was laid .upon
the special .authority given to Hawk Smith, but it was
very doubtful whether that authority extended to bor-
rowing money, when he could have had communication
-With the owner by letter. As the attention of the jury
had not been directed to that point, the Court was of
opinion that the verdict for the plaintiff should be set
aside, and a new trial granted.—Rule for a new trial ab-
solute.

THE QUEEN V. THE EARL OF WALDEGRAVE AND CAPTAIN

DUFF.
This was a rule calling upon the prosecutors to show
cause why the side-bar rule to tax the costs should not
be set aside.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now appeared to show cause
against the rule. The facts of the case would be in the
recollection of the Court. The defendants had been in-
dicted for an assault upon Charles John Wheatley, a
police constable, in the execution of his duty. The in-
dictment had been removed by writ of certiorari into the
Court of Queen's Bench, and the defendants had suffered
judgment to go by default. The affidavit on which the
rule had been obtained set forth that Wheatley, the
police constable, was the only party injured—that he
was not the prosecutor—that the prosecution had been
carried on by Mr. Hobler, who, it was believed, had been
employed by Col. Rowan and Mr. Mayne, Commissioners of
Police, who alone were liable to the costs of the prosecution.
Now the question their Lordships would have to decide
was, whether these Commissioners of Police, who had
been appointed under a special Act of Parliament, the
10th Geo. IV., chap 44, for special purposes, came
within the spirit and meaning of the provisions of the
sth William and Mary, chap. 11. By the 3d section of
that Act it was provided that where an indictment was
removed by certiorari, the prosecutors should enter into
recognizances for the payment of costs, and if the in-
dictment was proceeded with under such writ of cer-
tiorari, then the Court would give such reasonable costs
to the prosecutor, if he was the party injured or
aggrieved, or to any justice of the peace, mayor,
or bailiff, constable, headborough, tithing-man,
churchwarden, or overseer of the poor, or other public
officer who should prosecute on account of any act com-
mitted or done, and that concerned hiniror them, as such
officer or officers to prosecute or present: The ques-
tion for the Court was whether the Commissioners of
Police were, public officers prosecuting an ad conimitted
or done, and that concerned them to prosecute, within
the meaning of that Act of Parliament.- Under the Act,
the 10th Geo. IV., which was a statute for improving
the Police of the Metropolis, the Commissioners of
Police were appointed Justices of the Peace for West-
minster, Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey, and they were
authorised to appoint and swear in police-constables,
and to make orders and regulations for the government
of that force. The indictment charged the defendant with
having assaulted Wheatley in the execution of his duty as a
police constable, and the Commissioners of Police
directed that indictment to be preferred, the result of
which was already known to their Lordships. The
Court would have to say whether in institnting the pro-
secution fcr the protection of one of the body over which
they were appointed to preside, and to prevent the re-
currence of similar outrages, the Commissioners were not
acting within the spirit of the sth William and Mary
The rule had been obtained on the authority of two
cases, which had been decided in that Court. The first
was the Queen v. Sharpless, 3d vol. Term Reports,
p.. 47, which was an indictment by a Justice of the
Peace against the keeper of Pembroke 'Jail, for 'Permit-
ting the escape of a prisoner, and in :diet; cote, it Was
ruled that the prosecutor was not Refit* >et °fact°,
and was not entitled to costs. The other case wov the King
v. Edwards, sth Barnewalt rind Adolphits; kin indictment
preferred by the Commissioners of Paving and. Lighting
of the borough of Derby, for an assault .on a watchman.
There also it was decided that these Commissioners
being appointed for a stsecific purpose under a local
Act, did not come within the provisions of the sth
William and Mary. In the present case, however, the
circumstances were entirely distinct, it being evident that
the prosecution concerned these Commissioners of Police,
Mr. WADDINGTON, on the same side, said the Act was
aacnd tiotnh.at they were entitled to the costs of the present
clearly intended to prevent the officious intermeddling of
parties in prosecutions in which they had no concern.
Mr. MARTIN, in support of the rule, submitted that
the heavy fines imposed upon these gentlemen, and the
severe punishment they had otherwise undergone, would
be considered a sufficient reparation, and that the Court
•would not now visit them with the costs of the prosecu-
tion. He thought they were bound to confine themselves
'strictly to the facts set forth in the affidavit, and these
were,'that the defendants had been indicted for an as-
sault upon Wheatley, a police constable, and had pleaded
guilty. Now he wished to know what connexion there
wag-between the Commissioners of Police and such an
indictment, and how they came into the transaction at
all? That certainly did not appear, and yet it was upon
these facts only that the Court was called upon to decide.
The Court had always construed these Acts of Parlia-
ment very strictly, and if they looked at the wording
of the Act sth -William and Mary, it would be seen that
the prosecutors did not bring themselves within its
spirit or meaning. It did not appear in any way that
the police constable had any connexion whatever with
the Commissioners of Police.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE thought the public Act of
Parliament gave authority to the Commissioners of Po-

The COURT also gave judgment in this case, which was
an indictment for the non-repair of the road, and granted
a rule for a new trial.

EX PARTE TILE COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS.

In this case a rule for a certiorari had been obtained a
few days ago by Mr. Hoggins to remove a presentment,
and certain proceedings therein, made by the Commis-
sioners of Sewers for the Metropolitan districts, into that
Court, for the purpose of traversing it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now moved a rule to show
cause why the rule fur the certiorari should not be
quashed. His object in making the present motion was
in order that the party might proceed in the regular
course. It appeared that Mr. Jenkins was the proprietor
of certain land at Paddington, and allowed cottages to be
built thereon. An application was subsequently made
to him to construct certain drains, which he had made
accordingly, and which communicated with the public
sewer. The Commissioners did not object to these
drains they only required that they should be con-
structed in a certain way, so as not to operate preju-
dicially to the drainage of the district. That not having
been done, they were removed, and again put up by Jen-
kins, but in such a way as to act as a nuisance. A pre-
sentment was accordingly made against Jenkins, and the
Jury found the presentment, and fixed a fine of 2501.
upon him. Now in all cases in which these presentments
were removed by certiorari, fur the purpose of being tra-
versed, it was ruled that the certiorari should not issue
in the first instance, but only a rule nisi, and that notice
should be previously given to the Commissioners, which
had not been done. Under these circumstances he con-
tended that he was entitled to the rule prayed for.
The Comer suggested that the Learned Counsel should
communicate with Mr. Hoggins, who perhaps would
be satisfied with a rule to show cause in the first instance.