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

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

SCOTT V. PASCALL.
This case came before the Court on an appeal mo-
tion from the Vice-Chancellor of England. It ap-
peared that Mr. Scott was formerly a guardian of the
Parish of St. James's, Clerkenwell, but having been
accused of embezzling the funds of the parish to a
large amount, an indictment was preferred against
him, upon which he executed a deed for 10,0001., and
admitted that there was a balance due by him to the
parish. Mr. and Mrs. Scott subsequently instituted
proceedings against the parish, the result of
which was that the deed was set aside on the
ground of having been obtained under duresse.
The present motion was on the part of Scott, to set
aside an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England,
which reversed a decision of Masters Lynch and
Senior, finding that Mr. Scurgill, who was formerly
a guardian of the parish, but had ceased to be so since
1841, was an interested witne,s in the cause.
His LORDSHIP affirmed the order of the Vice-
Chancellor of England, and directed the costs to be
paid out of the fund in court.
COLTER V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
_ This was a motion to dissolve an injunction which
had been granted by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor
of England, restraining the defendant from taking by
compulsory process certain land near the city of
Gloucester, of which the plaintiffs were the trustees.
ills Lordship rose at half-past one o'clock, when
the arguments had not concluded.

CE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
BRIERATT V. THE :NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.—JUDGMENT.
HONOURI7IB
_i gave judgment in this motion to-day.
The plaintiff n this case was the owner of certain
land, part of which the defendants, under the powers
of their Act, were at liberty to take for the construc-
tion
the of their railway. After some dispute between
parties, an agreement was entered into, which
Was put into the form of a memorandum, to the effect
that the value of the land, as well as of residential
and other injury, should be left to arbitration. The
costs that were necessarily incurred were also to be
decided by this tribunal. On the 19th of March,
„Thi the arbitrators were appointed, and on the
tVth of June, 1847, they made their award, whereby
ase company should pay the plaintiff 5471. 1 ls. 6d.
in. Purchase money for the land, a sum of 801. for the
fnjurY inflicted by the defendants, and 1081. 9s. 11d.
11,14. CTst.P. A motion was then made to set aside the
theP", and upon that motion the Court now gave
Ttnent. His Honour was clearly of opinion that
b (t award had nut been made in the terms specified
the Act, and that justice could not be done if it
"ctrnfirmed. He would therefore order it to be
aside co
e.

QUEEN'S BENCH.— (TIIIS DAY.)
Tnp. (Sittings in Banco.)
- LONDON AND WESTMINSTER. V. THE NEWCASTLE-
UPON-TYNE JOINT STOCK BANK.
4tc3:llS Was a proceeding under the Joint-stock Bank
by the public officer of the London and West-
ster Bank against Mr. Walter Scott, the public
"ricer
sus of the Newcastle Joint-stock Bank, which
°f
Pended its payments in 1846, to recover the sum
this 2 'oo 01. A rule was subsequently obtained from
othe Court, calling on a :Mr. Brook, Mr. liawson, and
te:r persons who had held shares in the bank to show
use Why a scire facias should not issue against them
recover the amount of their respective liabilities.
41r. WATSON contended at great length that Mr.
thr:°k was not liahle, as he had sold all his shares in
• concern in 1845, and complained that the parties
cin°4aected with the bank had been guilty of collusion,
wirilninch as they had set forth persons as responsible
,1,3 were mere men of straw.
CLEASBY followed on the same side.
811-e ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Court in
PiptOr t of the rule.
e4l""e COURT considered that this was expressly a
e in which a scire facias should issue, because it
„Peenable the parties affected to show when they
„Ped to be shareholders, and other matters, which
Rulebe of advantage to them.
made absolute generally.

CHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
GOULDY V. DUNCOAD3E.
}ht aside
IVILus renewed his application for a rule to
aside the order of Air. Justice Williams, made in
ris. ease, and which has already been reported in
e 82171.
e COURT took time to consider, they being of
anrinlen that as 'the -ssFembling of Parliament was
ben'uncd for the 18th, they did not see o what
ne6t it would be to grant the rule prayed for.
COm-

-MON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
This
morning their Lordships heard cases of ap-
-131111 front the decisions of Revising Barristers, under
eAct for the registration of voters.
thatGRAY applied, on behalf of the appellants,
Co the cases 7,8, and 9 might be heard by the
notwithstanding that the necessary books and
Ep
eaeFs had not been delivered four days previous to
4'e as required by the rules of the Court.
e
h, ourcr decided that the application could not
entertained.

E.
This wa BURTON V. ATFIELD.
• WiinlOtB an
appeal from the decision of Sir John
sien 0,. ~,e, Revising Barrister for the southern die i-
of
avt_A_ rthamptonshirei who had retained the name
. s!"). id Atfield on the register for the parish of Cole
41 Obv.
Mil H
v
that M AI"RIEs, who supported the appeal, stated
, . r. Atfield
belong', occupied a farm of the value of 501.,
Lady.d g to Mr. Loveday, in the above parish, up to
11,1' • aY, 1847, when he' left it; and that from
ichaelm
longing toaps, 1846, he also occupied another farm be-
andr. Nv. IL
of the gain, . aC'er, which was in the same parish,
p to the presenvta-ne' and which he continued to hold
application to be itiole, but he had not made a new
thetherefore Wasnserted on the register. The ques•
entitl
_r Fegister
B.a. rister decided thed
Whether the claim already upon
him to vote ? The Revising
9lslon cited the Cat it did, and in support of his de-
Manning and LI,
,rraaise of Bartlett v. Gibbs, in 5.
now said the poinitiger, P. 81. Mr. Humphries
er
Lordships was, wheth for
the consideration of their a 3
an occupier of land person who sent in a claim
vvards ceased to hold a which he then held, but after-
although he had s.n't was entitled to be on the list,
the
no new claim, simply be-
caus
same
ehe happened hinold a similar qualification in
,Mr. Hs Es submitted construction put upon 'the
the other hand, that the
Barrister was correct. Act by the
Revising
t
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, he did
seehtie Act or the
o
doubt either upon the construction nooft entertain any
reason of the case. The fourth
pnerso of
statute expressly provided that whena the
was on a former register did not retain the same qwhao
lification (by which he understood not simply -nthe
same legal description of qualification, but the same
property in respect of which the qualification was
given), that he should send in a new claim. He was,
therefore, of opinion that the decision of the Revis-
ing Barrister was erroneous, and that he ought to
have sent in a new claim.
The other judges concurred in the above opinion.
The decision was accordingly reversed.

SHELDON V. FLETCHER.
Mr. Sergeant Byles appeared for the appellant in
this case, and Mr. Keating for the respondent.
It appeared that the appellant was struck off the
list of voters for the borough of Cheltenham by the
/3arrister, upon an objection made by the respondent,
and the present appeal was grounded on the inform-
ality that objection. It was simply signed
Joseph Fletcher, 5, Sherborne-street, and did
not state the parish and township in which
the street was situated, and it was shown
before the Barrister that there were other
Streets of the same name in other parishes, within
seven miles of Cheltenham. But it was also shown
t
Cheltenham consisted only of one parish; and
that.,t there was no other Sherborne-street in it. The
1.1 th section of 6th Vic., c. 18, enacts that a notice
c'ff he
must state the name and place of abode
ir "Le party objecting, and also the parish of which
a voter, and the question was, whether the
'Erve bad been satisfied by the description given
C.T. On the part of the appellant, the
"e of Woollett V. Davies, 4, Com. Bench Re-