The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-31 00:00:00

EVENING

MONDAY

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 29.
MASON V. WAKEMAN.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which came before his Lordship upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England,
as to the construction that ought to be put on the 38th
of the orders of the Court, made in 1841, with respect
to the right of a defendant to answer to an immaterial
part of the bill, so as in point of fact to avoidanswering
at all. The case involved a rather important point with
respect to the practice of the Court, being one upon
which the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce and the
Vice-Chancellor Wigram had come to conflicting
opinions. The bill in this case was filed in May,
1845, and related to the right to certain freehold
and copyhold property, possession of which, together
with the title-deeds, was asked to be given up to the
plaintiff. The defendant answered the bill, but in it
stated that be might have declined answering at all,
and protected himself by demurrer. Exceptions
were taken to this answer for insufficiency, which the
Master allowed, as he did not think the Master was
by the orders intended to decide upon a general
demurrer. The Vice-Chancellor of England,
however, reversed the finding of the Master,
and from that decision the parties appealed, and upon
'that appeal the Lord Chancellor now gave judgment.
His Lordship thought that the exception that had
been taken to the Master's report ought to have been
overruled in the Court below`, and he must, therefore,
reverse that decree, but without costs, as conflicting
opinions had been given by different judges of the
court upon the point. He differed from the con-
struction put upon the order by the Vice-Chancellor
Wigram, and agreed with the conclusion come to by
the Vice -Chancellor Knight Bruce.

_
WHITE V. BRIGGS.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CnaricaLLoa. also gave judgment in
this case, varying, in some respects, the decision of
the Court below.

WARE V. ROWLAND -JUDGMENT.
The L oan CliaricELLoa also gave judgment in
this case, which came before the Court upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England.
The question in this case turned upon the construc-
tion of the will of a gentleman named Slater, of
Hampstead. That gentleman by his will, dated in
1806, two years before his death, gave to trustees so
much of his personalty, to be invested in the Five
per Cent. Annuities, as would bring a yearly income
of 6001., which he directed should be paid to his wife
for life, and after her death, to his dear daughter,
Anna Maria Slater, and after her death to be divided
among her children. But if she left no children, or if
they died under 24 years of age, then he bequeathed
two sums of 5001. each to his two giandchildren,
if they should be then alive ; " and all the
rest and residue of the trust moneys, with interest,
increase, and dividends, he gave and bequeathed
among his heirs-at-law, share and share alike." The
testator died in 1808, leaving at his death his wife
and one child, the daughter, surviving, who also sur-
vived the widow, and died in October, 1844. She
left two sons living, who were co-heirs of herself and
also of the testator. On the death of the testator a
sum of 20,0001. was invested, arid the interest regu-
larly paid during the life of the widow and daughter.
On the case coming on for bearing before the
Vice-Chancellor of England, the great question
was as to the construction to be put on the
word " heirs." For the heir-at-law it was con-
tended that the word must be understood strictly,
and that consequently the bequest was to the heirs at
law of the testator at the time of his death as desig-
nata3 personae. It was contended also, contra, that
the word heirs was understood to mean no more than
next of kin of the testator, the gift being of personalty.
Some, on the other hand, sought to interpret the gift
as to the next of kin of the testator, excluding the
daughter, while other claimants understood it to mean
the next of kin of the daughter. • There was also
difference of opinion as to the time referred to, whether
the proper period of construction was at the death of
the daughter or of the testator. The Vice-Chancellor
thought that the testator meant his heirs at law at
the time of his death as designatm porsome, otherwise
the will would be void for uncertainty, and
decreed accordingly, and from that decision the
parties appealed. His Lordship was of opinion the
decision of the Court below was correct, and dismissed
the appeal with costs.
CROCKETT V. CROCKETT.--JUDGMENT.
The LORD CRANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which came before the Court upon appeal from
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram. The
question in the case - arose upon the construction of
the will of a gentleman named Crockett, executed
at Macao, in March, 1831. By that will he di--
rected that all and every part of his proporty
should be at the disposal of his most true and
lawful wife, Cardline Crockett, for herself and her
children, in the event of any-unforeseen accident hap-
pening to himself. The testator died at Macao in
June, 1837, leaving Caroline Crockett, his widow,
and five children surviving ; and soon afterwards
atitototsi.raLlon or ine tez,tatoe6 estate, with the will
annexed, was granted- to the widow by the proper
authorities at Macao. In September, 1837, the
widow, who had been advised that, under the will,
she was absolutely entitled to the whole of the testa-
tor's property to her own use, executed a voluntary
deed, whereby, after directing -the sum of 15,0001.
to be remitted to -.this - country; she settled that
BM upon trust for herself :for life, if she should
so long remain unmarried, and after her death or
marriage upon trust for fire children of the testator.
One of the children afterwards died, and the bill
was filed by the four surviving children against the
widuw for an account of the testator's estate, and
praying a declaration that the children were entitled
under the will to the testator's property jointly with
the widow, and that the deed of September, 1837,
was not binding upon them. At the hearing of the
cause in 1841, the Court' made a declaration that the
children took an interest in possession in the
testator's property at his decease, under the
testator's will, and that the deed of Sep-
tember, 1837, was not binding upon them ; and
directed that the whole income of the testator's
residuary estate should be-paid to the mother during
the infancy of the children, or until further order, she
maintaining and educating them in a proper manner.
Upon the eldest of the children attaining his majority
he presented the present petition to the Court, for a
transfer of his portion of the fund, and upon the
hearing of the petition the question was, whether the
word "disposal" in the will conferred upon the widow
the power of distributing the capital of the fund
amongst the children, .or whether she was en
titled thereby only to the care and custody
of the income belonging to the children during
their minorities. The Vice-Chancellor Wigram
held that the widow and her children took a joint in-
terest in the residuary estate of the testator, and,
after directing the portion of the petitioner to be paid
to him, ordered that the direction which he had pre-
viously made should be continued as to the mother
and the infant children, .and from that judgment the
party appealed. His,Lordship, after going at con-
siderable length into the case, ordered the decision of
the Court below to be reverst;di and the costs to come
out of the fund in Court, the question being one
between a parent and her children ; and the object of
the suit being the proper distribution of their pro-
perty.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jun. 29.
(Sittings in Bane())
GRINILEY V. ACKROYD.
The defendant in this case was a railway contractor,
in the habit of employing a large number of hands,
whom it was his custom to pay in part by order for
goods upon various tradesmen, signed by the sub-
contractors in his service. The plaintiff sued out
228 summonses for the defendants to appear in the
County Court, each of which stated that the action was
upon a contract for goods sold. The amounts of the
several summonses ranged from ss. to 51., the ag4re-
gate amount being 3031. 19s. At the time of the
hearing before the Judge, the defendant made an ap-
plication for the adjournment of the hearing, in order
to afford time for obtaining a prohibition, which was
granted upon payment of the costs of the day, amount-
ing to 111. 10s. 6d. The clerk of the court de-
manded 171. as his fees for making the judge's order
of adjournment, which, however, he refused to pay, on
the ground that it was only one order and one act of
the Judge. The tickets given to the men were simi-
lar in character to the following :
" Middleton llill, July 14, 1847.
" Mr. Grirnley, let the bearer have goods to the
amount of three shillings. "
"CHADWICK AND EDWARDS.
The various summonses were issued in the County
Court at Worcester, in the Chepstow district.
Mr. MARTIN obtained a rule nisi for a prohibition
in this case.
Mr. WHITISHURST (with whom )
was Mr. Pigott)
now appeared to show cause against the rule. He
contended that a separate cause of action arose upon
each of the orders sent to the plaintiff, and in support
of his case, proceeded to cite several cases reported
iu the time of Charles IL
The LORD CHIEP BARON said, that without wish-
ing in the least to disparage the ability of the re-
porters of that time,- it had been said with respect to
the cases reported by them, that any proposition could
be proved by them. Ilis Lordship said, that looking
over the affidavits it appeared to him that this was a
gross abuse of an Act of Parliament, passed, as it was
supposed, for the purpose of affording relief and re-
moving causes of oppression.
Mr. MARTIN—The question was not only with
respect to the 228 summonses immediately concerned,
but there were 2,000 yet behind.
Mr. Baron PARKE—It was evident that the whole
of the goods supplied were supplied upon one order,
and was therefore only one contract.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Suppose the amount of
the summonses in each of these cases had not ex-
ceeded Is., could not the one plaint have been en-
Orecl for the whole of the 228 cases?

Mr. WHITEHERST apprehended it could. Suppose
a person should obtain a suit of clothes at a price of,
say 101., and give a promissory note for the same, and
subsequently obtain other goods, giving other pro-
missory notes for them, would not the plaintiff have a
distinct cause cf ac-ion upon each of the bills ?
Mr. Baron PARKE—If he had more than one of the
bills by him at the time the plaintiff could not bring
an action upon one of them only. He would be com-
pelled to unite them in one plaint, provided the
amount did not exceed 201.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—In that case it would be
clear that the plaintiff has that which he could include
in one action.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—The County Court Act
must be construed with reference to statutes passed
before that time of a similar nature; and in one of the
cases it was stated, "if there be several contracts
between A and B at several times for several sums,
each sum under 405., and they altogether amount to
a sum to entitle it to be heard in the superior court,
they shall there be put into suit and not into the County
Court."
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—If that were not so, see
what enormous consequences would .follow • every
tradesman would have a right to divide his Christmas
bills into a number of separate actions. It was really
bringing the law into contempt.
Mr. MARTIN (with whom was Mr. Hill) ap-
peared in support of the- rule. He contended
that the rule ought to be made absolute; it was
absurd to suppose that a number of goods of the same
kind, supplied day by day, could be sued for sepa-
rately. The sum of 3001. sued for in this action
might have been sued for in fifteen different sum-
monses of 201. each, even if the party had chosen to
carry his case into the County Court, whereas the
costs of the 228 summonses and service had actually
exceeded the. whole cost of a trial in the superior
courts; or the whole case might have been included
in one action in the superior court.
Mr. HILL felt convinced, upon the authority of the
cases quoted by the other side, that the prohibition
ought to lie, for the purpose of putting down a public
nuisance, such as this Bill would be if proceedings like
the present were allowed to be taken under it. There
was a provision in the Act against the splitting of
any amount, in order to bring it within the jurisdic-
tion of the court, unless the party should abandon the
balance over and above the amount for which the
summons should be issued._
The Court took time to consider in what mode
they would give their decision

ARCHES' COURT, Jan. 29.
(Before Sir 11. J. FusT.)
GEILS V. GEILS.

This case was called on again, and Dr. CURTEIS was
briefly heard in reply.
The Learned Judge (Sir H. J. Fuse.) said he must
take time to consider this case. Into its general
merits he would not at the present moment go, and
the judgment must be reserved. There were some
circumstances upon which the Court now felt itself
imperatively bound to make some observations. He
alluded to allegations of corruption and partiality
being made against himself, and that in his decision
of the case such motives would guide him. He re-
pelled with indignation such assertions. The conduct
of the Court was before the public, and by its decision
he was ready to abide. It was in this, as it had been
in other instances, that one of the advocates appeared
to make each important case he took up his
own. The Learned Judge said he trusted upon
the test, as to his want of impartiality, to the
judgments he had pronounced while he had sat in that
chair. How many had been reversed ? By that
test he had no objection to he tried. The public
would then have to judge for itself, but if parties
were to make up their minds by hearing only cne
side, that was not the way in which he would be
judged. In every case both sides should be beard
before conclusions were drawn against the partiality
of the Court. After thirty-six hours of argument in
this case by one counsel, he did not stop to hear the
other side, but talked of partiality on the part of the
Court. So much for the charges brought against him-
self. As yet the whole case had to be taken into
consideration. The Court must now express its
opinion as to the mode in which the case had been
argued. When the Court heard such terms made
use of by the learned civilian (Dr. Addams) as slan-
derer, thief, liars, blackguards, envenomed fiends,
addressed to parties in the cause, it was time to
interfere. The Learned Counsel had only regretted
that the English language did not give more epi-
thets to convey his sense of the conduct of those
opposed to him. These words could not raise the
character of the bar or the houour and reputation of
the practitioners. Quite a contrary effect must be
produced when such conduct went out before the
world. The Court, therefore, held it to be its duty
to reprehend such a course. There was an allusion
made, that if the Court should decide adversely to the
lady, the bar of public opinion would be appealed to.
This the Court considered an attempt to deter it in
the exercise of a frpn jnriernpnt Th• oases was ,till
antler the consideration of the Court. The calumny,
as applied to the Court, it repelled. The Learned
Judge then referred to the conduct pursued by the
Learned Counsel in himself drawing the interrogato-
ries and seeing witnesses. This the Court held to be
entirely unprofessional. The proctor was the dominus
litis—he was the responsible party before the Court
in the conduct of a cause—he was entitled to have a
voice in the drawing up or correction of a plan, or of
interrogations. The Proctor was not to be made
a mere puppet, or to be treated as mere moonshine.
This course held up an opinion that he was un-
worthy of the confidence of his client. The Court
could not lay down any general rule upon such a
course of proceeding. If the proctor permitted him-
self to be made a mere puppet, he must submit to the
consequences. The Court would now say a word or
two about the patronage it held, and its improper use
of it wai made a reason why the practice should be
reformed or the court entirely abolished. It was
now forty five years since he (Sir H. J. Fust) was
admmitted to the bar, and including the thirteen years
he had sat as judge, the only patronage he had had
was the appointment to the Apparitorship of the
Court of Peculiars, and the Seal-keeper of the Prero-
gative. To his clerk, who had been with him years
before he was elevated to the bench, he gave the
former for his zeal and attention. The other office
was held by the same respectable person who held
then as he did still. The emoluments of the former
were about 501. a year; those of the Prerogative
Court were considerable. The Court had not inter-
fered, either directly or indirectly, in the appointment
of the Queen's Proctor, though asked to do so by the
late Government. There were five candidates, and
-his reply to the question for recommendation was,
that all were fit parties. The Court had thought it
right to state this much, so that the public mind
should be disabused of the statement put forth that
his patronage had been distributed among his own
relations. Leaving out of mind all that had occurred
uf an objectionable nature, the Court would consider
the whole case, and give, it hoped, an unbiassed
judgment.—Sentence deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
On Saturday two men named John Strong and
William Anderson were brought before Sir W.
Rlagnay, charged by John Jordan, a butcher in Ca-
therine-street, Lambeth, with having by a fraudulent
device in gaming won of him 61.
Jordan stated that he went into a public-house,
kept by a Mr. M'llonald, in Farringdon• street, and
tossed with a stranger as to who should pay for some
liquor. The other man won several throws of the
penny, and they left off. -Witness wished to play
with him again, but he declined, and Strong chal-
lenged him. He accepted the challenge, and some-
times won and sometimeslost.lle observed Strong threw
with a particular penny, and he wanted to look at it,
but he refused, and Anderson gave him some coppers to
put it amongst them. Witness went on playing till he
had lost all his money, about 61. 10s., and, believing
that he had been cheated by means of a false coin, he
gave the prisoners into custody. The penny was found
on strong, and there was a mark round the rim, where
a cap bearing the head of George 111. fitted on to
the side exhibiting Britannia. When the cap was on
the penny had two heads, and when it was placed '
under the hand on the table, with the cap uppermost,
and an' opponent called out "head," the cap was
raised in the palm of _the hand by some adhesive sub-
stance, and Britannia appeared uppermost. If an
opponent called "tail," the cap was allowed to remain
on, and exhibited a head, so that the possessor of the
fortunate penny was sure to win whenever he pleased.
Sir W. MAGNAY asked if the cap was found ?
The officer said it was not. Strong had 3/. and
some coppers about him. There was a third man in
company, who it was supposed carried off the cap.
Strong said he played fair, and that the complianant
lost a part of his money in tossing with others. He
lost 21. to the first man he played with, and he owed
prisoner ss. He hail not seen the cap.
Sir W. MaGNay said the evidence would net satisfy
a jury, and he should therefore dismiss the case; but
the house in which this affair occurred should be re-
ported to the Police Commissioners and the Alderman
of the ward.
MAIRLBOROOOH-STRET:T.
The Magistrates of this court are taking vigorous
measures to put a stop to the infamous system of im-
porting into this country droves of children to beg
about the streets of London and the.provincial towns
for the benefit of the persons who bring them over.
In all cases where a foreign beggar boy is brought
before Mr. Ilardwick, directions are given for coin-
polling the appearance of the " padrone" before. the
Court to answer the charge of having procured and
encouraged the accused to beg and gather alms. It
is expected that this course will not only thin the
number of Italian beggar children at present in this
country, but will tend to stop the preparations for
a wholesale importation this spring, which are being
made.