The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-30 00:00:00

" F JANUARY 30, 1847.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CRANCEERY, Jan. 29.
The Lord Chancellor sat at Westminster to-day and took
unopposed lunatic petitions and appeals.

MORRIS V. MORRIS.-JUDGMENT.

The LoaD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in
this case, which was argued yesterday upon an appeal mo-
tion from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England.
The suit was instituted for the purpose of perpetuating testi-
mony, and one oLject for which that perpetuation was sought
having been attained, an application was made to the Vice-
Chancellor of England to allow the publication of the depo-
sitions. Against that application,t,it was urged that it ought
not to be allowed, inasmuch as those depositions were to be
used in Ireland. The Vice-Chancellor of England ordered
the publication of the depositions, and from that decision the
parties appealed. His Lordship was clearly of opinion that
the course pursued in the Court below was correct, and or-
dered the judgment to be affirmed with costs.
His Lordship having disposed of the unopposed lunatic
petitions in his paper proceeded to hear the further argu-
ments on the part-heard appeal of Morrison v. Morrison,
which occupied the Court the whole morning.

ROLLS" COURT, Jan. 27.
WELLS V. DOL'iLAS.

This was a cause which turned upon the construction of a
will. It appeared that the testatrix (Mrs. Mary Leamar) be-
queathed her property to her sister during her lifetime, and
after her demise to go in trust for the use of her first cousins
(Mary Johnson, Swill Lovell, and Lucy Attey), to be paid
to them " separate and distinct from their husbands, and at
their decease to go to their children.
The arguments having been concluded,
His LORDSHIP delivered judgment. It was contended by
the words "separate and distinct from their husbands, ikc."
that a class of husbands had been created, and that the pro-
perty could not go to the children mentioned in the will,
until the decease of all these husbands. But the meaning
was clearly no other than if the adjective, " respective," had
been used. It was also contended that the pronoun " their"
could not correctly qualify the word " decease," unless it
meant cotemporauecus demise. The construction was cer-
tainly most careless, but he thought the meaning obvious,
and the same as the preceding period in question. On the
whole, therefore, there could be no reasonable doubt as to the
construction of the will.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MAGDALEN COLLEGE.
The further hearing of this cause, which has been before
the Court for some time, was postponed.

VICE- CHA NCERY COURT, Jan. 28.
( Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLANIII.)
His Honour the Vice• Chancellor of England took unop-
posed cause petitions, short causes, And cause petitions to-
day, none of which possessed any points calling for a parti-
cular report.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 29,
NORFOLK CIRCUIT.

The following commission days were appointed this morn-
ing by the Learned Judges, appointed to the Norfolk Circuit
during the Spring Assizes :
Buckinghamshire—Monday, March 8.
Bedfordshire—Saturday, March 13.
Huntingdonshire—Wednesday, March 17.
Cambridgeshire—Friday, March 19.
Suffolk—Wednesday, March 24.
Norfolk—Tuesday, March 30.
City of Norwich—Same day.
(Sittings in Banco. )
The Court was occupied nearly the whole of the day in
hearing motions for new trials, none of which, however, pre-
sented any case of interest to Es public.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 28.
FLOWER v. ROPER.
This case was tried last week in the Bail Court before
Mr. Justice Erle. It was an action brought by the plaintiff,
who is an attorney in Chancery-lane, to recover 135/. from
the defendant, who was a provisional committee-man of
the Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroud, and Southampton
Junction Railway, for professional services which
he had renders d to the company from October,
1845, to July, 1846. The jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff fur 17/. 18s. 6d., by the rec,anmendation of the Learned
Judge, who, however, considered it better that the verdict
should be entered for the defendant, with leave to the plain-
tiff to move to enter the verdict in his favour. The defend-
ant had pleaded never indebted, and that no signed
bill of costs had been delivered. The project was
registered on the 15th of October, and the plaintiff
was registered two days after as its solicitor ; but
the company was subsequently amalgamated with another
and their names were altered to the Liverpool, Gloucester,
Devizes, Salisbury. and Southampton Junction Railway Com-
pany. Oa the 17th Nov. the defendant signed an acknow-
ledgment to become a provisional committeeman, on which
day the defendant was at the board, at which the plaintiff
acted as solicitor. On the 13th Dec. it was contended that
another solicitor was appointed to act with the plaintiff, and
it also appeared that the managing committee was appointed
on that day, but their names did not appear.
Mr. WOUDSIVORTH now moved to have the verdict entered
for the plaintiff, and also for a rule to increase the verdict to
88/. 17s. Bd., that amount of professional labour by the plain-
tiff having been proved, commencing with the appointment
of the committee on the 13th of December, to the end ofJuly,
1846, when it was contended that the plaintiff ceased to be
the solicitor of the company. Mr. Justice Erle having consi-
dered that the committee was appointed on the 6th of Ja-
nuary, directed the jury accordingly. The Learned
Counsel then read an affidavit, showing,that obstructions had
been thrown in the way of the plaintiff's obtaining the
minute-book and other papers for the purpose of proving
his case.

The Court granted a rule on the affidavits, but deferred
their decision on the other points, they having intimated
that they could not increase the damages to the amount
sought.

SECONDAitiE.s' Coo ni; Jan. 27.
TIIE QUEEN V. LADY FRANC: S TWYSDEST.

This was an-inquiry to ascertain of what property the de-
fendant was possessed of within the bailiwick of the city of
London, under proceedings in outlawry, defendant having
been " waived" or outl :wed.

Evidence was adduced to show that defendant is entitled,
under a marriage settlement, to the interest of 13,649/. ls. 3d.
Three per Cent. Consols, but which was now paid over by
the trustees to the United Kingdom Life Assurance Com-
pany, who had advanced money to Lady Twysden, by way
of annuity. The July dividend was Odd over to the com-
pany, on the 3d of December. Defendant was also entitled
to a sum of money in the Three per Cents. Reduced, and an
interest in a mortgage for 6,000/.
Mr. CAREW, the solicitor to defendant said, that he should
be happy to assist in forwarding the inquiry, but as the legal
adviser of Lady Twysden, he felt great difficulty in answering
any questions.
Mr. J. K. SMITHIES, who appeared on behalf of the Crown,
said no questions would be asked as to any communications
between him and his client.

Mr. CARBW said that he received dividends in October last
on the 2,0001. or 3,0001, but did not know the exact amount.
Lady Twysden received interest during her life on the mort-
gage.
The Learned SECONDARY said it would be better to adjourn
the case fer more edecilic evidence. There could, however, be
no doubt as to the interest under the settlement.
The jury, under the direction of the Learned SECONDARY,
returned a verdict as to the interest on that sum, the other
matters standing open for further inquiry.
PARKINS AND ANOTHER V. NOON.
This was an action to recover the sum of 61. 12s. 710. for
goods. Plaintiffs are cutlers at Sheffield, and defendant is a
tradesman in the city. The amount was not disputed, the
only question being whether the term of credit had expired
under the custom of the trade, which was generally three
months credit and a three months bill, but it was not an ab-
solute custom to take a bill, and three months having ex-
pired.
The jury found for the plaintiff.

fortunately able to fenrl it of, otbPrwi,? migbf have killed
her, she being at the time in a very delicate state.
The prisoner was sentenced to a fine of Si., or one month's
imprisonment.

A young lady, who gave the name of Augustina Smith,
milliner, was brought into court in a ball dress, with a white
muslin petticoat wrapped about her head and shoulders.
According to the evidence of Police• constable Bullett,
190 C, she came out of Madame Tussaud's ball, in Dean-
street, that morninw, about four o'clock, and began screaming
so loud as to bring four pulicomen off their [Jews and a ser-
geant, who endeavoured unsuccessfully to quiet her. They
were obliged to take her to the station- house, where it seems
she several times attempted to commit suicide, and once
nearly succeeded.
The prisoner said that they kept some valuable articles of
dress in the bathroom, and put her out without them.
She was dismissed, with a lecure on the impropriety of
her conduct.

SOUTHWALK.
Yesterday Inspector Yates, who was on duty at the sta-
tion-house, and entered the charge on the police sheet
agiinst William Buy:field, the night porter at the Catherine
Wheel inn, on suspicion of stealing 3001. from one of the
guests,in his emdloyer's house, under the circumstances
detailed in our police report of the preceding thy, at
tended for the purpose of announcing the recovery of the
complainant's pocket-book and its contents. Ile inspector
was accompanied by Mr. Gunder, the landlord of the Cat he-
rine Wheel, and also by Barfield, the man charged with
the offence, who was admitted to bail on the previous day
until the next examination. The ins •ector stated that
while on duty that morning at the station he received a
message from the Phoenix Gas Works, on Bankside, and
on proceeding thither he had a❑ interview with Mr.
Munro, the manager of the wJrks, who irformed him that
a pocket-book containing 300/. had been found by one of
their men in the street, and handed over to him, and that it
was then in his possession. The pocket-book and its contents
were then exhibited to the inspector, who found in it a 1001.
and four 501. Bank of England notes, together with several
memoranda, and, on examining them, he at once saw that
it was the pocket-book and property belonging to the gentle.
man who had charged the night porter at the Catherine
Wheel with stealing it while taking off one of his boots in
that house.

Mr. Edwin, the chief dell, inquired under what circum-
stances the money had been found? The inspector said that
he was given to understand that a man named Wm. Cox,
foreman to the above gas works, left home on Wednesday
morning to proceed to Bankside, and that when he got about
the distance of fifty feet from the Catherine Wheel, he
kicked against something that was lying on the pavement,
at the same side of the way, close to a coffee-shop near
Adam's-place; that on picking it up he found it to be a
nocket-book, and on opening it and finding Bank notes to a
large amount inside, when he arrived at the gas works he
immediately communicated the circumstance of the finding
of the money to Mr. Munro, to whom he delivered up the
property, and in whose possession it would remain until the
next examination.

Mr. Gunder said, he considered a great injustice had been
committed by Mr. Skipper, the owner of the 300 L, in giving
the night-porter of' the Catherine Wheel into custody on so
serious a charge as that of stealing the money. He thought
that his servant would have good grounds for an action for
false imprisonment against the complainant, and that he (Mr.
Gunder) and his friends would take care and furnish the ac-
cused with the money requisite to commence the proceedings
to which he alluded.
Mr. Edwin remarked, that the present was not the period
to threaten an action, while the man might still be consi-
dered in custody, being liberated on bail, to answer at a
future examination the charge preferred against him. He
then proceeded to make the following inquiries of the in-
spector respecting the exact time at which the pocket-book
and its contents were found in the street, as above des,:ribed ;
from which it appeared that the accused was given into cus-
tody about a quarter before six o'clock on Wednesday morn-
ing, at the Catherine Wheel; that the policeman, with his
prisoner, accompanied by Mr. Skipper, his friend Mr. West,
and Mr. Gunder, the landlord of the inn, proceeded together
from that house at the time mentioned, and on their way to
the station-house, at the rear of this court, passed the very
spot where the pocket-book with the 3001. in it was picked
up by the man Cox at five minutes to six o'clock, being
about ten minutes after the above parties had passed on their
road to have the charge entered against the man accused of
the robbery. From the inspector's statement, it was evident the
pocket-book wits dropped after the parties left the Catherine
Wheel to go to the station-home; that Mr. Skipper, the
owner of the money, and his friend Mr. West, had not
passed the spot previously, fur the) drove up in a cab to the
gate of the Catherine Wheel yard, and on alighting imme-
diately went int* that house, showing that the former could
not by possibility have dropped his money in the place where
it was subsequently found.
Mr. Gunder said, the night porter was searched by a
policeman before they left the Catherine Wheel to proceed
to the station-house, and that, therefore, he could not have
been the person who had dropped the pocket-bo.,k in the
situation where it was af'erwards found. lie added that he
considered it incumbent to make some inquiries as to who
and what Mr. Skipper was, and where he and his friend had
been from the time of leaving the theatre until they arrived
at the Catherine Wheel, at a quarter before five o'clock in
the morning.
Mr. Edwin said, there was no doubt that Mr. Skipper
would have no objection in giving the desired mfortnation ;
he was not, however, as yet informed of the circumstance of
the finding of his money, but should be without loss of time,
in order that he might attend on the day of the next exa•
mination of the accused, when a searching inquiry would
be entered into relative to tha extraordinary circumstances
under which the pocket-book, containing the 3001., was
found.

WORSHIP-STREET.
James Easton, Richard Mullins, William Mattin, and
James Key, lads, belonging to the union workhouse of the
parish of Shoreditch, were charged with stealing a-quantity
of old iron, the property of the trustees of the parish of
Shoreditch, and Thomas Barton, an occasional pauper, was
also charged with aiding and abetting them in the execution
of their design.
Mr. Thomas, the master of the workhouse, said that from
information he had received, he set a watch upon the actions
of the first four prisoners,. who were inmates of the house,
and-subsequently they were perceived ono by one removing
from au outhouse pieces of iron; consisting of screws, &c.,
to another portion of the premises. As soon as had been
collected what was supposed sufficient for their bag, the
latter was filled, and ene of them got over the wall which
leads to the street, another of them got on the top thereof,
and to him was handed the, bag, which was immediately let
fall into the other lad's arms, but the weight of the bag
knocked him down. At this moment the prisoner Barton,
who was on the outside of the wall, gave a shrill whistle, to
intimate to the others that they were being watched. They
were all immediately taken into custody.
The first four prisoners said, each of them, that they had
not " grub " enough allowed them in the workhouse, and
they were going to sell the iron fe procure some.
Barton said he knew nothing whatever of the other pri-
soners. He had been relieved at the workhouse, but they
had put him to break stones, which he was unable to de, as
one side of him was paralysed.
The MAGISTRATX decided that the first four prisoners
should be sent to prison for embezzling the said property,
and that Barton should be discharged, and directed that the
officers should take him to a medical man, in order that it
might be seen what would be the most proper work for him
to do.