The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 3, 1847.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 2.
The Lord Chancell or took his seat on the bench
at half-past one, and was occupied for a considerable
time upon an appeal case, the details of which did
not, however, possess any matter of public interest.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 2.
(Continued from our Afuernoon Edition of yesterday.;
LICENSING PUBLIC-HOUSES.--THE JUSTICES OF ESSEX

Mr. HUMFREY, Q.C., applied to the Court, on be-
half of a publican in Essex, to issue a mandamus,
calling upon the justices of Essex, at quarter sessions
assembled, to show cause why they refused to grant
the person on whose behalf he applied a license. It
appeared that the justices had refused his application
and that he had carried an appeal to the quarter ses-
sions, the justices at which refused to entertain his
application on the grourtd that he did not, in the
terms of the Act George IV., c. 61, state that he
was aggrieved by the act of the justices. It ap-
peared, however, that he did state, though not in the
exact terms prescribed by the Act, that he had suf-
fered by their act.—Application acceded to.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 2.
Th;s being the first day of term, their Lordships,
after breakfasting with the Lord Chancellor, came
down in procession to Westminster Hall.
The Lord Chief Baron, Baron Parke, Baron Alder-
son, and Baron Rolfe, took their seats on the bench
about half-past one o'clock.
(Sittings in Banco.)
DROMIBLAW AND DROWN v. SAUL AND OTIIBRS.

In this case Mr. MARTIN moved for a rule :fsi to
enter a verdict for the plaintiff on tile several issues,
or to reduce the damages.
The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Wightman
at Liverpool, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff
for the sum of 4,6504

The declaration was an assumpsit, and stated the
following facts appeared that a Mr. Scarisbrook,
a gentleman of property in Lancashire, the owner of
a colliery, and plaintiffs alleged that, in the year 1842,
an agreement had been come to between them and
the plaintiffs, and a third party, one Thomas Oldham,
for a lease to them of this colliery. That contract was
alleged to be contained in certain letters put in evi-
dence at the time of the trial. By that argreement
the sum of cool. per annum was to be paid to Mr.
Scarisbrook. The parties entered into possession in
the year 1842, and erected a considerable quantity
of machinery, for the purpose of working the
colliery in question. The colliery was, how-
ever, worked only to a very small extent, and
no rent whatever was paid. On the 13th of
March, 1847, the plaintiffs and defendant entered
into an 'agreement for a free conveyance of the plain-
tiffs' undivided two-thirds interest in the property,
and after the agreement they went to the attorney of
Mr. Scarisbrook, at Wigan, and upon the recommen-
dation of the plaintiffs asked him to execute a lease
direct to them. The attorney stated that about 2,000/.
was already due for rent, and until that sum was
paid Mr. Scarisbrook could not execute the lease.
The defendant (upon this paid a sum of 7001., and
gave two acceptances of 7001. each for the balance,
upon which Mr. Scarisbrook executed the lease, taking
no notice of the former bargain.
Mr. MARTIN now contended that the case ought to
stand alone upon the letters which had passed between
the parties, and that the verdict ought, therefore, to be
entered for the defendants upon all the issues in which
the production of the letters was concerned.
The COURT suggested that, as several points of law
were connected with the case, it would be better to
make a special case of it.
To this course Mr. MARTIN assented, and stated
that he would speak to the other parties upon the
subject.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 2.
ROGERS AND ANOTHER V. NOWELL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The declaration alleged that the defendants put a
mark—V. R., a crown, and the name J. Rogers and
Sons—upon penkaive sof an inferior description ma-
nufactured by them, for the purpose of falsely repre-
senting them as those of the plaintiffs, and that they
were thereby hindered and deprived of disposing of a
large number of knives. The Learned Counsel then
submitted that it was shown at the trial, that,
instead of losing by the act of the defend-
ants, the plaintiffs business had greatly increased,
and that the penknives in question were not at all
inferior to those made by the plaintiffs. Then, with
regard to the summing up, the Learned Judge laid it
down as a general principle, and as the only principle
of law involved in the case, that no man had a right
to sell his own goods under the &lie repre-
sentation that they were the goods of an-
other, and that such other person had a right
of action against the party. Mr. Chambers then
stated that the mere false representation that the
goods belonged to another party would not sustain
an action, without an intention to defraud, and some
proof being given that damage had resulted there-
from.

The arguments of the Learned Counsel occupied
the Court the whole afternoon, at the conclusion of
which

The CIIIEF JUSTICE said it appeared to him that
there was no ground to justify the Court in granting
the rule. The action arose out of very ordinary cir-
cumstances, and he thought it would be a reproach to
our law if the verdict was not sustainable. The real
question was whether the law would protect a man
from having goods sold as made by him, when in
truth they were not made by him. He, therefore,
with regard to all the points urged, viz., the summing
up, the damages, and the arrest of judgment, was of
opinion that nothing had been sustained by the learned
counsel to entitle the court to grant the rule.
The other judges concurred in the above opinion.
Rule accordingly refused.

The court did not adjourn until a quarter past five
o'clock.

ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 2.
This being the first day of term, the sessions of the
ecclesiastical Courts were opened with the customary
solemnities.
Dr. Fetherston Stonestreet, of St. John's College,
Cambridge, was introduced in the usual form, and,
after taking the oaths, was admitted an advocate, by
virtue of a rescript from his Grace the Lord Arch-
bishop of Canterbury.
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED DY BROOKES
AGAINST CRESWELL.
This proceeding against the Rev.
HenryCresswell, car of Creech St. Michael,
was originally
vi a
Somerset, for certain excesses, in which the Court
held the articles to have been proved, and sentenced
Mr. Cress well to be suspended from office and bene-
fice for eighteen months, from the Bth of March,
1845, and until he should produce a certificate from
three beneficed clergymen that he had been of good
behaviour in the interval, and further condemned him
in the costs. The taxed costs amounted to 5811., and
a monition was, decreed for their payment; but though
attempts were made to serve it, they were unsuccess-
ful. In April, 1846, Mr. Brookes, the promoter of
the suit, died, and no step was afterwards taken to
enforce the payment of the costs. The term of the
suspension having expired in September last, and a
certificate of three clergymen being exhibited,
Dr. ADDAMS, on behalf of Mr. Cresswell, prayed
the Court to admit the certificate, and to decree the
suspension to be relaxed.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE, on the part of the admi-
nistratrix of the promoter, opposed the motion, on the
ground that, the costs not having been paid, the sen-
tence of the Court had not been complied with.
Sir H. JENNER FUST said, the first question was,
whether he should receive the certificate ; and as the
certificate was, in his opinion, sufficient, he was
bound to receive it. The next question was, whether
Mr. Cresswell had complied with the sentence of the
Court so far as to entitle him to a relaxation of the
suspension ? He had not paid the costs, but nothing
had been done since April, 1846, to enforce their
Payment. He was of opinion that Mr. Cresswell had
so far complied with the sentence as to be entitled to
a relaxation of the suspension, and to be restored to
the performance of his clerical functions. With re-
gard to the costs, he was still before the Court, and
was not released from the obligation of paying them,
though the monition taken out by the deceased pro-
moter could not be enforced.
. The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE, on behalf of the admi-
mstratrix of the promoter, moved for a monition
against Mr. Cresswell to show cause why the costs
should not be paid, which the Court granted.

KNIGHT AGAINST KNIGHT.
This was a suit for a divorce by reason of adultery
by Mr. William Knight against Martha Knight,
his wife.

After hearing Dr. TWISS, on the part of the wife,
in objection to the proof of the adultery, founded
mainly upon the evidence of the particeps
who, he contended, was not confirmed by uther wit-
nesses, or credible per se ;
On the motion of Dr. CURTEIS, for the husband,
Sir H. J. FUST, without entering into the details
of the case (which the Learned Judge said were
perfectly
disgusting), pronounced for the divorce.

- . -
GEILS AGAINST GEILS.
This case, a suit for restitution of conjugal rights
by Mr. John Edward Geils against Frances, his
met on her part by
wife, a plea of cruelty, adultery,
and another charge, was opened merely, the pleadings
and evidence being formally read. The argument
will commence next court day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 2.
Two Commissioners sat to-day, Messrs. Shepherd
and Goulburn. The former disposed of a long list of
insolvency cases, none of which possessed a feature.of
interest. Before the latter there was a diVidend
meeting in the matter of Alexander Rainy, who was
an auctioneer and estate agent in Itegont-stree.'
Nothing of interest sprang up at the. Meeting) but 1t I

was understood that a dividend (the first) of 2s. 6d. in
the pound will be declared in a few days.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 2.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN RH JOHN BROWN.

The insolvent, formerly a publican in Oxford-street,
appeared to-day for final hearing. The case had been
adjourned for the correction of some matters in the
schedule. On a former occasion the insolvent was
opposed by a creditor, who complained that he had
been " jockeyed" in a horse transaction ; but it ap-
pearing that the insolvent had been indicted at the
Old Bailey, with other parties, for the offence, of
which he had been convicted, and had undergone six
months' imprisonment,
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that the wrong
committed against the creditor had been expiated by
the punishment inflicted, and the insolvent was, there-
fore, now entitled to the benefit of the Act, and must
be discharged forthwith.

IN RE WILLIAM BLSWORTII.

This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Cooke. lie had
originally appeared on the 10th of August, on which
day also another insolvent, named Pennick, was
heard, and some striking coincidences being disco-
vered, induced the Court to adjourn both cases for
production of the detaining creditors. Pennick shortly
after obtained his discharge from the detaining cre-
ditor, but Elsworth still remains in custody.
To-day it was proposed, on behalf of the insolvent,
to put in an affidavit from his detaining creditor to
prove the existence of the debt; but
Mr. Coos objected that the order of the Court
was for the production of the detaining creditor,
which, not being done, the insolvent could not be
heard without making a special application.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER concurred in this view,
and ordered a further adjournment, that the insolvent
should comply with the order already made, or show
cause why he should be heard without producing the
party required.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Another of those scenes of disorder which have
been so frequently the subject of public observation
yesterday occurred in this court.
In order that the matter may be better understood
it is necessary to explain, that while the Common
Sergeant was sitting in the Grand Jury-room, which
had been formed into a third Court on Saturday, Mr.
Prendergast made an application with reference to a
case in which he was engaged. The jury were in de-
liberation at the time upon another case, and while
the Court were so engaged, Mr. Under-Sheriff
France called out " Silence," and upon this, Mr.
Prendergast, it appeared, became very angry, and
said that the Under-Sheriffs had no right to interfere,
and that they were merely doorkeepers, and had no
right to interrupt counsel.
Mr. PRENDERGAST now applied, with reference to
the same case, and complained that the trial had been
postponed without the sanction or knowledge of the
defendant, for whom he appeared, and who was
anxious to take his trial at the present session.
Mr. HIIDDLESTONE, who was instructed for the
prosecution, said that notice had been given to his
Learned Friend that application would be made to
postpone the trial.
Mr. PRENDERGAST denied that he had received any
such notice : and complained, that at the time of his
making the application to the Court, on Saturday, he
was interrupted by the Under- Sheriff in the perform-
ance of his duty.
The COMMON-SERGEANT said that he considered
himself quite justified in postponing the trial, and
the Learned Judges whom he had consulted con-
curred with him in that opinion.
Mr. Under-Sheriff FRANCE begged to explain the
course he had taken upon the occasion alluded to by
the Learned Counsel. It was a very small room,
and while the jury were engaged in deliberating upon
their verdict, Mr. Prendergast addressed the Court,
and the jury intimated that they were disturbed by
the proceeding, upon which he certainly requested
Mr. Prendergast to desist until the jury had delivered
their verdict, and he then insulted the Under-Sheriffs
by saying that they were only in the position of
doorkeepers and had no business to interfere.
Mr. PRENDERGAST admitted he did say so, and he
repeated it. They were merely a superior kind of
doorkeepers, and it was no part of their province to
interfere with the proceedings of the Court.
Mr. Malt here made some observation which was
not distinctly audible, to which
Mr. PRENDERGAST responded by a remark in which
the word " vagabond" was distinctly audible, as well
as sone observation about pulling a nose.
Mr. WIRE told the Learned Counsel that he was
protected by his position, and that he would not have
dared to make such an observation out of court.
The COMMON SERGEANT postponed the trial, and
this stopped further altercation.
John Gray, an old man, was indicted for a misde-
meanour in assaulting Mary Anne Lewis, with intent
to commit a felony, and he was also charged with a
common assault.
Mr. Parry conducted the prosecution.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix,
that her husband carried on the business of a music-
seller in Cheapside, and in September he was in diffi-
culties, and an execution was put in by the Sheriff,
and the defendant was left in possession. Her hus-
band was absent from home endeavouring to get up the
amount of the debt, and it appeared that the defendant
had taken advantage of this circumstance and bad
made most disgusting overtures to her, asking her to
kiss him, and upon one occasion he seized her by the
arm, and she was compelled to barricade herself in
her bed-room to prevent him from approaching her.
She communicated what had taken place to a female
relation, fearing to tell her husband, on account of
the position inilwhich he was already placed by his
pecuniary difficulties, and that it would increase his
excitement. In the presence of that relative the pri-
soner 'acted with similar violence, and during one
whole night he kept the two women on the watch,
and frightened them so by his proceedings that they
were afraid to go to bed,
The prosecutrix was cross-examined by the pri-
soner, who endeavoured to show that she had con-
sented to an improper intercourse with him in the
absence of her husband ; but she indignantly repelled
the insinuation, and asserted that there was not the
slightest foundation for it.
Mr. Lewis, the husband of the complainant, said
that, upon being informed of what bad occurred, he
asked the prisoner for an explanation, and he at first
said it was all stuff, but on being pressed he said that
his wife had conducted herself in an immoral manner,
and he made the statement in such offensive and dis-
gusting terms that the witness could not control his
feelings, and knocked him down. Mr. Lewis said
that he subsequently represented the prisoner's con-
duct to the sheriff's officer who had put him in pos-
session, and he immediately removed him from
,the
house.

Sorra° other witnesses were called, whose evidence
tended to confirm the statement made by the pro-

secutrix.

The prisoner, when called upon for his defence, de-
nied having committed the assault imputed to him,
and repeated his charge against the prosecutrix.
The COMMON SISRGEANT asked him if he had any
witnesses to call P

The prisoner said he had not. He expected to have
been provided with the assistance of a counsel and
attorney, but they had not attended. He added, that
Harker, the usher of the court, knew him very well,
and could speak to his previous character, and he
wished to eall him.

Harker was accordingly sworn, and he said he had
known the prisoner a great many years. He for-
merly had an extensive business as a livery-stable
keeper, and had become reduced in his circum-
stances, but he never heard anything against his
character.

The jury, after a short deliberation, found the pri-
soner Guilty of a common assault.
The COMMON SERGEANT sentenced him to be kept
to hard labour for three months.
The prisoner said he was a cripple, and could not
perform hard labour.
The COMMON SERGEANT-Oh, very well ; then the
sentence is three months' imprisonment without hard
labour.

William Wilson was indicted for a misdemeanour,
in having committed an Indecent assault upon Frances
Oxley.

When the case had nearly gone to the end of the
evidence, it was found that the grand jury had ignored
the bill, and that it was by mistake the prisoner had
been7put upon his trial.
The Commosi SERGEANT, upon being informed of
the fact, said that fortunately no harm had been
done, and the prisoner had suffered no injustice. He
then addressed the jury and informed them that the
bill against the prisoner had been ignored, and,
therefore, as it was by mistake that he had been put
upon his trial, they could proceed no further, and the
prisoner was ordered to be discharged.
In the course of the session the girl Mary Doyle,
who was convicted at the last session of deserting
her infant, and whose case created some public at-
tention on account of the treatment she appeared to
have experienced at the hands of the authorities of St.
Pancras parish, was brought up for judgment, and
sentenced to four days' imprisonment.
The business of the present session concluded about
six o'clock and the Court adjourned to the 23d inst.

GUY FAWKES AND LORD MAYOR'S DAY.--rester-
day the Lord Mayor issued a notice, prohibiting the
firing of guns, or fireworks of any description, on the
sth, being Guy Fawkes' day, or the ensuing Lord
Mayor's day, under the penalties of the Act of Parlia-
ment, which will bo rigidly enforced.
Oxroiw thvivErtsax.—The foil()wing notice
_been issued :—The Professor of Poetry will deliver his
Afattainal lecture, at the Clarendon, on Thursday next,
'44th instil at &WO o'clock,
• 4.