The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, June 5.
WILLIAMS V. DOUGLAS.
Mr. GLASSE moved at the rising of the Court for a special
injunction to restrain the defendant from selling the reversionary
interest of the plaintiff, and from taking from the plaintiff any
other securities or notes. He stated that the plaintiff was a
young man at Oxford, who bad unfortunately got into the hands
of money-lenders, who had obtained from him bonds, bills, and
notes for securing moneys said to have been advanced to the
plaintiff, who was entitled to very large reversionary estates,
and had also filed three bills against the trustees and different
members of the plaintiff's family.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted the injunction.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 5.

THE QUEEN V. ALDERSON.
A quo warranto had been filed which called upon the de-
fendant to show by what authority he exercised the office of
Alderman of the Borough of Carnarvon. An election of Town
Coucillors took place in 1837, and it was contended that
on that occasion no declaration had been made of the Aldermen
who were at the end of that year to go out of office.
Mr. JERVIS supported the quo warranto, and Sir William
Follett was heard for the defendant.

The Cou aT gave judgment for the prosecution.
THE QUEEN V. DEAN AND OTHERS, JUSTICES OF READING.
The statute of the 9th Geo. IV., c. 61, sec. 27, enacted that
in case of any appeal against the refusal of borough magistrates
to grant beer licenses, the Court of Quarter Sessions for the
County should decide such appeal, and the point for the opinion
of the Court was, whether the Municipal Corporation Act had
repealed that enactment.

Sir F. Pollock and Mr. Carrington contended that it had not.
Sir W. Follett, Mr. Tyrrwhitt, and Mr. Bros urged the
contrary.

The -COURT said that the question was, whether power was
given to the recorder of a borough to hear appeals against the
refusal of borough justices. The arguments had been heard
with surprise ; it was impossible that any legislative proceed-
ing could be clearer than that of 9th Geo. IV., that if borough
justices should refuse the license, the aggrieved party might
appeal to the quarter sessions of the county. That had been
the practice at the time of passing the Municipal Corporation
Act ; was, then, the power of the quarter sessions taken away
by that Act? Under the 103 d section the borough of Reading
had obtained a separate quarter session, and a Recorder had
been appointed. The Recorder was to hold a court of quarter
sessions, which should have cognizance of all such matters and
things as were within the cognizance of any court of quarter
sessions for a county. By themselves these words would ap-
pear to give the Recorder the right to sit like the court of quar-
ter sessions for the county as a court of appeal from the orders
of the borough justices; but it was distinctly declared that he
should not have the power to levy any rate, or grant any license
to any person to keep an ale-house, &c. ; therefore that would
seem to be the same as if the Act had said the Recorder might
do all that the county sessions could do. except make rates and
grant licenses. The Court said the appeal should be to the
county sessions.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 5.
DOE DEM. DUKE OF BEAUFORT V. NEELD.
This was an action of ejectment to recover certain closes in
Wiltshire, to which the defence was, that they had become
the property of the defendant in consequence of an exchange,
effected under the provisions of 6 and 7 Wm. IV., c. 15,
the General Inclosure Act. At the trial the :Learned Judge
directed the Jury to find for the plaintiff on the principal
issue, because, in his opinion, the property' had not been
transferred from the Duke of Beaufort to Mr. Neeld. It ap-
peared that an arbitrator had been appointed to ascertain the
value of the lands to be exchanged, and that the Duke of
Beaufort had consented to an exchange, not, however, speci-
fying in that consent the lands which were to be exchanged;
and had further given an undertaking to agree to anything
which might be done by the Commissioner under the Act.
Before, however, the award of the Commissioner was made,
an injunction was applied for in Chancery to prevent the
Commissioner making that award, which, together with
another injunction to restrain the Duke of Beaufort from
proceeding with the action of ejectment, was still pending
before the Lord Chancel or. The ground of the application
to restrain the Commissioner from making his award was, that
the consent of the Duke of Beaufort had been given under a
mistake as to what lands were to be exchanged, and his argu-
ment now was, that the property in the lands in question had
never been transferred from him, because, by the 35th section
of the Act, the exchange was not complete until the lands to
be'exchanged had been set out by the arbitrator, and the con.
sent of the owners in writing obtained to that exchange and
declared in the award. The case now came before the Court
upon a rule nisi, which had been obtained to set aside the ver-
dict and enter a nonsuit, upon the ground that the exchange
was complete, and the property had been thereby transferred
from the lessor of the plaintiff to the defendant.
_ _

Mr. Sergeant Ludlow and Mr. Sergeant Bompas showed
cause against that rule, which was supported by Mr. Sergeant
Manning.
The COURT were of opinion that, by the terms of the 35th
section of the General Inclosure Act, the exchange was not
complete unless the lands to be exchanged had been set out and
the written consent of the owners obtained, not to an ex-
change generally, but to the exchange of certain specified
lands for certain other specified lands, and unless that consent
had been declared in the award, they were of opinion that
the property had not been transferred from the Duke of
Beaufort, and the rule for a nonsuit must consequently be
discharged.
The case occupied the Court the whole day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOTV-STREET.

Cotteral, the upholsterer, was brought up for reaxamination,
charged with stealing a lion's paw preserved, and several pieces
of damask, the property of her Majesty.
Mr. Edward Bailey, residing at Nos. 13 and 14, Mount-
street, Berkeley-square, stated that the prisoner was in his
employ, and had been so for twenty years, and was one of the
most trustworthy men he ever knew. He had been working
at the Palace lately. '1 he persons employed by him were al-
lowed to take the cuttings as perquisites • but the property of
which the prisoner had possessed himself could not be consi-
dered as such, as one piece was sufficient to cover a whole
chair. It was possible that the prisoner might have taken the
artic!es under the erroneous supposition that they were per-
qusites. . .

Mr. HALL told the prisoner that on account of his good
character and the supposition that he might have thought the
property was his perquisites, the Lord Chamberlain would with-
draw the charge.
The prisoner begged to return his sincere thanks for the cle-
mency which had been shown him, and he then left the bar.