The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CFIANCERY COURT, Jan. 28.
- (Before the Vicz-CnANctLtou of ENGLAND.) -
THE HUNGERFORD MARKET COMPANY V. THE cHARING-
CROSs-BRIDGE COMPANY—INJUNCTION.
Mr. BurnELL (in continuation from our Afternoon Edition
of yesterday) said—lie therefore submitted that the cour
fiable,
se
pursued by the Bridge Company was altogether unj
and one which the Court would never sanction. Repeated
negotiations on the subject had taken place between the
two companies, but the proposition of one day
was rejected the next. These negotiati, that he
-
'turned such a character at one period
gas sure, when he came to react them to the Court, his
Honour would be almost led to believe they were negotiating
between p otentates, rather than between gentlemen forming
two important companies.
The Vicu-CDANDELLOR.—You mean, I suppose, that the
negotiations are more like protocols than anything else.
Mr. BETIIELL—Just so, Sir. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to read, at considerable length, the davits on
behalf of the application, detailing minutely theresolutions
that bad been come to, and the negotiations that had taken

place.
The VICE-CITAXCELLOR wished to know what was the case
on the part of the defendants?
Mr. RoLT, who, together with Mr. Bigg, appeared as
Counsel for the Charing-cross-bridge Company, observed,
that he should rather have expected the Court to have
asked what was the case of the Hungerford Market Com-
pany.—(A laugh.) The case of the defendants was founded,
as no doubt the Court had some slight notion, on the lease.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—AS to the negotiations, they all

go for nothing.
Mr. Rot:r said that the only point between them turned
upon the covenants in the lease. The plaintiffs had thought
fit, for the support of their own case, to read certain resolutions
and negotiations that had taken place; those negotiations
had nothing to do with the question now in dispute. The defen-
dants contended that the construction put upon the covenant
in the lease by the plaintiffs was altogether an erroneous one.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the affidavits on
behalf of the defendants, in answer to those tiled by the

plaintiffs.
The VICE-CIIANOKLLOR wished to know whether the point
in dispute was such a one as was capable of being decided by
an action upon the covenant.
Mr. GlFFARD—Certainly.
Mr. ROLT said ii was quite clear that such an injunction
as had been asked by the plaintiffs, without their having
been in possession of their legal rights, or without a legal
decision, could not be granted.
Mr. BleruELL said, that if the plaintiffs could bring any
action, they would do so. It was utterly impossible that the
Market Company could part with that which was worth at
least 3,0001. a year to them.
Mr. BOLT said that the Bridge Company had offered to
the Market Company everything to which they were en-
titled.
Mr. BETHELL observed that that was for the Court to de-
cide. When his Honour had stated his opinion to be that
the Market Company were baund to distinguish every steam-
boat passenger, then his Learned Friend (Mr. Rolt) might
say, and not till then, that the Bridge Company had
offered them everything to which they were entitled.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to contend
that his clients were entitled to the injunction which
they asked f( r. The Market •Company had performed
their part of the covenant in the lease, and having done so
they were entitled to call upon the defendants to perform
theirs. There could be no doubt the true construction of the
covenant was, that free access should be given to all steam-
boat passengers across the bridge from the market end to the
first tower, where the float was placed, and he would leave
it to the Court to determine, after the statements in the affi-
davits he had read, whether that free access had been given.
'lf the Court wished the case to go to law, the plaintiffs would
take it there, but the inj wiction, he submitted, must be granted
in the meantime. if the Court sent a case to a court of
law, he hoped it would be directed to the Court of Common
Pleas, because it might be tried next term.
At the conclusion of the arguments of Mr. Bethel], on
behalf of the plaintiff, the further consideration of the case
was adjourned till Monday next, the last day of term.

---
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Jan. 28.
TILE CORPORATION OF LONDON r. FLOCKTON AND OTIIEPS.
The defendant in this case and three other persons, named
Parsons, Knowell, anti Manning, had pleaded guilty to
having erected a pier at Paul's Wharf, belonging to the
Watermen's Company. They now came up to receive the
judgment of the Court.
Mr. Justice PATTESON, in passing sentence, said they had
pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged them with
having constructed a pier which was a nuisance to the navi-
gation of the river. They had first pleaded not guilty, but
subsequently they withdrew that plea ar.d pleaded
guilty. It appeared, however, that the pier was not
removed after they had so pleaded, and that it re-
mained in use until, he believed, the 19th of November last.
It was then removed for a short time, but it was again re-
placed. The defendant Flockton was the principal offender,
inasmuch as he was a director and manager of the com-
pany, and the pier was constructed under his instructions
the other defendants having only acted as servants
under his: directions; but the Court was willing to
believe the statement in his affidavit, that lie had no-
thing _to do with the subsequent re-construction of the
pier, and that at that time the property in it had reverted
to another company. It was, at first, supposed that that
transfer was col naive, or at least with the understanding and
_ knowledge that those to whom it was transferred should re-
erect it, but the Court was willing to believe that it was not
done with that intention. Ithadbeenuraed in their behalf that
the corporation had erected piers equallyoljection able in various
parts of the Thames, one especially cf a permanent character,
having been pressed upon the attention of the Court ; but
the Court could not look upon such piers as being nuisances,
nor ceuld they express any opinion whether indictments
ought or ought not to be lodged against them. It was clear
that the pier in question was a nuisance to the navigation ;
and as they did not abate it at once, or when they Pleaded
guilty in June last, the Court could not pass over the offence so
leniently as they otherwise might have felt disposed to do,
and the Court wished it to be fully understood—he did not
know whether those who had bcnght the pier were present—
but the Court wished them fully to understand that if they
continued a pier, which was a nuisance to the navigation of
the river, notwithstanding a jury had taken cognizance of the
matter, and declared that the pier was most objectionable, the
Court would certainly visit such an cffence with severe pnnisli-
ment, because they could notsu tier per3ons wilfully and openly
to disobey the law, and to do that which they knew they hid
no right to do. They also wished it to be distinctly under-
stood by those who acted under the new company with re-
spect to the pier, even although they might act under the
orders of other people, that they could not escape but with
severe punishment.
He then sentenced Flockten to pay a fine of 201., and to be
imprisoned in the Queen's Bench until it was paid ; and the
other defendants to pay a fine of Is. each, and to be similarly
imprisoned until the same were paid. Ile advised them to
take care that they did not commit a like a offence.
The defendants, we understand, paid the line.
Tins: QUEEN ON THE raosys:ualot4 OF THE GUM:MANS OF
PADDINGTON T. ,TOPIN wicrsox.

This case was tried here during the last term. The de-
fendant, who is a retired tradesinans was indicted for inde-
cently assaulting a c=irl, aged 12, in Paddington church-
yard, and for indecent' exposure. The more serious part of
the charge was not maintained, but the jury found the de-
fendant guilty of having indecentiy lexposed himself in a
public place.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now prayed the judgment of
the Court upon the defendant.
Sir FREDERICK THEsn:er. moved on behalf of the de-
fendant to enter a verdict of not guilty instead of guilty, and
also in arrest of judgment. The first count, the one on
which the verdict was returned, set forth that the ofience
was committed in a " certain open and public place called
Paddington churchyard, in the sight and view of divers of
her Majesty's subjects then and there." Now he contended
that the churchyard was not a public place. It was
enclosed with iron rails. There were two parallel paths,
which were public paths, but the offence was alleged to have
- been committed 140 yards front both. The day was the
24th of December, and the time after half-past four o'clock,
a time of the year when the sun went down at four o'clock,
and when it was impossible fur any one standing on the
paths to have seers persons at the distance of 140 yards. This
was the first time an indictment had been framed, against a
person for exposing himself to one person. In the books
he found the case of the King v. Sir Charles Sedgley, which
was an indictment at common law for exposing his naked
body in a balcony in Covent-garden, to a " great multitude
of people," and he was fined 2,000 marks. Then there was
another case, namely, an indictment against a person for
exposing himself by bathing, at the East Cliff, Brighton, in
the presence of a great number of persons. Chief Baron
Macdonald held that the act was a misdemeanour.
Ile said it might have been a very innocent act some years
before, when it was not a place of public resort ; it might
also have been a blameless act, at one time, to have stripped
oneself naked in Montagu-tields, but the same could not be
said of Itussell-square, which was built in those fields.
Therefore, whatever outraged common decency was misde-
meanour at common law. An exposure must be public to be
a misdemeanour, and anything short of that would not bring
it under this definition.
Lord DINaSAN said in this case it could not be said that
this offence amounted to a public exposure, and agreed to
the application.
THE QUEEN V. JAMES arrros AND OTHERS.—CONSPIRACY.
This was an indictment against James Button, George
Button, Thomas Corduroy, and William Wellesford, for con-
spiring to defraud their etnpleyer, Mr. Lewis, a dyer, in
Oxendon-street, by dying articles with his materials
for their profit. The last-named defendant had pleaded
guilty : the others were found guilty. It appeared
that all the persons employed by the prosecutor
were permitted to dye articles belonging to them-
selves and their families free of expense. Twenty-one
Years ago Mr. Lewis entered into an arrangement with
James Button, who was his foreman, to deposit in his
name 150/. a year, which, however, was to be forfeited if
Button committed any act which might render him amen-
able to the law. Since the finding of the indictment Mr.
Lewis had sold out the amount, which had accumulated to
2,000/-
The paies now came up to receive judgment, but the
Court, onrt the application of Mr. Sergeant Allen, acceded to
a new trial.
COURT OF COM MO PLAAS, Jan. 28.
IN RE MRS. SHIJTTI.ENVORTH.--ALLEGED LUNACY.
Mr. Sergoant TALFOURD said he appeared on behalf of
Dr. Millingen, in answer to a writ of habeas corpus, issued
on Monday last, to bring up the body of Martha Eliza
Rhoda Shuttleworth. The lady in pursuance of that writ
was now in attendance.
The return of Dr. Millingen to the writ was then
p
and read, which set forth, that from time time of the
said Mrs. Shuttleworth being placed in his custody at
York-house,
of ,nliat_tersea, until now, she was labouring under,
delusions,
this allegation cited mind. The return iR support of
bad been placed the medical certificates on which she
Act of Parliament, whichih custody
with the order under the
The
effidayits
on
which the
led to the same.
'The
ehe rule for the writ had been
moved were then read.
Istrasrt was that of Dr. Quail, who
deposed that he had known Shuttleworth for
many years, and that durin,, all the time she was capable
perfectly ,of managing her own business.
custody, since
compe-
tent up to the time of her being taken
which time she had been placed in a lunatic asylum at Bat-
tersea, where all access to the deponent orcli
denied. The deponent further stated that a sight
(Heal certificates on which the had beenigcoi
I. een denied him, and that he believed they were confined
dsgeevtlehiraedrl
insufficient. The„, affidavit went on to answer the
(allegations made on the other side, as to the habittsogefetthier
alleged lunatic, which were strongly denied and al
untrue.
Mr. John Austin deposed to a similar effect respeeting the
alleged lunacy ; as did also Mrs. Caroline Teaching. The
latter had known the alleged lunatic for a considerable time,
and she had always acted as a perfectly sane person.
Several other affidavits were read, deposing to the sanity
a Mrs. Shuttleworth, and denying the statement that she
as incapable of conducting her business.
Counter affidavits were next read in support of the alleged
lunacy. The deponents were the Her J. C. Row.land, Messrs.
Dr•Alillingen, who
Wight and Wilmot, surgeons, and • she had
,
&liege(' that when, uhdor the charge a P. Qua §ne am.;