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

The COURT then proceeded to hear appeal motions.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
The NIAsTEr. of the ROLLS was occupied all the morn-
ing in hearing motions, none of which had any features
of general interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Vice-Chancellor Kiao ELT BR UCE. )

TLis being motion day, his Honour, on the sitting of
the Court, disposed of a few, which were on the paper,
and then proceed to hear causes.
TEARLE V. COLT.--EXCHEQUER CAUSe.

This was a suit instituted for the purpose of setting
aside an annuity deed, dated 1820, for want of en-
rolment under the statute, the plaintiff claiming under
an annuity decd from the same granters, dated 1810,
and praying for an account against the second annuitant
who had acquired the legal estate which was outstand-
ing in a mortgagee, of the rent which he had received
in respect of his annuity, and that the mortgage might
be assigned to the plaintiff.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM).
His HoNotn was engaged this morning in hearing
motions, none of width presented any feature of public
interest.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

13:100KE V. JENNY AND OTHERS.

This was an action of trespass, brought by Mr. Abra-
ham Brooke, a wine- merchant, residing at Woodbridge,
in Suffolk, against the defendant, surveyor of highways
for the parish of Hasketton, for having entered a certain
field, his property, and cut and carried away certain
trees and bushes. The case was tried before Mr. Justice
Matteson, at the Suffolk Assizes, and a verdict had for
the defendant. A rule for a new trial was now
moved for, on the ground of the verdict being.
against the evidence, and of misdirection. It appeared
that the plaintiff was the owner of a certain field
adjoining the high road in the parish of Hasketton,
which he leased to a person named Butcher, reserv-
ing the trees and hushes which grew on the road side. The
defendants, as surveyors of high ways, laid an information
btf re the Magistrates and summoned the plaintiff; and
at the Sessions it was alleged that the trees and bushes
ova sung the road, obstructed the sun and wind, and
thereby injured it. An order was made by the Magis-
trates on the 27th of November, 1839, directing the
plaintiff to cut, prune, or plash the hedge, which it was
alleged the plaintiff did in an improper way, and a man
was employed by the defendants to do so, and it was
while executing their orders that the alleged tres-
pass was committed. At the trial evidence of
a very contradictory nature was given, the wit-
nesses Sur the plaintiff alleging that the hedge
did not cause any damage or injury to the highway,
while for the defendants it was said that the plaintiff
had suffered no injury by the manner in which the thorns,
tke., had been cut and pruned.

Mr. ANDREWS appeared to show cause against the rule.
One of the objections of his Learned Friend was that the
land in question was not in the possession of the plaintiff,
but in the possession of his tenant, Butcher ; but if that
were so the plaintiff could have shown before the Ma-
gistrates that he was not the owner, which he had
failed to do. Another objection to the order of
the Magistrates was that it should not have
been '(riven in the alternative, " to cut, prune, or plash,"
as the Act the sth and Gth Geo. IV. cap. 50, gave them
no power to make an order in that form. A further ob-
jection was, that the order did not state the purpose for
which the hedge was to be cut or pruned ; and that it did
not state in express terms that the plaintiff was the
owner of the land next adjoining the high road. Now,
with respect to that objection, the order set out that the
plaintiff was the owner of the land on the right-hand side
of the highway ; and he had taken the trouble to refer
to Johnson's DicaOnary to ascertain the meaning of the
ward " side."—(Laughter.) The explanation given was,
" border, verge," or " edge," which, he submitted, was
a complete and ptAirect description of the plaintiff's land.
Lord DENMAN did not think it was necessary for the
Learned Counsel to descend to such minute criticism—
it roasted with the other side to show that the description
was insufficient.

Mr. ANDREWS would put an end to all the objections
on that point by a reference to the 108th section of the
Highways Act, which provided that the omission of
matters of form should nut vitiate the orders of Ma-
gistrates. A further objection to the order was, that
it did not set out any offence ; but he contended
that the neglect to cut or prune his trees or bushes
was an offence under the Highway Act. Now,
with regard to the objection that the Magistrates
bad no pow,r in give an order in the alternative, he sub-
mitted that it was for the benefit of the plaintiff that the
order should be so given, inasmuch as he would adopt that
mode which was likely to do least injury to his hedge.
Lord DENMAN did not think that the Magistrates had
acted improperly in giving the order in that form, because
until the surveyor went there and examined the obstruc-
tion, he could not tell what would be the best mode of
removing it. _ _

The Learned Counsel concluded by submitting that
the finding of the Jury was correct, and that there was
no ground for disturbing the verdict.
Mr. BYALL followed on the same side.

(The case was proceeding when we went to Press.)

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

TUE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MOULINETT.
In this case Mr. Erie had obtained a rule nisi for a
new trial, and the late Attorney-General (Sir Thomas
Wilde) had obtained a cross rule nisi for the production
of certain books. On its being called on this morning,
• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Sir Thos.
Wilde) said he was happy to inform the Court that upon
conversation with his Learned Friend they would be
spared a long argument, as they had agreed that both
rules should be discharged.
Rules diseharged accordingly.
TAYLOR V. ALVAREZ.
Mr. C. JONES moved to set aside a verdict for the de-
fendant which was found at the trial before the Secondary
of London. The plaintiff had been a sailor in the ser-
7ice of the Portuguese Government, and brought his ac-
tion against the defendant for 191. due to him as prize
money. The defendant was an agent of the Portuguese
Government. The plaintiff's attorney called upon
hint, and he said, if the papers were left with
him they would be examiued, and if found
correct the money would be paid. The papers were
left with him, and after two or throe calls the defendant
:aid they were all right, and if the plaintiff called him-
self he would pay him. The plaintiff called, but pay-
ment was refused. He (Mr. Jones) contended that the
promise to pay was suffi,:ient to show that the defendant
had received the money for the plaintiff; and was enough
to bind him. The defence set up was that the defendant
was not the prize agent—that that office was filled by a
Mr. Waring. Now the evidence showed that although
Waring' held himself out to be agent for prize money, he
was possessed of no funds ; that in fact he acted as clerk
to the defendant, to whom &o whole of the funds for the
payment of prize money was entrusted by M. Mendi-
zabal, and was the only responsible party. He sub-
mitted that his promise to pay bound him.
The COURT thought the verdict Was perfectly right.
The action had been brought against the wrong party.—
Rule. refused.

COMMON PLEAS._(Tiiis DAY.)
EVANS V. NICHOLL.
The plaintiff in this case is a wholesale druggist in
and shi-
London, and the defendants are wharfiu
psiod to alkali, consigned owners. The action was brought (in asstemrs
re-
cover the value or a quantity of
from Hull, by a manufacturer
I) • of gne to the
that article,
named Clapham, and detained by the defendants for
previous debt on account of freight and wharfage owing'
to them by Clapham, who had.in the meantime become
bankrupt. The case for the plaintiff was, that he had
paid fur the goods in advance, having advanced con-
siderable sums of money to the bankrupt, ahoy,
the value of the cargo in question, as the pre_
purchase of the drug as it should be manufactured.
Fur the defendant it was set up that the plaintiff
was only the factor of Clapham ; that the money ad-
vanced to the latter was in the nature of loan,
to be repaid as the goods of the borrower happened to be
sold for him by the plaintiff--that the property. never
was in the plaintiff—and that the defendants, having the
goods in their possession, had a lien on them for
freight and wharfarre. The case was tried at Guild-
hall before the eord Chief Justice, and the Jury
found for the plaintiff in damages 500 L Mr.
Sergeant Channell obtained a rule nisi to set aside
the verdict, on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence, inasmuch as it was proved that the
property had not passed from the consigner to the plain-
tiff there
, having been no bill of lading or other instru-
ment by which it could appear that the goods were con-
signed for plaintiff's own use.
Mr. •
• s ergeant •••
ILFOURD. showed cause against the
rule, and

Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL replied at great length.
(The ease, ‘v:ls not concluded when we went to Press.)

COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
In this cas 'WALKER V. THELUSSON.
e a rule nisi bad been obtained to set aside
the ca sa, on which the defendant Was in custody, on the
ground that at the time it was sued out the plaintiff was
an outlaw.
Mr. TFIESIGER this morning showed cause against the
rule, and contended, that as the defendant himself was
an outlaw he had no right to come to the Court for relief. Mr. CRESWELL contended, in support of the rule,
that the whole proceeding
being irregular, must be set
aside, and that although an outlaw could not set in motion
a process of the Court for his own benefit, yet he could
apply to the Court for relief in a case like the present,
in which he was wrongfully kept in custody.
Mr. MAItTIN followed on the same side.
Mr. Justice W IGHTMAN said there was a marked dis-
tinction between an an outlaw seeking to take advantage
of the process of the Court for his own benefit, and his
applying to the Court for relief from wrong. All the
authorities were in favour of Such au interference of the

Court, and therefore the rule must be made absolute.—
Rule absolute.

SHERIFFS' COURT-(THIS DAY)
The whole of the actions tried were undc:ended, and
the Court adjourned at 12 o'clock.