The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, July 17.

DURHAM AND SUNDERLAND RAILWAY COMPANY V.

WAWN.

The defendant, who is the new Member for South
' Shields, was a tenant in common of some lands and
buildings, across which the defendants wished to make
their railway. The other tenants in common of the
same property,. granted to the Company a long lease of
the premises, in which the defendant declined to con-
cur. The Railway Company, notwithstanding his ob-
jection, took possession' under their lease, pulled down
the houses, and laid down their railway. The defendant
then broug:ht. an action against the Company, but failed
on a technical objection. He then brought a second ac-
tion of ejectment. On this trial it was argued on be-
half of the Company, that the defendant was not ousted,
as he might walk over the railway as much a. he chose,
although he might thereby incur some personal danger
in case of a train goinc, by at the same moment. The
Court of Exchequer, however, held that though pulling
down the buildings was no ouster, yet laying the railway
across the site was ouster, and Mr. Wawn recovered
judgment in ejectment for his share of the premises. The
Sheriff being about to execute the writ, the Company
filed their bill in this Court for an injunction, not as
they said to restrain the execution of the writ by the
Sheriff, but to restrain the defendant from taking up the
iron rails of the railway. The Master of the Rolls
granted the injunction ex parte, but afterwards, on mo-
tion. dissolved it. The Company appealed. It was ar-
gued, on behalf of the defendant, that inasmuch as laying
down the rails had been held to be ouster, taking them
up again was the only way of recovering possession; and
that equity had no jurisdiction to interfere against a
plain legal right.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, having taken time to con-
sider his judgment, this day said, that it had been inti-
mated to him there would be no difficulty in coming to
an arrangement, but for some feeling which existed be-
tween the parties, and which he could not enter into on
the consideration of a right of property.
Mr. HARE, for the defendant, said that the latter had
been always ready to act with the utmost liberality to-
, wards the Company, but he certainly desired from them
an expression of their sense of the impropriety of deal-
ing with his property in the unauthorised manner in
which they had done, and he resisted any attempt of the
Company to compel him to execute the lease by any pro-
ceeding in this Court. Upon the bill being dismissed
and all costs at law and in equity, as between solicitor
and client, paid to him, the defendant would execute the
lease.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that as to the apology
it was a matter he could have nothing to do with, but
upon the execution of the lease the Company ought to
submit to the other terms insisted upon. The Company
by their counsel, agreed to the proposition, and the case
was disposed of accordingly.

noyed by those assembled under the Colonnade. The
public must be protected, and the offenders punished.
As the regulations of the police were very proper, they
must be • obeyed ; and he should, therefore, inflict the
penalty of twenty shillings on Jones, and forty Shillings
on Hertford. He would take the opptßtunity of stating
publicly, that if the regulations of the Commissiouerr
were not complied with, he should in future amerce all
persons complained against in the full penalty of 101.
People must be taught not to interfere with the regula-
tions of the police, who had n Ytry arduous duty to
perform.
Mr. Craig, of Notting-hill, the master of Hertford,
having been made acquainted with the evderiee against
his servant, fully acquiesced in the priipnety of the Ma-
gistrate's decision.

THE SUN, LONDON. MONDA,Y, JULY 19. 1841:

contended that there was no ground to presume any promise
was made before the birth of the first child, and that it was
the common case of young peg sops vale, flndiug thetuselteg
sitratiOn of tttmptation, mutually forget what they 046
their own honour and to society, and yield to.the emiitembiit of
their passions. As to the damages, he thought it would be in
encouragement to loose conditet hi titlirs if tindet ddeli e;ireitm:
stances the,JurY to iward dittages lii &tie like
thIS, and 4vhicti indeed the derendant was in no condition to
pay, as it was a mere assumption without proof that he was
possessed of any property of his own.
Lord DENMAN, in summing nR , tjle eagff; said th4t the plea
that sufficit ot time Had ho't elapsed to 6iable tie dgliindint to
perfotYn his promise was ridiculous, and ought not to haie
been placed upon the record. He then briefly recapitulated
the circumstances of the case, and the Jury after a short con-
sultation returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1501.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.----Bedford, July 15.
The asiOes for thti dlitintY of Beitdrd commenced this
inn. tin the civil side two causes only were entered for trial,
one of which was an undefended action for goods sold, and the
other was postponed till the Spring assizes, on account of the
absence of a material witness. The following case excited
very great interest, in the countv,, and occupied a long time in
the trial: The bill was found ati the last assizes, together With
another against " Deaf Burke," the celebrated pugilist, Lord
Chetwynd, and others, for an alleged riot, charged to have
been committed at the time to which the trial of to-day re-
lated, which ha, been remottd by certiorari into the Court
of Quttiil getieh.

(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
Thomas Brown was indicted for unlawfully refusing to aid
and assist one Daniel Herbert, a policeman, when duly called
upon to do so in quelling a. riot.
Mr. Andrews and Mr. Gunning were counsel for the prose-
cution! Mr..Byles and Mr. O'Malley for the defendant.
It appeared thaton the morning of the 9th of last February
the Rev. Mr. Cautley, curate of Broughton, in Bucks, ob-
served an unusual passage of persons on foot and in every
kind of vehicle through his village, and on inquiry he learned
that a prize• fight was about to "come off" at the neighbour-
ing village of Hulcott. He forthwith mounted his horse and
rode with the streams of people until he reached a certain
field in that parish, wherein he saw a ring duly staked and
" roped " out, and two persons stripped, or " peeled'' to com-
bat, and some 300 or 400 spectators. He left the scene of the
commencing fight, and called at the residences of two Magis-
trates, but they were both absent, and he then rode to the
house of the prosecutor, Herbert, one of the rural police, whom
he found. He placed Herbert on his own horse, and desired
him to ride to the ring and put an end to the fight, whilst he
followed on foot. The prosecutor rode thither accordingly, but
was unable to make any impression on the ln?b, and Mr. Caut-
ley Oiled upeti the Constable " to chargstAnn to assist him,"
*RA the policeman accordingly did. Armed with the character
of an assistant to the constable, Mr. Cautley attempted to get
into the inner ring, but was prevented by the crowd. Hertert
made the like attempt with the like want of success, and both
got severely punished by the mob for their interference.
The battle, which was between Cain and Adams, went on
after this with spirit, and except when an attempt was made
on the part of the authorities to check it, the mob conducted
themselves tolerably peaceably. The prosecutor then charged
several other persons to aid him, and amongst them the de-
fendant, Mr. Brown, who was sitting on the seat of his car-
riage and four, his horses being governed by two postilions.
The policeman addressed him, saying, "Mr. Brown, I charge
you in the Queen's name to aid and assist me in putting a stop
to this fight." Mr. Brown did not positively refuse to do so,
but said " he had his horses to mind," and, in fact, rendered no
assistance, and shortly afterwards he left the ground. Mr.
Cautley then with great bravery threw himself into the ring,
and, for a short time, stopped the fight, but it quickly
began again, the mob hooting and calling out that he
was "no beak." Upon this he left the scene, and re-
turned with the Reverend Mr. Smith, a Magistrate,
whereupon the people cried out, " The justice, the
justice !" and many left the ground. Soon, however, the
people returned to the charge, the fight recommenced, and the
Rev. Magistrate read the Riot Act as loud as he could. For
a moment the angry mob seemed pacified, but some one seized
the Justice by the leg and attempted to unhorse him, and this
was the signal for renewed riot and violence. He read the
Riot Act a second time in dumb show, and whilst doing so
some ruffian threw a bottle at him, which missed him, but
struck a poor fellow between the eyes, and inflicted a severe
injury. The fight continued until one of the combatants was
fairly worsted, when the spectators left the field, and peace
was restored, no substantial injury being inflicted upon any one
except the man who was struck by the bottle thrown at Mr.
Smith. The Magistrates of the county afterwards directed this
and some other prosecutions to be preferred, and the defendant
and ethers were held to bail.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON summed up, and the Jury, after a
short, consultation, found the defendant Guilty.
Three other gentlemen, against whom similar bills had been
found, upon the verdict being given, withdrew their pleas of
" not guilty," and pleaded " guilty."
Mr. ANDREWS, on the part of the prosecution, begged to
say that the indictments were preferred on public grounds only,
and that his clients were not anxious that the defendants should
be visited with severity.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said, that he thought it possible the
defendants might have acted in ignorance of the law, but they
ought to know that it is the duty of every good subject of the
Queen to keep the peace, and to set a good example of obe •
dience to the law of the land in the person of its humblest
officers. 'I he law speaks through its constables and its officers,
and they must be protected by the law. He did not think it
necessary to inflict any severe punishment on the defendants,
believing that this public discussion would prevent any mis-
apprehension on the subject in future.
The defendants were then sentenced to pay a fine of 40s.
each to the Queen, and to find sureties for their good beha-
viour for twelve months.

HOME ClRCUlT—Hertford, July 17.

The business of this Assize terminated last night. Mr.
Sergeant Taddy finished the criminal cases by the mid-
dle of the day, and he then disposed of two causes, and
shortly afterwards his Court was closed.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL and a Common
Jury.)
pummoox V. WATTS.

BILL DISCOUNTING.—This was an action upon a bill
of exchange for 361. 135., accepted by Mr. Alaric Watts,
and endorsed to the plaintiff.
Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Thcsi-
ger for the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that he had accepted the bill
in question for the accommodation of one Robert Wallis,
and that when it was due Wallis had given a bill for 371.,
and also a sum of 1/. 10s:in satisfaction of it.
Mr. JAMES having stated the case, called
Mr. John Clark, who said that he knew Mr. Watts
and Mr. Wallis, and he had been in the habit of dis-
counting bills and advancing money to the latter, and
the bill in question was brought to him by Wallis, and
he discounted it for him ; and subsequently, in another
transaction with the present plaintiff, he paid him over
the bill, and it was dishonoured when due and returned
to him. He saw Wallis after the bill had been disho-
noured, and he said that he would give him a bill for
37/. in lieu of the bill that had been dishonoured, and
he would insure its being paid when it arrived at matu-
rity. He took the 371. bill, and, he believed, 30s. in ad-
dition as commission. He paid this second bill to a
merchant in the City, and it was also dishonoured, and
returned to him. He called at the office of the defendant
a number of times about his acceptance, and pressed
him to pay the amount ; and he said, tert if he was put
to no expense about the bills, he would place a picture
worth fifty pounds in his possession. He could not, how-
ever, get either the picture or the money.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—Witness was for-
merly in the shoe line, but was at present a retired gen-
tleman living on his means. He had unfortunately
" done" a good many bills.
Mr. TETESIGER—YeS and a good many persons too, I
dare say.—(Laughter.)
Witness—l only discount bills when it is likely to be
beneficial to the parties. I have injured myself to benefit
others.

Mr. THESIGE;R—Oh! I have no doubt of that. You
generally charged a little " commission," though, did you
not? Witness—Certainly, it could not be done without—
that is a regu'ar thing.
Mr. THESIGER—N7M can you give us any idea what
, discount you used to charge-50 pct. cent. ? Witness—
Oh, no certainly not. T
Mr. RESIGER—WiII you swear now that you have
never received fifty per cent. ? Witness (hesitating)—
Well, well, I may have done it ; but, observe, the bills
must have been " doubtful," mere waste paper. I have
had a good many transactions with Wallis, and have be-
friended him many years.
Mr. THESIGER—You never charged him fifty per cent.
discount, of course ? Witness—l think not, certainly.
He used to bring me bills of respectable parties, and he
made his arrangements accordingly.
Mr. THEMER—Yes, and you made your arrange-
ments, thdoubt, accordingly ; what was your general
per tentage ? Witness—Oh, five, ten, fifteen, twenty
per cent.
Mr. TIIESIGER—Come, come, Mr. Clark, a little
more—twenty-five ? Witness—l may have had twenty-
five per cent. •
Mr. TIMMER—Can't you screw it a little more ?
(The tone in which the Learned Counsel put this to the
witness caused a roar of laughter in the Court.) Wit-
ness—Not thirty per cent. ; not ever twenty-five with
good bills.
Mr. THEMER—Now, will you swear you never
charged fifty per cent. ? Witness—Well, well : will
you let me consider a minute ;
Mr. TRESIGER—No, no ; don't discount my question.
I must have an answer. 'Witness—Then I don't think
I ever did. If I have, it must have been under particular
circumstances. The general charge was twenty per cent.
Mr. TnEsioEn—Did you charge that amount in a two
months' bill ? Witness—Oh, no ; four months.

Mr. THEstarn—Well, that would be pretty good in-
terest, would it not ?
The witness, on further cross-examination, denied that
he told Wallis that the bill for 36/. 15s. was mislaid, but
that he would give it up to him upon his receiving the
37/. bill and 1/. 10s. "commission."

The Learned Counsel cautioned the witness, and then
put into his hands a paper, in his own handwritii g, to
the following effect :—" I have received a bill for 371. in
lieu of one for 36/..155., which I promise to give up on
payment of commission of 1/. 10s."
This was the case for the plaintiff:
Mr. THESIGER then addressed the Jury, and com-
mented in severe terms upon the conduct of the witness
Clark, and he called upon them, as the case rested en-
tirely on his evidence, not to place reliance upon it, and
saddle the defendant, who was an honourable and re-
spectable man, with a liability to which he was not at all
answerable.
Robert Wallis was then called in support of the plea
that the bill had been accepted for his accommodation,
but on his being examined he said that the bill in ques-
tion was given for a print that he sold to Mr. Watts,
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL—Then there is an end of
the case.
Mr. THESIGER—I am afraid so, ray Lord.
Verdict for the plaintiff, with interest for the time of
the bill being dishonoured.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL and a Special Jury.)

BOLTER ??. PACKMAN.
This was an action to try the question of a right of
way to some cottages at St. Alban's.
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Gurney were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Platt and Mr. Bramble for the defendant.
The trial occupied several hours, but the details were
destitute of interest.,

The Jury found for the plaintiff, with nominal,
damages, thus negativing the right demanded by the de—
fendant.
The commission will be opened on gonday atChams-
.
ford.