The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-08 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

CIHAN(ERY COURT—CT' Ti TS TIAY).
ten took hi, ,z l:ter
o'clock.
RICHARDS V. LORD MACCLESFIELD.
Mr• &MAR. T. said that his Lordship would recollect
that the ease of Richards and the Earl of Macclesfield
:'Pas a few days since ordered to be transferred from the
Per of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce to that of the
tee-Chancellor of England ; connected with the peti-
tion in that case were three causes, all of which were set
'lowa for hearing before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce,
that petition the form of the decree to be pronounced in
all these causes would be determined on. he had to ask
might also be transferred to the paper of the
eChancellor of England.
Lora) CHANCELLOR, after inquiring whether all
tl e consented, and being informed that they did,
Made the order as asked.
IN THE MATTER OF JANE HOE, A LUNATIC, DECEASED.
yipr. p
-1711v.is applied in this case on behalf of the iteli-
r , !tat who filled the office of executor, committee, and
zae.s,ideary legatee of the lunatic who was dead, that he
eniblit be excused from passir, his accounts, that the
tarts aan arbitration which had taken place might be
~a,led and aid. out of the funds of the lunatic, and that
alter
1 PaYitkeni,he might be entitled to the residue of the
atAttes property,
t
s oansuiP made the order as prayed.
.4ts on
BRIERLEY V. BOUCHER.
idt COURT then proceeded to hear the further argu-
lordshiy this part-heard appeal from the judgment of his
the Master of the Rolls. The only question in
'itsaetease
Was whether . under the will of Owen Gray,
proan: Gray his son, took an absolute interest in the
of Perrytf in question or only a life estate. The Master
„ e Rolls decided that Nathan had an absolute in-
wrest, and from that decision the appellant presented an
last • Eethell and Mr. Metcalfe appeared for the appal-
; and Mr. Richards and Mr. Steed Girdlestone
pted the judgment in the Court below.
stadltstLoansiur, at the conclusion of the arguments,
Elecisi'at his present impression was in favour of the
evq -°4 of the Master of the Rolls. He would, how-
ehailv,,l.,";(l the bill, and should his present views be
Jua°Y that reading he would let the parties know.
glQnt deferred.

t..CHANCERY—(THIS DAY )
ple (Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.)
oes,„esi demurrers, exceptions, and further directions,
'ieu his Honour the whole morning.
CLAYTON V. MEADOWS.
1/Iti tlll.s cause the bill was filed by the plaintiff, the
ev,
Coth.mas Clayton, who is the Rector of tha parish of
tile ef,a'utkin, otherwise Cottingham-cum-Middleton, in
hula --IlutY of Northampton, for the tithes of certain
usalleged to be within the parish.
air. T.
Plaintiff .PLE opened the case, at great length, for the
:sss„ 01.aar. COLERIDGE followed on the same side.
•leres,'''sn cause was still proceeding when we went to
elite"! we shall, for the present, defer giving the facts or
ring into the arguments.
1 The (Before Vice -Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Court was occupied the entire morning with the
,e7hil heard cause of Broadhurst v
livßer. al guy, the facts of
dg
lye defer till judgment deed.
QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DIY.)
Ti 4 SToNEHOUSE AND ANOTHER V. JENT.
tor WaS an action brought to recover a sum of 123/.
peThwork and labour done and goods sold and delivered.
rt action was brought 1;), Stonehouse and Co. of New-
ahi ship-brokers, against the defendant, a
,
ecreTtiLee of Plymouth, for repairs done to a vessel
the cry Lady Ilerdy, and for necessaries supplied to
ere •
]gams w• The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Wil-
lied ;sat the last Monmouth Assizes, and a verdict was
tsiw 'r the plaintiffs,' damages 1231. A rule for a new
dirt' and to set aside the verdict on the ground of mis-
sse,relt")a, and of its being against evidence, was after-
e/r. obtained by Mr. Richards.
eel, . 4, aleeev now appeared to show cause against the
The facts, as they appeared at the trial, were
11e,..' these. The Lady Hardy was built in America,
1244 she was purchased by a person named Nichols, a
()tee, 4rkt of Plymouth. Being desirous to sell her, an
.2`iieenwl4 Made him by a man named Hawksmith of 8001.
accepted the offer, but Smith not having the
of it-•/'' applied to the defendant, Jent, to advance a part
eeoiand Jent accordingly gave two bills of exchange for
to each, Smith giving a mortgage upon some premises
day the remaining 300/. e's. bill of sale was accordingly
%it e out to Jent, who was thereby legally constituted the
IDoner of the vessel, and was to receive her earnings until the
etisY ",as paid, Smith having authority to pledge the
v-" of the owners for the prosecution of the voyage. It
thas,,,thess arranged that Hawksmith should be appointed
the ‘-aptain, but the revenue officers of Newport, where
Smithhad
was lying, objected to it, on the ground,that
t37l,4lt_hchtita been pre viouslcy
__eendgatgieed ,neo:lceinnetesnmtu. gejleinrg
thell'aseidoinlse, in avefissxel all
would him in another way, and Smith's
was registered as nominal master, while Smith
Jest
who acted as supercargo, was really master, and
was registered as the owner. In the course of
e "e the vessel susind some damage and
-stelae hYa gad no means whatever e of repairing her,, ex-
%pt by obtaining an advance of money, which he
kco rdingly procured from the plaintiffs. Application
44made to Smith for payment, in the first
instance,
sjeskt he having become insolvent in about sixteen or
ta,Nteen months after the debt was contracted, appli-
etZh was made to the defendant, who denied the
°l'ity of Smith to bind him, and refused to
r,,
~ t• The Learned Counsel contended that the
to euce laid before the Jury at the trial was sufficient
tw establish the fact of Jent and Smith being part
eviller; in which case Jent was equally liable
ei,etith, the other. Unless there was some ground for dis-
se :lug the testimony of Smith, who distinctly deposed
ge
facts, there could be no other conclusion come
tlee,:`," he did not think it was very creditable to the
his—umt now to attempt to shift the responsibility from
cle4r 11 shoulders, more especially as Smith was since
an the ease of: and thera
new
was no means
Under tof oaining his evidence
trial. obtaining
these circumstances
la.tibmitted that there was no ground for granting a
el trial.
hlr
the -*ICHARDS, on behalf of the defendant, said he
Re:led to have the rule made absolute, first, on the
et 111(1 of misdirection ; and, secondly, on the ground
run, ;
4se, and its being against evidence. Now it ap-
seat V that the great bulk of the sum claimed, namely,
Ined7s., was for money borrowed by Smith, as he al-
the ipts,° Purchase necessaries, and pay the seamen, while
leteel'a„lace was for certain repairs done to the
tnoriev Before the act of Smith in borrowing that
I* shy "'hi he made binding upon the owner, it must
eiti'wh that the adiance was necessary for the prose-
onl" the voyage • but he denied that that could be
I ged in the
eas th, e present case, because the captain could in
Nve,fla days have communicated with, and re-
*ere .tgir answer from, his owner. Where advances
teeki nude
upon the Credit of the vessel the parties
these, advances looked to the Captain and the
rtiseali.wilY, unless he could show an express authority
:_reee,„`l"vher to borrow money in his name. It was
v‘rty''-I;sed rule of law that the Captain was the only
eeee:° could charge the owner, but there must be
~,AtCe-r'siss authority shown before that could be done.
trsueeariag the arguments of the Counsel the
-43 a time to consider its decision.
t)e
CHEQuErt,._(THIS DAY.)
he ckeq,
aside
4..,,/,,01,1%;:yr. V. EDENR‘T.A.RAL Ds AND ANOTHER.
moved for a rule nisi, to set
tobe e,nterzle°(lllBbuit thtscase, which had been directed to
FiGFZ.Placp Y the Lord Chief Baron at the trial, which
"Tllt the Sittings at Westminster after the last
‘ltrticeles It was an action of trover, to recover certain
'athez Plate from the executors to the will of the
of the. ,15,1- .the plaintiff's wife. The testator left the wife
tge, henalatiff in trust for her brother, who, four years
lure .'":4 gone to Van Diemen's Land in case of his re-
he h'eutue plate became his ; failing that, then it was to
14 ti
ill trust for the son of the plaintiff, until he was
it r arS .of age, and if he died before that period, then
111 Its to become the property of the wife of the plaintiff.
executors were to hand over the property upon get-
tk," receipt for it from the wife of the plaintiff. The
~,itors mere willing to hand over the articles, but the
of plaintiff objected to some salt-cellars as not being
op else
intended for her by her father, and she refused to te,Lve them, or give a receipt. IlisLordslipwas of
ti1,;14,11 that trover could not be maintained,i because
'i"4 had in fact been no assent by the executors..
CpunT were of the same opinion, and refused the
+I,T BOYLE V. COOL
618 action was tried before Justice Wightman,at
11'4 1-I'° Assizes for North Lancashire, when a verdict
°,lttul for the plaintiff.
IViIvr,,WORTLE,Y now moved for a rule to show cause
heel 'flat verdict should not be set aside and a new
tvid granted, on the ground of the improper rejection o
tOree• The plaintiff was the lessee of minerals, under
f
n tea
esontague, and brought his action, to try whether
!ter:ll4.t of a copyhold had a right to dig for and take
'etla-„l,lsure the tenement where it was found. The des
trnawas the tenant of one copyhold and the owner
olve„-„"ler, under the same Lord. On that of which he was
titt he could not obtain stone for walling ;he applied
andtro4,n, obtained leave of his landlord to take stone
copyhold of which he was tenant, and he re-
sta to the tenement of which he was owner. It
N%btlettrnitted that the tenant of each copyhold had the
exist to take stone, but it was contended that no right
must berg remove it from one tenement to another—it
must b used on that where it was found, or if removed
bee, e Paid for. He (Mr. Wortley) opened a large
111'411;3j evidence 'to prove the. custom, but when he called
eQwitness upon the voir dire, he stated that he was
tYelaiolder under the same Lord. His evidence was
(elie -Te and his Lordship held the objection good.
ortley) contended that his witneeses had no
-44 rat
4tes Luterest in thou cause, and were made good wit-
geese "Y the statute the 3d and 4th William IV. The
coded. awn
e trusted
'the
Ittlieist avniyinseortant one, and had not yet been de-
.the
Csioraubrltewthoautldit
gshraonutlda breulsee.
erttled ; he
granted.
hos:, nnooKs V. MITCHELL.
actin
the 14„ WaS tried before Justice Wightman at
-Liverpool Assizes, when a verdict was found for
ejelteedant
the see
that eersztolls:res Ey now moved for a rule to show cause why
ell 11,, • " should not be set aside, and a new trial granted,
cientl ground that the finding of the Jury was insuffi-
all, ;`,V inconclusive ; that it was, in fact, no verdict at
to the evidence given at the trial was that a person
ILvans, svho was a Sergeant in the Guards,
letele • return from foreign service found an
elliesterlubusiness
as a small banker in Man-
n
e.. yens
wise• took Evans into partnership, and in 1824,
lOtu tang to put at foster-brother named Lenns,
•4. promisltress, advanced him 1,0001.. for which be took
Ilearea note, payable upon demand. It that those' thb interest upon the note was

paid up to the year 1835. The note was endorsed,
or purported t,) h:o-e been end,..-zed, to a person
named Boyle, on the 12th March, 1836, and by Boyle to
the defendant, in March, 1838. In 1836 Evans became
much embarrassed, and, in August of that year,
became bankrupt ; at which time he went to
reside with Boyle, and it was proved that Boyle,
so far from being a creditor, was a debtor to Evans's
estate, and that, so far from being able to advance
1,000/., he was at the time in very low circumstances. Royle
was appointed assignee of the estate of Evans, but
nothing was ever said about the note, nor any claim
made upon it. In 1887 Royle compounded with his
creditors, and became bankrupt in 1838, but not a word
was said about the note. In the latter year the defendant
wrote to the maker of the note, saying he had held it
for some time, and then wanted payment of it. Lenns
died shortly after, and the defendant sued the widow
she applied to the Court for an interplea,der rule, to
know to whom she was to pay the money, and then for
the first time the plaintiff, who was the assignee of
Evans's estate, became aware of the existence of the
note, and claimed it, on the ground that neither Boyle
nor the defendant had given consideration for it. The
suspicious appearances were, first, the dating of the en-
dorsements, which was unusual, but was done to make
it appear as if the note had been passed Lefore the
bankruptcy of the parties. There had been dividends
paid upon both Evans's and Royle's estate—the first
ss. 6d., and the second of 4s. 6d., so that the defend-
ant, if a bona fide holder, might have got 10s. per pound
upon the note, but no claim was made under either
bankrupts. The Jury found that Mitchell had given
consideration for the bill, but they further said there
was no evidence to show whether Boyle had or not. Now
all the evidence was that Royle did not, and could not
have given consideration for the note.
The COURT were of opinion that the verdict might
stand if there was evidence to support it, but they
granted a rule on the ground that it was against evi-
dence.—Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
'Before the LOAD CHIEF 2TusTlCE,..and Justices COLE-

MAN and MAULE.)
COLLIER V. STENNET.
This was an action brought on the part of the Tackle
House Porters of the City of London, to recover the
amount of porterage of goods landed in the port of
London, and carried into the City by the defen-
dant, he not being one of the Company of
the Tackle House or a ticket porter. The de-
fence was, that the goods belonged to a foreigner,
and were consigned to a foreigner (that is, to
a person not of the Corporation of the City), and that,
therefore, the privilege of the Tackle House did not in •
terpose, and a foreigner was entitled to carry and to re-
ceive the porterage. The plaintiffs, on the contrary,
undertook to prove that the goods in question were con-
signed to a freeman, and not to an alien. The case was
tried at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice..as fully
reported in The Sun at the time, and a verdict found
for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Channell since obtained a
rule nisi for a new trial, on the grounds, first, that the ver-
dict was against evidence, and secondly, that improper evi-
dence was received, members of the Corporation in-
terested in the issue having been admitted as witnesses.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD this day showed cause against
the rule at great length, and cited numerous authorities
to prove the admissability of members of the Corpora-
tion, it having been laid down that the statute could not
intend to disqualify so many as ten or twenty thousand
witnesses in one locality. If so, cases would arise in
which no evidence could be adduced of even the most
notorious facts.
(The Learned Gentleman had not concluded when
we went to Press.)

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL-QUO WARRANTO-THE

QUEEN V. HARVEY.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a rule calling
upon Robert Ellison Harvey to show cause why a writ
in the nature of a quo warranto should not be issued,
calling upon him to state by what right he exercised the
functions of an Alderman of the town of Liverpool. A va-
cancy having occurred among the Aldermen of Liverpool,
on the 29th Oct. last Mr. Harvey was elected to the vacant
office under the provisions of the 27th section of the
Corporation Act. Now, by the provisions of that Act,
no person was qualified to be elected to the office of
Alderman who was not either a Town-councillor, or
qualified to be such. According to the provisions
of the Act, no person was qualified to hold the office of
Town-Councillor whose name did not appear upon the
burgess roll. Now, as in 1840 the Mayor and Assessor
had not time to revise the burgess lists, the roll in being
at the time of the election of Mr. Harvey, was. under
the provisions of the Act 1 Victoria, cap. 71, the one
for 1839. In that list the name of Mr. Harvey did
not appear, and that, he apprehended, was prima facie
a sufficient cause to entitle him to a quo warranto. But
the affidavits went further, they set forth that Mr.
Harvey was not entitled to be on the burgess list, inas-
much as he was not an inhabitant householder, but ro•
sided with his mother, in whose name the house was
rated. Since that time an attempt had been made to
place Mr. Harvey on the burgess roll, by having the
house rated in his name ; but his name was not on the
burgess roll in force at the time of his election.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take your rule.—Application
granted.
I CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE " WORCESTER-

SHIRE CHRONICLE"-THE QUEEN V. ARROWSMITH.
The SoLicrroa-GENERAL applied for a rule calling
upon the defendant, Isaac Arrowsmith, the printer and
publisher of the Worcestershire Chronicle, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against
him for the publication of an article of a libellous nature,
reflecting upon the character of Henry Ricketts, Esq.,
one of the Justices for the county of Worcester, on
whose account the present application was made. It ap-
peared that the Magistrates for 'Worcestershire, in
Quarter Sessions assembled, had determined to esta-
blish a County Police. under the provisions of the
Act of Parliament. A Cpmmittee of the Magistrates
had been appointed, of which Committee Mr. Ricketts
had been a member. That Committee had met from
time to time, and had reported to the Quarter Sessions ;
and under the sanction of that Committee, Mr. Ricketts
had hired a lock-up house at Bromsgrove for the purpose
of using it as a station-house. This had been reported
to the Quarter Sessions, held at Michaelmas, 1840, and
at the Epiphany Sessions following the Committee re-
ported on the difficulty of providing a proper place for
a station-house, but stated that arrangements were in
progress for that purpose. The Committee con-
tinued its labours, and Mr. Ricketts still con-
tinued to act as a member of that Committee.
Endeavours were still made by him under the sanction
of the Committee, to procure proper premises for a sta-
tion-house. Those premises were held by Lady Harriet
Clive, by lease from the Dean and Chapter of Worces-
ter. Application was made to the solicitor of Lady Har-
riet Clive on the subject. The 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 aliandonment 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 amid Chanter 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 station-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 would 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 ho 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 t r. 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
The applicantdeniedhad .
roved bys, at
he should have
the Commttee,
every step taken had been app
been actuated by any improper motive and statedi th
aanctdedbyprtheceisQelyuaarsterheSbesasdions,
h adbeen acting on
done ainfd be that
his own private account.
Mr. Justice ParrEsoN---Take a rule.--
Rule nisi
ranted.

GUILDIIALL.—(THIA DAY.)
A respectable-looking lad, about 15 years of age,
named Thomas Winter, was placed at the bar befre
dSI
Chapman Marshall, on the charge of having obtaoine a
quantity of valuable law books from several barristers
and solicitors residing in the Temple and Chancery-lane,
on a false representation of being sent to borrow them
by Mr. Snell, the law reporter.
Mr. Snrvthe, of 41, Chancery-lane, said the prisoner
came to him on Saturday, and requested a loan of three
volumes of " Dickenson's Reports" for Mr. Snell, which
he gave him, but was soon afterwards informed by Mr.
Snell that he had never sent for them.
Mr. George Snell said, from information he received
he went to several gentlemen from whom he was in the
habit of borrowing books occasionally, and found that
several had been given without his authority. From
Mr. Clarke, of the Middle Temple, the prisoner sue-