The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 16.
DANIEL V. DUDLEY.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal, occu-
pied the Court the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT, JAN. 16.
JUDOMENT.-BIEDERMANN V. SEYNIOUA.

The MASTER of the ROLLS gave judgment this morning
upon a question which he had reserved for cornide7ation,
namely, whether certain real estates devised by the testa-
tor in the cause to his heirs-at-law, were to be taken as
assets for the payment of debts in priority to the real
estates devised by the same will to other persons. His
Lordship was of opinion that although the creditors had a
right to resort to the estate which bad descended to the
heir in priority to the other estates, yet that the heir would
be entitled to contribution from the other devises in pro.
portion to the extent of the debts.

PLATT V, ROUTH.
His LORDSHIP also gave judgment in this case, in which
a question had arisen respecting the amount of probate and
legacy duty, payable on the property bequeathed to Judith
Judith Ann Platt, 40,0001. 31 per cent. reduced annuities
had been carried over to an account, iutitled " The Claim
of Probate and Legacy Duty Account," and a case had
been submitted for the opinion of the Judges of the Court
of Exchequer, with whose certificate both the Attorney-
General who claimed the probate and legacy duty on the
part of the Crown, and the party interested under thu will
were dissatisfied. The Judges having decided partly in
favour, and partly against each,
His LORDSHIP confirmed the certificate, and di-
rected a reference to the Master, to ascertain the amount
of duty payable in respect of it.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DULWICII COLLEGE.
The a7—nents of Counsel in this C33C were then re-
sumed, ~ot finished, at the rising of the Court.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 16.
IN TILE MATTER OF A WARD-ADAMS V. NIXON:

Mr. K. BRUCE said he had an application to make in
the case of a ward of rather a singular nature. No peti-
tion had been presented, and therefore he was obliged to
make the application in the nature of a motion. From the
instructions he had received, it appeared that the young
lady, who was a ward of that Court, had gone a short time
since on a visit to a respectable family, about eight or nine
miles from town. During that visit an acquaintance and
intimacy took place b”tween .n le of the sons of the family
and ..he young lady. It was fair to state, that though
there was great inequality between the parties in point of
fortune, there was none in point of station. It seemed,
howeVer, that without the knowledge of the young gentle-
man's family the parties were married in the parish church
of the place where the friends of the young gentleman,
who was a Lieutenant of the line, resided. The parties
whom Mr. Bruce represented did not; at present be
lieve that the father and mother of the young gentle-
man knew anything about the matter, but it was sup-
posed one of the brothers did ; and what he
had therefore to ask was for an order directing the sup-
posed husband (for he believed it must be considered the
marriage was legal) and the ward, together with the bro-
ther, to attend the Court upon a cortain day. The Learned
Gentlemen did not apprehend the Court would in the first
instance direct the clergyman to attend.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Why not? It appears to me
there is a great laxity on the part of clergymen in these
marriages.
Mr. K. BRUCE observed that the case in the present in-
stance was very singular. The marriage was by banns in
the parish church where the family of the young man
lived, and it was therefore rather extraordinary that the
father and the mother knew nothing about it.
The VicE CHANCELLOR thought the case so singular
that he should require the attendance of the clergyman, as
well as that of the brother, the ward, and her husband, at
10 o'clock on Thursday next.
Mr. K. BRUCE said that they could not serve the ward
and her supposed husband, personally, because they did not
know where they were. His clients had thought that the
young lady and gentleman had gone to Scotland, but,
singular to relate, it appeared that they were quietly mar-
ried within 100 yards of the place where the parents of the
young gentleman resided.
The VICE. CHANCELLOR then ordered the clergyman,
the brother and the two young delinquents to attend him in
his private room on Thursday next at ten o'clock.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JAN. 16.
(Sittings in Banco.)

THE QUEEN V. TIIE INHABITANTS OF THE COUNTY OF

DERBY.

This was an indictment against the defendants for not
repairing a bridge over the river Trent, for which it was
contended the county was liable. The jury found a ver•
dict for the Crown, subject to the opinion of the Court
upon a case stated.
Mr. WHlTEnuatiT appeared in support of the indictment,
and described the structure, which was somewhat peculiar.
It uonsisted of a series of 42 arches, connected by two
continuous walls throughout its entire length. There
were first five arches under which the Trent flowed ; after
nn interval of some 80 or 100 yards, there were 29 arches,
under the greater portion of which there was generally:some
standing water, and then, after another space, there were
eight arches, under which there was flowing water. The
bridge had all been built at the same period of time, and
the county had been in the habit of repairing the entire
structure. In the present case they had put the five
Arnhcs through which the Trent flowed into repair, but as
regarded thP remainder they contended that they were not
liable, it not being p bridge within the meaning of the
Act. The Learned Counsel having referred to several
authorities in support of the indictment,
Mr. WILMORE was heard on behalf of the defendants.
, The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

11 4 .11i COURT, JAN. 16.
(Befal) Mr. 4140iim Wit4rIAMS.)
CASE OF TEII7. SHIP DEljAp.

THE QUEEN v. P. S. WALLACE AND NI. a. S. WALLACE,
This case, in which a rule bad been obtained, calling on
the prosecutor to chew cause why the defendant should
not be brought up by habeas eorpus, or otherwise dealt
with according to law, and why the proceeding; before the
Magistrates should not be removed into this Court by eel-,
tiorari, came on for argument this morning.
Mr. Jeavts and Mr. C. PHILLIPPS appeared to support
the rule, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. CLARKSON,
Mr. BODKIN, and Mr. Lame, to show cause against it.
The affidavits, which were of great length, having been
read,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in opposing this ap-
plication it was not his intention to enter into the merits of
the case, so as to prejudice the prisoners when they should
come to their trial. Could it be said that thew parsons
were not legally in custody ? There were warrants against
them. Patrick was legally in custody on 12th November,
and on that warrant he had been since remanded. Michael
had been apprehended, while endeavouring to escape, and
on that he had been since remanded. On the 14th Ja-
nuary another warrant had been issued against them, whichwould, he supposed, be admitted to be valid. If the Court
should be cf opinion that they ought to be immediately
tried, the Court woutd commit them, not discharge them.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS-1:90 cloeht, it' a warrant is bad,
yet if there should appear on the deposition; pests tg send
them to trial, the Court would commit them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that, looking to the
circumstances of the case there was pito sufficient to send
them to their trial. The offence with which they were
charged was a felony, punishable with transportation, and
if such an offence had been committed, it was of the ut-
most importance the parties should be brought to justice.
There were insurances to a taiga at otant effected by the
prisoners on goods shipped on board the Dryad for CuLa,
These goods were never shipped. An attempt was made
to east :hr ship away on the coast of Hayti; she is sub-
sequently lost tm the past pf Cuba; large sums of money
are paid for i!le insurance, and 1.1.ca,:t tiotT,;; ;re need into
the hands of prisoners ; one of them leaves his place of
business in London, and is found in a sea-bathing village
in Lancashire. The faet,of the ship being cast away could
hardly admit of doubt, and ha thought sufficient had
been shown to put these pasties on their WO!
None of the facts stated in the depositions were
denied in the prisoners' affidavits, and, therefore,
the only ground of the application could be the delay which
had taken place, and some irregularity in taking the depo-
sitions. Now no irregularity in tablet; the depositions
could entitle the prisoners to their discharge. The toms.
tion was whether there was not reasonable evidence given
upon oath stacient to warrant the putting of these indivi-
duals on their trial, There could be no reason for dis-
charging them under these circumstances, 4nd admitting
any irregularity that might have taken place, how could
that entitle them to be admitted to 6211 ? The only re-
maining point was the delay, and he contended that not
an hour of unnecessary delay had occurred, It had been
discovered that a seaman who had been on board the
Dryad was now on board ono of her Majesty's ships in the
Mediterranean ; application bad been made to: the Ad.
miralty, a special messenger had been despatched after
him, and he was now on his return to give evidence.
What reason had these individuals to complain. If the
offence had been committed in the country, they would not
have been tried until the Spring Assizes. /sL,w, what
lashes or delay could be attributed to the prosecutor. They
certainly ought not to have been discharged—it would have
been unsafe to commit them for trial, unless they bad pro.
cured evidence of the actual loss of the £ hip—and it would
have been imprudent and unsafe to admit them to bail.
On these grounds, he submitted there was no reason for
this application.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side,
and Mr. Laurie on behalf of the remanding Magistrates.
Mr. JERVIS replied.
Judgment postponed till Monday.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 16.
HARRISON V. GOODWIN. _ .

This was one of the important cases lately tried in this
Court, relating to the liability of administrators to the
covenants upon the estate to which they administered.
The action was brought to compel the defendant, as ad-
ministratrix, to effect repairs, under a lease held by the
testator, whom she represented. She pleaded first—belie
administravit ; second, that she had not administered
upon the conditions of the lease ; and thirdly, that
the testator had died insolvent, and loft no assets
out of which the conditions of the lease could
be fulfilled. Upon the first and third pleas the
Jury found for the defendant ; and last term Mr. Serjcant
Bompas obtained a rule nisi to set aside this verdict, and
enter judgment for the plaintiff upon the second plea, on
the assets quando accessit—(that is, to the amount of the
assets of the testator, at the time of the administration)—
Mr. Poacock showed cause against the rule on the 23d of
November last, when the argument was adjourned.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD this day showed cause against
the rule, and contended that the plea in question was fully
made out in the evidence that the defendant refused to
adminster until she was persuaded to do so by the plaintiff,
who solemnly promised that if she did so, for the purpose
of facilitating his recovery of certain claims upon the estate,
he would not attempt to enforce against her the condi-
tions of the lease in question.
Mr. Sergeant BOMFAS, in reply, argued that as the
covenant was by lease under seal, a parole undertaking or
promise, could not be pleaded in answer to an action

thereon. He Pubmitted that he was entitled to have judg-
ment entered on the first plea, and to have a verdict
the first plea.
The COURT held that the parole promise was rot a
suflicient answer to the action upon a covenant under sc,l,
and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on that
plea : but their Lordships refused the other part of the
rule, being of opinion that the verdict so far was croud.
This decision, upon the only substantial plea, is in
effect equal to a verdict for the plain,iff on the whole case.