The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-04 00:00:00

The petition was then ordered to stand over.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
BELSHAM V. PERCIVAL. 8
The plaintiff was one of the executors of Jame,
Frampton, deceased, and in that character instituted
an action against Percival for a debt, which was de-
cided in the Court of Common Pleas in his favour,
and an execution was ordered against Percival, who
at that time represented himself to be possessed of an
oyster bed in Essex. Judgment was pronounced on
the 14th of July, 1841, but on the 2d of that month
Percival had conveyed the oyster bed to Lavvrance,
his soliictor, who subsequently sold it, as he stated, 10
liquidation of a debt of 4851. due by Percival to hill'
The present suit was virtually against L
awrance,
and the parties who claimed liens on the oyster bed.
Percival having alleged that the conveyance in clues'
tion only vested the oyster bed in Lawrance in trust'
His HONOUR delivered judgment to-day, and de:
tided that the bill should be dismissed with costs as
against Mrs. Harrison, one of the defendants, wn
however, should be made a party to the suit, one
directed an issue to try the validity of the convert"
of the 2 d of July.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY')
(Sittings in Banco.)
UNDERMINING IdOUSES.--RILTON V. LORD GRANvIL,he
This was a trial at bar, and took place during
last term. It was an action to recover compen,sati,fr
in damages for the alleged negligent working or, e,;,-
tain mines at Newcastle-under-Lyme by the ae"---
dant, by which the foundations of some houses P°s;
sessed by the plaintiff gave way, and were therefore
seriously injured. The jury found for the ploindt
on the first and second issues—namely, that he ha
right to the foundations of his houses, and awarutha
him 30!. damages for the negligent working 01f se.
mine by the defendant • but they found for thee et
fendant on the fourth Plea, which was to the e",
e 4
that he had a right to the minerals, and that it fro
been the custom from time immemorial to work
mines in the district in a similar manner.
nt
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL DOW moved, pursua
permission reserved by the Court, for a rule Valli
upon the plaintiff to show cause why the ver°l
should not be entered for the defendant on the first on
e.
second issues ; or why the verdict should not be r
stricted to the first issue. The declaration avertrhe
that the foundations had been undermined by e
negligent and improper working of the defendsohe
and that he (the plaintiff) was entitled to en.l°Y ,itpa
foundations without hindrance. Now, he eontenu-d
that the finding was inconsistent, and that the ree
°r
should come under the review of the Court, in ordet
that it might be amended, so that the matter night
be re-opened and discussed; for it was obvious that
there was some misconstruction in the minds of the
jury with respect to the words "negligent working*
There was no evidence to show that this was the ea,s,o,
`"
in fact they found the defendants bad a right
work the mine, and if that were so, how could it ue
said that the plaintiff was entitled to enjoy the foul"-
dations without hindrance or disturbance ?
Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD, on the part of the p/aintird•
applied for a rule to show cause why the plaint'd
should not have judgment on the damages aworde
him.

Lord DENMAN—These pai ties ought to have wl;ifit-
ever rules they apply for, because the matter require;
further discussion. The Court, however, consel?te
.
to this without assenting to any of the proposition'
enunciated.

CRIM. CON.—GADSBY V. EsTALL.
Sir F. THESIGER said, in this case, he had to Orli
for a rule for a new trial, principally on affidavits.
The action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for criminal conversation, and was tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Wightman during the If-
term, and a verdict was returned for the u'"fi
,
fendant, owing to the inability of the plaints
to prove the handwriting of the defendant in •
letter of a tender nature, which he had addressed to
wife. It appeared that Mr. Gadsby was a commerciA
traveller, and was compelled frequently to be absent
from town for the firm with which he was connected,
and also to remain until a late hour at the counting-
house in the City, but there was not the slightestlini;
putation on his conduct towards his wife.
reside
defendant, who was a married man, came to _
next door to the plaintiff, in Ellcumbe-terrache;
Islington, which was called from the father 0f t4.e.
plaintiff's wife, a publican, who resided nearly opp 051;
The plaintiff and defendant were almost entirelY
strangers to each other, but a strong intilnilifc7o
appeared to have sprung up between the plaint'
visited
wife and the defendant, and that he frequently
her during the absence of her husband. The evideric
with respect to the alleged criminal intercourse
between the parties mainly, if not altogether, rested
upon two very important facts—the first being t,nl_
circumstances which occurred one night prior to tt
plaintiff's wife going into the country', and the second t
a letter alleged to have been written by the defendant
to Mrs. Gadsby, whilst staying at Bloomfield
which he (the Learned Counsel) read to the jurYblie
his opening, thinking that he should have been
to prove that it was written by him. Strong evidence
was adduced at the trial that an improper intinfld
subsisted between the parties ; for instance, she
been seen wearing a Daguereotype portrait of the
into
fendant, and to kiss it ; also that he was admitted
the lady's bed-room but two or three days after
confinement; and it was proved by the servant, Abher
garet Davidson, whose evidence was not contradicted
in a single point, and whose credit was not impugned,
that the defendant at this time came late In the
evening and remained until half past ten at nigni,
that her father opposite, seeing a light, came over, an
inquired why his daughter had not gone to bed, when