The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-03 00:00:00

Bowed four lectureships with the profits arising from
certain shares in the Oxford Canal Company, and by a
deed of covenant it was provided that after the
expiration of certain interests in the shares be-
longing to Mr. Wykebarti,, those shares shoull be
transferred to the corporatioh of Oxford for the
purposes of the endowment. iA gentleman named Ryder,
who had an interest in these shares, died in 1805. his
daughter and her husband, who had.succeeded to his
interest, died recently, and the present Earl of Har-
rowby, upon their deaths, having become the proper per-
son to make the transfer, it had been made by' him pur-
suant to the provision of the deed; but the clerk of the
canal company had refused to register it. An applica-
tion on the subject was then made to the Bail Court, and
there being some irregularity in the transfer Mr. Justice
Coleridge had advised that.the shares should be returned
to the Earl of Ilarrowby, and that he should again
transfer them to the corporation. 'This had accordingly
been done, but the clerk of the canal company having
again refused to register the transfer, on the ground that
the matter had been asleep so long that it required the
interference of the Court of Chancery, the present ap
lication had become necessary.
Lord DENMAN—What has been done with the divi-
dends?

Mr. Sergeant MANNING—They have been paid regu-
larly.—Rule granted.

BAIL COUR7; Nov. 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)
Mr. Justice Pattison took his seat on the Bench about
a quarter before two o'clock;when he disposed of several
motions of an ordinary and uninteresting character.

THE QUEEN V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. M. D. Hill moved for a rule to stow cause why
the rule obtained by the prosecutor in this case on the
11th of May should not be discharged—why the writ of
mandamus issued in pursuance thereof, dated the 12th of
June, should not be quashed—and why all further pro-•
ceedings thereon should not be stayed.
It appeared that a partnership existed between three
persons of the names of Browne, Ward, and Dunne.
They were the lessees of certain premises included in
a schedule of an Act of Parliament obtained by the
London and South-Western Railway Company, who
gave them the usual notice requiring possession of such
premises, The partners were at first desirous that the
question should be determined by arbitration, as was au-
thorised by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and
accordingly served a notice upon the railway company
to appoint an arbitrator without delay. Subsequently
the attorney to two of the partners, Messrs. Browne
and \Verde, served tke company with the usual notice
requiring them to cause the sheriff to issue his precept
for the summoning of a jury to determine the value of
the property in question. The company having omitted
to comply with this notice, submitted to the writ of man-
damus being made absolute from the b. lief that the at-
torney had been instructed by the whole of the partner-
ship. The writ accordingly issued, and the company
would be in contempt this day if they did not make a
return to it, or obtain the rule now sought for. The
facts stated in the affidavit upon which the present ap-
plieation was made, were to the effect that Mr. Dunne,
one of the partners, had been kept in perfect ignorance
of this transaction, and was not a party to the proceed-
ings taken by the other members of the firm; that he
kept a solicitor to transact his own special business; and
that he was always desirous that this matter should be
settled by arbitration. He therefore served a notice
upon the company that he was no consenting party to
any proceeding for the summoning of a jury, as was re-
quired of them by the former notice. Un ter these cir-
cumstances, the company were prevented from comply-
ing with the writ of mandamus, inasmuch as the jury
would have no power to entertain the question unless
each member of the firm was a consenting party, the
property in question being partnership property.
Application granted.

COURT' OF EXCHEQUER, A,
ov. 2.
Lord Chief Baron Pollock, Mr. Baron Park, Mr.
Baron Alderson, and Mr. Baron Rolfe toek their seats
upon the bench at quarter to two o'clock.

REEDY V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
This action, which was brought to recover compensa-
tion for loss of life occasioned by an accident on the
Leeds and Dewsbury line, was tried before Mr. Justice
Cresswell at the last Yorkshire assizes, and a verdict
found for the plaintiff:
Mr. KNOWLES, with the le.ve of the Learned Judge
who tried the case, moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be entered for the defendant, or why
a nonsuit should not be entered, on the ground that the
company were not the responsible parties for the injury
sustained by the accident.
The COURT granted a rule.

BOGSEY V. PURDAY.
This was an action for an alleged infringement of the
copyright of ten airs in La Sonnambula, which was tried
before the Lord Chief Baron at the last Middlesex Sit-
tings. The plaintiff was the assignee of the composer of
the airs, who was a foreigner. This Court decided lately
in a case of " Chappell v. Purdy," that a foreigner who
publishes a work abroad before he publishes it here can
have no copyright here. One of the airs in question
was published contemporaneously in London and Paris.
The other nine were published in Milan a few hours be-
fore they wore published here. The question then wav,
could the plaintiff maintain his action in respect of either?
The Lord Chief Baron ruled against the plaintiff at tho
trial.

The Court, thinking that the question, whether the
lapse of a few hours between the publication at Milan
and the publication in London brought the case strictly
within the principle of their recent decision, was one
worthy of consideration, granted a rule nisi.

ARCHES' COU1?7; Nov. 2.
(Before Sir H. JENNER FusT.)
This being the first day of term, the civilians and
proctors, with the Court, according to usual custom,
heard prayers before the opening of the Court.

SIMMONS V. SIMMONS.

This was an appeal from the Consistory Court.
Dr. Lushington, in the Easter Term, 1847, gave an
elaborate judgment, and decided that neither cruelty nor
adultery had been legally proved; that therefore the wife
must return to cohabit with her husband, and that each
party must pay their own costs.
The wife now appealed to this Court against the judg-
ment of the Consistory Court.
Dr. ADDAMS was heard at great length in favour of
the husband, contending that neither cruelty nor adultery
had been committed.

Dr. PHILLIMORE addressed the Court in reply, in be-
half of Mrs. Simmons. He contended on this, as on the
former occasion, that adultery had been proved against
the husband, and that the wife was, therefore, entitled to
the relief she sought for at the hands of the Court.
The case was adjourned to a future day. Dr. Say ford
remains to be heard.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
Yesterday Prince Christophe and his companion
Mara a-Seymour, were again brought up on the charge
of obtaining apartments and refreshments under false
pretences.
mihsos ruipi
friend
st.tdi
hooeanpan)
mbt, d
Seymour,
to Thetwo pmriosnonthesr'
with the wife and
George and Vulture, in George-yard, LornbArd-stt eat,
where
gthatelirtnee, e
hxuepnidraant:iiionaCiii
Christophe
nem' vts
aetsfho ear
hired commencedshort
ffn
Shet
egni nse
:et offence,
hkeudest
child of the first prisoner, ran up a bill in the coarse of
w filch induced him to present his bill for pay men and
aiannvf(oierr
Vulture
uaslthtio;
rnret 7ra.veW:
rtnlot)itthmreelaresmihvoe(dut:htehoel landlord nin4dia.li(o)errldda.offe:t l'lrttoulG
inquirieseringee
the money not being forthcoming, he gave both of them
in custody.
The case was adjourned to give an opportun'ty to
others who might have been victimised to come forward
n
in
b
tastnab
hiennai
eel
dSdtsti
tiopahpri
bhesd'reweEe:
nrTniaehttEgt.
about
their
mneltorr LAURIE,
tahAent
hedicauldiedall
eitelaciteesetanui.
risrihrtrkeyeaiemeekndhcsaed,
aihninadorf
remained
Christophe,
lthaleotaetfnphthsrteieteyirrreeetowhfwli were
ognirer
sroureoates nooeeen:trt yrh fashion.ietel 0
.1 I oappt
tyhahrh
ree.
cases ? Mr. Whitmarsh said that since the last exatni-
s
I
d
is
f
Mr. Henry Needham, of the Savtaerena,wdcoefaansn's4dt
oi Head,follow.owoulddd.
representedS nth
bci
net-:
funds,aKs idtni egrocnwia. came
pc
Hayti,
ot
hai,tehabenei
patll terhocaatctetedihni
sst
te o
Ilrgeeogacu:eingi
pay, but his statement turned out to be entirely false.
Sir PETER LAURIE asked:Mr. Whitmarsh what b ad
become of the wife of ;Henry Christophe? Mr. Widt-
marsh replied, that after he gave her husband into cus-
tody, she left his house, but that ho had seen her otrts:ide
the court.

Sir PETER LAURIE ordered her to be brought in,
upon which Henry Christophe pretended to be in great
trouble, and tried very hard to shed a few tears. On bis
wile (a good-looking black woman) entering the cot HI,
he at once addressed her in French, telling her site did
❑ot know the English language.
Sir PETER LAURIE (to the prisonrr)—Do you antler.
stand the English language?—Christophe (with r:eat
vehemence)—No, no! I do not.—(Great laughter).
Sir PETER LAURIE—Can the wife speak Engli sh?
Mr. 'Whitmarsh—They all can, as well as you or I, Sir
Peter.

Sir PETER LAURIE (to the male prisoner)—So, :you
want your wife not to speak the truth? Christoph e--
No, no.—(Laughter).
Sir I'ETER LAURlE—Before proceeding further, he
should like to know from the wife how long it was tyi nee
they put up at an hotel in Jermyn-street, at the W 4 St-
end ?—The wife, in very fair English, said they put up
at many hotels, but did not keep their names.
Sir PETER LAURIE—I dare say not. It would not be
convenient.

William
Tracey, from the Hotel of Strangem in
Sherrard-street, said the prisoner came to him on. tthe
2151 of October, and remained with him until the 2G th.
Christophe said ho had just come from the St. liw4 a.
tine's Docks, and that his luggage was on board t
he
ship, which could not then get in ; and also added a at
he was a prince, and had plenty of money in the bat .k,
the whole of which story turned out to be a fabrics Ai on.
The prisoner Seymour was often there with him.
Sir P. LAURIE—What bill did they run up at
.yc ur
place ? Witness—To the amount of 4/. 103. The ott ler
h
prisoner, Seymour, wanted to take apartments, but; he
was refused unless he paid daily. An offer was made to
send a porter for his luggage, but he made various e x-
cuses, and at last he and his wife and child were turn ed
out.

Sir P. LAURIE here asked another question of `the
wife, when the prisoner Christophe vehemently sai.l to
her in
sentence good English, " Hold your tongue—they will
u."
George Ransom, waiter at Gerard's Hall, deposed! ;to
the prisoner hiring the best bed and sitting-re 41Ins
in the house, and saying that his luggage was at ale