The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-06 00:00:00

tiOl'ON r. BRUCE.
This is a suit_ instituted b Cliprles :Hopkiii-
son .and Co., the bankers, oh behalf of themselves and
others, the creditorS of the late Mr. John Prosser, the
army accoutrement maker, of Charing-cross.
Mr. Prosser died insolvent in 1837, and an adminis-
tration was granted to his daughter, Mrs.
Bagster, in
March, 1838, and a bill having been filed against her
and her husband by the creditors of the deceased; a de-.
cree was made, directing the intestate's personal estate
generally to be applied to the payment of his
debts and funeral expellees ; and, in case the
personal estate should be deficient for those purposes, the
Master to take' an account of the intestate's personal and
real estates, and the rents and profits derived-from them.
It appeared that the intestate's property, consisting of
the stock-in-trade, the fixtures, and utensils, and the
interest in thc.N.leasehold premises, were sold by the ad-
ministratriX, Mrs. Begster, to her brother Mr. John
Prosser, the intestate's son, who had remained in posses-
sion, and continued to carryon his father's business, for a
sum of about 2501., which the plaintiffs considered to be
only one=fourth of its value. The decree made it in-
cumbent on the Master to carry an inquiry as to whether
any sales of the property had taken plaoe,and if so whether
those sales had realised the utmost value of the pro-
perty. Thellefendants had taken exceptions to the in-
terrogatories of the Master, and the present application
was to have those exceptions overruled, and to allow that
the interrogatories should stand.
His HONOUR apprehended that the question to be de-
cided was whether these interrogatories did not extend
to matters upon which it was not incumbent on the
Master to report. The power to examine parties was
given to the Master for the purpose of obtaining evi-
dence, in order to enable him to inform the Court
upon the matters into which it was incumbent
on the Master, acoording to thr de,ree, to inquire. The
interrogatories mitst extend r., ,H but
would not 4o caritier. (io at the tli4.re,' it ap-
peared to Ins Honour that the interrogatories did extend
• to some matters upon which the Master was not required
to report ; and, therefore, the parties objecting had a
right to do so. He did not decide that the interrogatory
was wrong ; but as it stood, it went beyond the Master's
functions ; he did not, however, therefore think it neces-
sary to send back to the Master to review the
report. But he thought it right to allow the excep-
tions so far as related to the fourth interrogatory.
At the same time, he wished it to be understood that it
was his opinion that it would be entirely competent for
the Master to continue the inquiries into which he had
en.ered. The present order of the Court merely allowed
the exceptions with regard to the fourth interrogatory.
ROBINSON v. ROSRER.
This was a suit instituted by a mortgagee of the pre-
mises No. 27, Field-lane, to recover the amount of rent
and dilapidations of those premises from the defendant,
as having an equitable interest by assignment of a lease
of them to him.
It appeared that a sum of 76/. was due to the de-
fendant by the tenant of the premises. The latter being
called on to pay that sum, he promised to pay 20/ in a
few months, and at the _ same time gave the defendant
the lease of his house as a security for the pay-
ment of that sum. The defendant kept the lease for
some time, when, no money having been paid by the
tenant, he returned the lease, and the present suit was
instituted. A decision had been made by the Vice-
Chancellor of England, in the case of Moor v. Chose,
that an equitable interest as assignee in leasehold pre-
mises made the assignee liable for rent. A subsequent
decision in the case of Flight v. Bentley was relied on
by the defendants.
Ilis lloNoun concurred in the view 9f the law taken
in the decision in Flight v. Bentley, and the ease was
dismissed without costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BE,NCII, Nov. 5.
LANE V. DEWsom.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendant, an auctioneer, for the sum of 411., being
the-value of certain trees, purchased by the plaintiff, and
which the -defendant refused to deliver up. The case
was heard before Mr. Baron Parke at the last as-
sizes for Lincoln, and a verdict was had for the defendant,
with leave to enter a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW now moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside. It ap-
peared that a person named Bankes was -indebted to the
plaintiff in the sum of 2001., and on being applied to for
payment of the debt, he said he was about to sell a
quantity of trees, and that the plaintiff might go and pur-
chase some to reduce the amount of the debt. The plain-
tiff accordingly attended to purchase-trees, which he had
measured the following day, and ascertained that the
value was 411., but the auctioneer refused to allow him
to take them away, stating that he had a lieu upon them,
and justified his detention by reason of that lien.
At the trial a question was raised as to whether
the auctioneer really had a lien, but Mr. Baron Parke
was inclined to think that he had ; but, even admitting
that he had a lien, his Loidship was of opinion that that
-should have been specially plead4d,-whielehad not been
done.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—How does the question of
lien arise ?
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW—We said it did not arise at all.
because it had not been pleaded. •
Lord DENMAN—In trover it has been made a ques-
tion whether denying the property does not set up the
lien—that has been held, I think.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW said there was a case in 6th
Meeson and Welsby in which that point was considered,
and where it was laid down, that where the property
was dekined, the matter must be set out in the record—
if a OW has a lawful excuse for detaining it, he must

plead
The COURT thought the question required some con,
sideration before the rule was granted.
JONES V. THE LL.A,NELLY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. CHILTON moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the plaintiff, with damages 501.,
should not be increased to a verdict for 2001. damages.
It was an action of debt, and upon an award. The
defendants pleaded the performance of a part of the
award, and the impossibility of performing the remain-
der. It appeared that the plaintiff, Harry Jones, was
a piece of land, through which it was pro-
possessed of
posed the Llanelly Railway should pass ; and when the
parties went before the Court of Quarter Sessions in
order to have the case submitted to a Jury, it was agreed
that the case should be referred to a Magistrate of a
county ; and, by the rule of reference, the amount of
compensation and damage, as well direct as consequen-
tial, which would be occasioned to the land, was referred
to the arbitrator. There was an exception with regard
to inundations, upon which, however, nothing would turn.
The arbitrator awarded 7301. as full compensation for the
land, and also a further sum of 2001. conditionally.
He directed that there should be four arched tunnels
made at various parts of the line, by which severance
of the property would be avoided, and which, when com-
pleted, would enable the defendants to avoid the pay-
ment of the 2001. It appeared that the Company made
three tunnels, but did not snake the fourth ; and the pro-
vision in the award was, that these four tunnels should
be made within three months, and in the event of their
not being then completed, the Company were ordered and
directed to pay, within ten days from the expiration of
the three months, the sum of 2001. to the plaintiff.
Lord DENMAN—I never heard of an arbitrator award-
ing a penalty under such circumstances.
Mr. CHILTON contended that the Company not having
fulfilled the conditions of the award, and not having
given any satisfactory reason why they had not made the
fourth tunnel, the plaintiff was entitled to the damages
conditionally awarded him. •
The Court granted the rule.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION—THE QUEEN P. A. COLLIN-
RIDGE.
Mr. JERVIS had been instructed on behalf of Lieut.-
Colonel Williamson, of the Royal Engineers to apply to
the Court for a rule to show cause-why a criminal infor-
mation should not be against the defendant,
Augustus Collinridge, Editor of the Southern Adver-
tiser newspaper. The grounds of the .application were
that Mr. Collinridge had sent a challenge to Colonel
Williams, and had charged him with cowardice in not
fighting him. The affidavit of Colonel Williams set out
that he had been fur thirty years in the Royal En-
gineers, and having retired from that corps in 1837 on
full pay, he took up his residence at Hastings. Some
time since, it being in the contemplation of that town and
St. Leonard's to erect a steam-boat pier, it was thought,
in consequence of Colonel Williams' former habits and
occupations, that he would be an eligible person to con-
sult, and he was requested to prepare plans, which he
accordingly did, and the inhabitants passed a vote of
thankS to him, and presented him with a piece of plate
for his services. In consequence, however, of the parties
interested in the matter being unable to raise the necessary
funds the project of the pier was for the time abandoned.
Col. Williams, like every other gentlemen, as he had.
the right, entertained political opinions, and was pre-
sent at a dinner given to his (Mr. Jervis's) friend, Mr. Holland,
theAtlteaemkbr upon
f
Williams, by the defend-
ant, Mr. Collinridge, and the first shot fired was in the
shape of a.
signal
letter headed " the Radical Lieutenant-Co-
for
an aeorc Hastings, s ings, and that was the
Lieutenant-Co-
lonel," and purporting to be signed by Col. Williams
himself, which was published in Mr. Collinridge's paper.
The letter stated that the Colonel did not possess one
shilling interest in the town, and expressed his regret
that when, rather fresh at the Radical dinner, he should
have attacked a gentleman of respectability, who had
expended thousands for the benefit of Hastings, because
fault had been found with his (the. Colonel's) improve-
ments. The proposed pier was described as a pretty
little shingle trap, and the letter which bore the sig-
nature of Colonel Williams, was followed by a note from
that
havingt this
the Editor, recommending every soldier who set
up the trade of a Radical
to the sell
tobecause a Radical soldier was a disgrace to the army.
of Brightonss
Colonel Williams,iid feeling
r, no
stating
s, naturally
paperef
publication,rerr addresseding
to it,
a
the smallest pretension to character, would have inserted
what was so evidently a falsehood, without making due
inquiry, and regretting that the love of truth and ho-
nesty had been so completely lost in the political par-
tisan. Shortly afterwards another article appeared, in
the same paper, remarking upon the letter previously
letter
published, and stated that there was nothing in it but
what was gentlemanly and honourable. It charged Col.
Williams with having told an impudent falsehood of a
respectable inhabitant, and having refused to pay a debt
of
honour for some newspapers sent to him. It also 10.1,