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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 28.
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster to-
day, and took appeal motions.

HAVERFIELD V. PYMAL.

This case came before the Court upon appeal from the de-
cision of the Vice-Chancellor of England, ordering the pro-
duction of certain documents.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the argu-
ment, gave judgment discharging the order of the Court
below with costa.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Jan. 28.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took motions
to-day.

rEwsox V. PENSON.
Mr. BETHELL was proceeding to reply in this case, but at
the suggestion of
The COURT, the case was ordered to stand over till Mon-
day, in order to see if the parties could not come to some
arrangement.

THE HUNGERYORD MARKET COMPANY V. THE CHARING-

CROSS-BRIDGE COMPANY-INJ VNCTION.

Mr. Bethel', with whom was Mr. Gift'Ord, applied:in this
case, upon notice, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Hungerford
Market Company, for a special injunction to restrain the
defendants, the Charing-cross-bridge Company, from hinder-
ing the plaintiffs from enjoying one of the covenants of a
lease which had been granted by the Market Company to
the Bridge Company. From the statements of the Learned
Counsel, it appeared that at the time of obtaining the Act of
Parliament for the erection of the bridge, the Market Com-
pany granted a lease to the Bridge Company of part of the
market as an approach to the bridge. In that lease, there
was a proviso that steam-boat passengers from the market
should have free access across part of the bridge to a float
that was to be erected on the eastern side of the first turrett
of the bridge. That float bad now been erected, but the
Bridge Company had refused to allow passengers to cross the
bridge, unless some course was adopted by which it could be
clearly shown that the parties were passengers to the steam-
boats. The adoption of this course it was contended would
be highly prejudicial to the Market Company, inasmuch as it
would prevent parties going from the market to the steam-
boats, no less than two millions of passengers having gone
by steam-boats from the market during the last year by
means of the old float of barges, which the company hail
been called upon by the Lord Mayor, as Conservator
of the River Thames to remove. The Bridge
Company had put up a hoard across the passage
to the steps to the float, and refused altogether to perform
the covenant contained in the lease, of granting free access
to all steam-boat passengers from the market, across the
bridge, as far as the steps to the float. In this state
of things the Hungerford Market Company, having
done all in their power to arrange matters, but
finding .the Bridge Company inexorable, had no other
course to pursue than to apply to the Court and ask for its
injunction to restrain the defendants from pursuing the course
they were adopting, thereby giving to the plaintiffs, the
Hungerford Market Company, the benefit of the covenant in
the lease to which they were entitled, and to the public those
facilities for communication to the steam-boats which they
so much wanted. He therefore submitted that the course
pursued by the Bridge Company was altogether unjustifiable,
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 negotiations had as
mimed such . a character at one period, that he
vas sure, when he came to read them to the Court, his
Honour would be almost led to believe they were negotiating
between potentates, rather than between gentlemen forming
two important companies.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—You mean, I suppose, that the
negotiations are more like protocols than anything else.
Mr. BETHELL—Just so, Sir. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to read, at considerable length, the affidavits on
Jehalf of the application, detailing minutely the resolutions
that had been come to, and the negotiations that had taken
place.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR 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 Corn-
pany.—(A laugh.) The case of the defendants was founded,
as no doubt the Court had some slight notion, on the lease.
The VIcE-CHANcELLea--As to the negotiations, they all
go for nothing.
Mr. BOLT 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 filed by the
plaintiffs.
The VICE-CIIANaELLOR 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 it 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. BETHELL 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. ROLT 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 bound to distinguish every steam-
boat passenger, then his Learned Friend (Mr. Bolt) 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 for. 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.
If the Court wished the case to go to law, the plaintiffs would
take it there, but the injunction, 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. Bethell, on
behalf of the plaintiff, the further consideration of the case
was adjourned till Monday next, the last day of term.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
MUTLOW V. MUTLOW.

This was a motion on the part of the plaintiff, defendant's
creditors and trustees, in this suit, against a purchaser, for
the payment into Court of certain money. It appeared that
the real estate of the testator, consisting of two undivided
thirds in the property in question, together with the remain-
ing third had been directed to be sold, and one of the condi-
tions of the sale was, that the purchase money of a portion of
the property should be paid into Court.
Mr. Pigott appeared in support of the motion, and Mr. Lea
for the purchaser.
His Howoun considered that the petitioners were entitled
to seek their own banker, in which light he must regard the
officer of the Court, and, therefore, he was of opinion that the
money should be paid into Court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 28,
THE CORPORATION OF LONDON V. FLOCKTON AND OTHERS.
The defendant in this case and three other persons, named
Parsons, Knowell, and Manning, had pleaded guilkc- 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 ParrEsou, 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 and 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 he 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 collusive, 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
clone with that intention. It had been urged in their behalf that
the corporation had erected piers equallyobjectionable 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 could 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 bought 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 offence with severe punish-
ment, because they could not suffer persons wilfully and openly
to disobey the law, and to do that which they knew they had
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 Flockton 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. He advised them to
take care that they did not commit a like a offence.
The defendants, we understand, paid the fine.
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE GUARDIANS OF
PADDINGTON V. JOHN WATSON.
This case was tried here during the last term. The de-
fendant, who is a retired tradesman, was indicted for inde-
cently assaulting a girl, 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 :exposed himself in a
public place.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now prayed the judgment of
the Court upon the defendant.
Sir FREDERICK., THESIGER 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 offence
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 from 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 for any one standing on the
paths to have seen 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 r. 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
°4"194414 Lel4 that the act was a misdemeanour.