The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-09 00:00:00

LAW TIVTELLIGENCE.
VICE CHAACERY..'iIay, 8.
(Before the Vick. CHANCELLOR of
ENGLAND.)
ATTORNET-Ct.NERAL WLSON.
The arguments in this case, which have already oc-
cupied the Covert four days, were resumed to-day. The
case came before the Court upon an information relating
to the long-contested case with respect to Lady Hewley's
charity, which has been, as our readers are doubtless
aware, the source of so much difference between the
various bodies of Dissenters from the Church of Eng-
land. It will doubtless be remembered that in the case
of the Attorney-General v. Shore, the Unitarians laid
claim to the charity property, and their claims
having been set aside, the Baptists, the Inde-
tendents, and the Dissenting Presbyterians claimed
the property. The case will probably occupy
several days yet, but it may not be improper at
the present moment to state how the case now stands.
In the former proceedings in the cause, which was ulti-
mately decided in the House of Lords, the decisions were
unanimous against the claims of the Unitarians, who
had intruded into the charity; and that result led to an
Act of Parliament, which quieted the claims of parties
who should hereafter be, under similar circumstances,
of long possession notwithstanding a gradual departure
from the tenets of the founder. But the Act did not
touch the present case, which was pending at the
time when the Act was introduced. The Unitarians
being excluded from the charity, the question remained
entirely open as to which of the different classes of
what are sometimes called orthodox Dissenters were
admissible. The original relators were of the class of
Independents, and succeeded in driving out the
Unitarians. The effect of that decision was an order
to remove the Unitarian trustees, and a reference to the
Master to appoint new trustees. The parties who then
commenced the new war between themselves were the In-
dependents and the Scotch Kirk in England, and a branch
which separated from it in 1733, called the Secession Kirk.
These two latter parties attempted to show that the
foundresa was a Presbyterian on the model of the Scotch
Presbyterians, and not an Independent. All the parties
were allowed by an order of the present Lord Chancellor
to go before the Master on the reference. The Master
made his report in 1837, which was to the effect that out
of two classes of seven grand trustees and seven sub-
trustees
he appointed of each class two from the repre-
sentatives of the Kirk, two from the Secessionists, and
three from the Independents. In 1843 the case was
brought before this Court upon exceptions to the report.
But his Honour overruled the exceptions. The cause was
now brought to a hearing, and the same question which was
debated, on the exceptions was raised more formally.
The trust was created in the year 1707. The estates
were given by Lady Hewley, who was the widow of a
bencher of Gray's Inn and a Dissenter, "for the beneSt
of poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel,"
and for poor and godly widows of such poor and godly
preachers, and for promoting the preaching of Christ's
Holy Gospel in poor places, and for the education of
young men intended for the ministry, and that York and
the four northern counties should have the preference,
and a hospital was to be founded at York.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Chandless, who appeared as
counsel for the promoters (the Independents), con-
tended, in opening the case several days since, that the
members of the Scotch Kirk in England, or ministers
licensed in Scotland, and having chapels in England,
were not entitled. That Scotch Presbyterians were not
within the Acts of Uniformity nor the Toleration Act,
which referred to them; and that the Independents,
Baptists, and Presbyterians of Lady Hewley's time were
represented by the class now called Independents.
That the name of Presbyterians had grown into dis-
repute, on account of the profession by many of that
body of Socinian principles, and hence had almost
disappeared, and that of Independents now prevailed in
its stead. The persons: who now came forward
,as of
the Scotch or Secession Kirk in England were, in fact,
members of the Church of Scotland, which claimed and
exercised jurisdiction over them, and they, the mem-
bers of' a great national Church, would disclaim the
title
of Dissenters, and would separate themselves alto-
gether from the great body of English Dissenters, but
that it was supposed something was to be gained by, the
use of the name on this occasion.

Mr. Stuart, Mr. Bolt, and Mr. Bacon, on subsequent
days, followed on the behalf of parties who had a common
interest with the relators, and to-day
Mr. Swanston, with whom was Mr. James Parker and
Mr. Malins, opened the case of the defendants, the Dis-
senting Presbyterians.

The arguments of the Learned Counsel occupied the
Court the whole day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 8.

HILTON V. LORD GRANVILLE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
After hearing Counsel on both sides, the Court
reserved its decision.
The case will go to a Court of Error.

BAIL COURT, May S.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice ERIE.)
IN RE CHARLES NORVAL.

Mr. PARRY moved for a rule nisi, calling upon the
Judge of the County Court of Lambeth to show cause
why a writ of prohibition should not issue, to restrain
him from issuing his warrant in a case where Mr.
Norval was the defendant. By the 122 d section of the
County Court Act power was given to the judge to assist
landlords to recover possession of small tenements, where
the rent did not amount to 501., and where the tenant had
made default in payment of the rent. The section pro-
vided that " upon proof " of the non-payment the Judge
should be at liberty to issue his warrant to give the
landlord possession. Ia this case the defendant held
tinder. an agreement, but, nevertheless, the Judge of
the County Court decided against him. The Judge,
however, did not issue his warrant within a reasonable
time after the decision; and, on behalf of Mr. Norval, it
was contend,e that he ought now to be prohibited from
issuing it at all.
Mr. Justice ERLE said the application was premature.
The issuing of the warrant might now be illegal, and it
was not the practice of the Court to issue orders to re-
strain parties from committing illegal acts, until the ille-
gality had ' actually commenced. It would be time
enough to apply to the court, when the judge had issued
his warrant.
Rule refused.
WALKER AND OTHICRS V. DANVEY AND OTHERS.

Mr. PEARSON moved for a rule nisi, calling upon the
Judge of the County Court of Middlesex, to show cause
why a writ -of prohibition should not issue to restrai❑
the plaintiffs from-pmceeding further in the case. The
Court was 'aware' that the 58th section of the County
Courts Actlitovided that the judge of any of these
courts could not have jurisdiction in any case where the
title to corporeal or incorporeal property was involved.
Now in this case the defendant rented three houses in
Chelsea, which the late Mr. J. Sickery of tlte same place
left by his last will and testament to Mrs. Jane Feary,
and by the same will he bequeathed the same property
to the plaintiff in trust for Mrs. Jane Feary. Subse-
quently to the death of the testator the rents were paid
to Mrs. Feary, with the consent of the plaintiffs, but Mrs.
Feary had since died, and the plaintiffs demanded that
the rent should be paid to them. The executors of Mrs.
Peary also setup a claim under the will of Mr. Sickery,
and the result was that the matter was carried into the
County Court, and a decision was made to the effect
that the rent ought to be paid to the plaintiffs. The
Act, however, took the case out of the jurisdiction of
the County Court, and as the defendants might possibly
be called upon to pay the rent twice over, they wished to
have all further proceedings in the County Court
stopped, and the matter carried to a higher tribunal.
Rule nisi.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSIO 1
N-1-10U
RKIIIRKABLE CASE OP FORGE ISETivo young men,
named John Clarke and James,
inille.
they Bradbury, were
charged
custody of John
brought before the Lord Mayor,
with having
and Daniel Forrester, the officers,
uttered two forged cheques upon the tela
house of
td., and
banking house John Lubbock and Co., one for 434/. 16s
the other for 3711. is. 4d. The prisoners •
skilful management, caught with almost thewerwe'hoblye
amount of the proceeds of the cheques in their pos-
session.
Ms. Mullens, of the firm of Bush and Mullens, soli
citors to the Committee of Bankers for proteetion
against Forgeries and Frauds, attended for the prose-
cution.
The prisoner, having but just landed from the Con.
tinent, were not provided with legal assistance, but they
intimated that upon the next examination they would
produce materials of defence.
Mr. Mullens—l accuse the two prisoners of having
been concerned in both forgeries, which were uttered
under rather extraordinary circumstances. In then case
of the cheque for 4341. 16s. Bd., a person named Joph
Thornet was made the instrument by which the amount
was received at the banking-house. It appeared that on
the 22d of April it was presented by Thornet at the
counter, and paid to him, he having received it from a
person to whom he became known through the medium
of an advertisement. Thornet had previously advertised
in the Times newspaper for a situation, and on the fol-
lowing day inquiry was made for him by an individual
who afterwards bad several interviews with him, and who
told him it was for another person's service he was re-
quired. In the course of the communications which
ThornPet,htce, the person who was negotiating with
and who led that unsuspecting party to be•
heve that thee could be trusted
engagement was perfect, asked him whether
Thornet said t;;usted with a cheque to get cashed.
e should faithfully execute the order,
and the
as office inthenegotiator, who made it appear as if he had
street, handed a ae t
India Chambers, in chequeLeadenhall-
adfor 434/.
and Co. to Thornet,
monn 16s. Bd. upon Lubbock
gave to him at the same time a
bill case to put the
the banking-house, haeYehiend.
a strap
t hag Thornet, in the way to
to make a mistake in a
turn, and asked
er the right direction. The
prisoner, Clarke, et
that he was himself goint g
came up, and saying
Mansion House-street,
ewouinl the direction towards
place, and he accordingly did sod willingly point out the
sented, and at once paid in foul. The cheque was pre-
and upon Thornet's return into the notes and cash,
who asked him whether he had done his he
saw Clarke,
when he replied in the affirmative dr his business, and
net then took the money to the pegrazpeared. Thor.
ployed him, and who gave him half-an- who
had em.
trouble, and promised to write whe hiser n for his
should arrive in town. At Brussels, Ti
ciarkn
was
sure master
taken into
custody by the police, in company with Bradbury,
bank-notes which had been paid at Lubbock's, and the
for the
cheque were found upon both of them. With regPectt° the
forged cheque for 3711. 7s. 4d., the circumstances
were
similar. Timothy New bound advertised for the situation
of servant on the 18th of April, in the Times, and
dation
was
called upon by a person, who engaged with him for the
to
service of a gentleman, and made an appointment
meet him at the Custom-house. Upon Newbounu's ar-
rival at the Custom-house, he saw the gentleman who
made
the
appointment,
and who, after some eonversa-

tion, said he had a ship lying off, which he could not
get in till the unties were paid, and N. whennd
undertook to get a cfn-qii- cl-1-I,(i a: Lutio( ck's ti-
the purpose. Upon returning to the Custom-house,
Newbound paid three 1001. notes, a 50/. note, and 211.
7s. 4d. in cash, to the man who had thus employed him,
and who appointed to meet him at Hatchett's Hotel, in
Piccadilly, to confirm the engagement ; met him accord-
ingly, gave him ten shillings, and appointed to meet
him again, but did not ke, p his word in the last in-
stance. In the latter, as well as the former, the proceeds
of the forgery were found upon the two prisoners.
Mr. Mullens said, it could be proved that the plate
from which the cheques were struck off was a forgery,
as well as the signatures to the cheques.
Mr. Charles C. Lawrence, clerk to Sir W. Lubbock
and Co.'s banking-house, in Mansion-house-street, said
Messrs. T. and W. Hawes keep an account with us. On
Saturday, the 22d of April, the cheque produced for
3711. 7s. 4d., purporting to be drawn in their names was
presented at the counter, and I paid it in three 1001.
notes, dated 10th of January, 1848, and numbered seve-
rally 43,226, 45,307, and 36,137, a 501. note No. 4,253,
date 23d of December,-1842, of the Portsmouth Bank,
and cash 21/. 7s. 4d. From circumstances which have
since come to my knowledge, I believe the signature to
be decidedly a forgery.
Mr. Richard Mullens, of the firm of Bush and Mul-
lens, solicitors for the prosecution, said, I was present
at Brussels on Thursday last, the 4th instant, when the
prisoner Clarke was examined by the police magistrate
there. I heard him state that the bank note for 50/.
(No. 4,253) produced was found on his person in a
pocket in the inside of his flannel waistcoat, worn next
to his skin, at the time he was taken in custody by the
police in Brussels. I also was present on the same day
when James Henry Bradbury, the other honer,poe was
examined before the sama magistrate. I he
Bradbury state that two 100/. notes (Nos. 43,226 and
36,137, dates 10th January, 1848,) had been changed by
him at Brussels on Tuesday, the 25th of April. Brad-
bury selected these notes from several others_th•Hen
Blyriandg.
before him, and pointed to the writing,
bury, Brighton," written on the backs ink, aud he
stated that these notes and others were givento hibm on
Saturday, the 22d of April, on the quay at Dover, y,a
Mr. Bullock, of 114, Yardley-street, near the King
road, Chelsea.
Chelsea.
Mr. Mullens said he had no further evidence to pro-
duce upon the present occasion.
The LORD MOTOR--Do the prisoners wish to say
anything? Clarke—Not at present, my lord. It is my
intention to employ a solicitor.
Bradbury said—l also wish to employ a solicitor, but
do not wish to say anything now.
Remanded.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
stealingaced beforefrom
Mary Ann Sheard, Sophia Gamest, and Isabella Hyde
iatyh Pl
three notorious thieves,emfor ewr
charged
ereyesterwd
A.Nfirrs..ll Sarah inghamS; tb
enshott a purse, containing two sovereigns
and seven shillings, and the two latter charged, on
suspicion, with being concerned in stealing the same.
James Hall, footman in the service of Sir James Roe,
96, Piccadilly, said, on Saturday afternoon, about four
o'clock, he was at 238, Regent-street, a
pri-
soner Sheard standing outside the ind saw
shop.
p.W theitn es
go up
waotkcihnegd
in the
eands her to a lady who was
lo
shop-window, and put her hand into
the lady's pocket. The prisoner then looked round,
and seeing that witness was observint, her, ran away.
Witness then went up to the lady and asked her if she.
had lost anything ? The lady felt in her pocket, and
said that she had lost her purse. Witness then told the
lady what he had seem, and went in pursuit of the pri-
soner, whom he found near Maddox-street, with the
purse in her possession. He detained her till a consta-
ble arrived, when he gave her in charge.
Mrs. Sarah Sparshott identified the purse produced as
her property.
Andrews, 116 C, said he took the prisoner Sheard into
custody, and on their way to the station she said that the
other two prisoners were as much in it as she was, and
that Hyde had taken the purse and gave it to her. He
went in search of the other prisoners, and found them
concealed in the coal-cellar of a public-house in Maddox-
street. He then took them into custody.
The prisoners Gamett and Hyde denied all knowledge
of Sheard, and protested they had never seen her before.
Mr. BINGHAM said he should commit Sheard for trial,
but as there was no legal evidence against the other two,
he should give them one more chance- by discharging
them.

ArrEstrrzn SUICIDE.—Henry Dutton, a poor half-
starved sailor, residing at No. 35, St. Clement's-lane,
was charged before Mr. Bingham with having attempted
to commit suicide, by jumping into the Serpentine in
Hyde-park.
Godfrey, the deputy superintendent of the Royal
Humane Society, said, on Saturday, about one o'clock
in the afternoon, he saw the prisoner jump
from the bridge into the water. He imme-
diately rowed to the spot and dragged him
out in a state of great exhaustion, and
took him to the receiving-house and placed him in a
warm bath. NV hen he recovered himself he told witness
that he had a wife and four children, who, with himself,
were in great distress and starving. He also said that
he was tired of his life, and had resorted to the above
means to get rid of all his troubles.
Mr. BINGHAM in the most kind and feeling manner
addressed the prisoner on the enormity of the offence,
which he said was a most cowardly way r,of getting
rid of trouble, arid only resorted to by those who had
not the moral courage to bear up against difficulties and
misfortune. tie would now discharge him, providing he
(prisoner) would promise not to repeat the offence.
The prisoner's brother here came forward, and under-
took to take care the prisoner did not attempt the same
again.
Mr. BINGHAM then discharged him.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
GROUP XIV.

This Group re-assembled yesterday in Committee Room
No. 30; Mr. Eliot Yorke in the chair.
EXETER, YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER
BRA NCHES.

Mr. D. HILL opened the case for the promoters of
this Bill, which, after a very severe contest, was passed
by a Committee of the House of Commons last session,
but the struggle between the two contending parties, the
South-Western and the Great Western Companies,
was protracted till so late a period that there
was not time to carry it into the Lords.
The Bill was to authorise the construction of a line, on
the narrow gauge, from Salisbury through Yeovil to
Exeter, with branches t o Bridport and Shaftesbury. The
merits of the scheme were fully gone into last year, and
ultimately established to the satisfaction of the Com-
mittee; and it was, therefore, not intended to re-open
the general case. The opposition, he understo9d, was
to be directed against the subscription contracts. It was
contended by the opposing petitioners that the subscrip-
tion contract was invalid, but it would be proved beyond
all question that there was no ground for such an
allegation; and he was sure the Committee, in the end,
would have no difficulty in confirming the decision come
to last year. _ _ _

The COMMITTEE decided that they would not require
the promoters to substantiate their subscription con-
tracts, but throw the onus of proving their informality
upon the opposing petitioners.
Mr. KEATING then addressed the Committee on behalf
of the petitioners, contending that the subscription con-
tracts did not bear the names of bona fide subscribers.
The COMMITTEE did not think these objections in any
way detracted from the genuineness of the contracts,
and directed the Learned Counsel to confine his attention
to the objections he had to urge against individual sub-
scribers.

The petitioners not being prepared to go into these
objections,
The COMMITTEE consented to adjourn till Wednesday.

GENERAL COMMITTEE OF
ELECTIONS.

The members of the General Committee of Elections
met yesterday afternoon, and appointed the following mem-
bers to try the merits of the petition presented against
the return for Longford:—Lord Henry Bentinek, Mr.
E. C.. Slaney, Mr. William H. Pole Carew, Mr. Thomas
E. Eleadlam, with Mr. Bouverie for their chairman.
The Committee will be sworn to-day, and com-
mence its labours on Wednesday.