The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-15 00:00:00

The
.COUNCIL—(THIS DAY.)
to., Judicial Committee of the Privy C( until snt
13.uaY in the Council Chamber, Whitehall. The herds
,4_esent were Lord Brougham, the 11b,s:er of the Rolls,
't Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Jude of
the Admiralty Court, Sir E. Ryan. and Sir E. H. East.
CRAWFORD V. SPOONER.
MMee arguments in this al,peal, unich wa9 part-heard
ths last sitting of their Lordships on. Friday last,
eths
Soresumed and concluded. The case came before
tr Lordships upon an appeal from a judgment of the
thePrerne Court of Bombay, in an action in which
defe aPPellant was plaintiff and the respondent
diet Mara, in which the Court directed a ver-
4. to be entered for the defendant on the only
•e joined in the cause, and afterwards gave judg-
;e7t for the defendant. The only question in this ap-
wh.leh the
'whether a vessel called the General Wood, of
fourth
applicant is owner to the extent of eight sixty-
%as: Parts, was entitled to be registered, and to have
tt..eertificate of registry granted to her at Bombay, under
07,,Pr9visiuns of an Act passed by the Governor-General
in council, and entitled "An Act for prescrib
1011`' e rules to be observed, in order that vessel-, be
illeteg to ports within the territories under the govern
print of the East India Company, or belonging to native
priilea or their subjects, may become entitled to the
(10,ege of British ships under a proclamation of the
ernor-General in council, made in pursuance of the
07aand 4th Victoria, cap. 56." The respondent is the
eateeel., under that act, to register and grant certiti-
nr ato vessels at the port of Bombay. From the
4:lent of the Learned Counsel, it appeared that the
tl moral Wood was built at Damaun, a Portuguese set
to.. 1817
in India, for a Portuguese subject. From the
to.. 1817 to 1841 the ship was variously owned—at
fiZe Periods by Portuguese subjects, sailing unde the
kilinef that nation; at other periods by British subjects,jb
bk;s under the British flag; and at other periods y
414Z1 subjects, sailing under the flag of Denmark.ln
.Iskati, 1844, the vessel was sold to Sir Jamesetjeo
illit4--"°Y, Sons, and Co., British subjects, and mer-
tir is residing at Bombay, who afterwards sold eighti
1-fo
%at. unh parts or shares in the said ship to the appe -
tob;;;"eu and still being a British subject, resident at
tice—trY, who, on the 11th of September, 1844, gave no-
Itiste;tekreuf to the respondent, and required him to re-
certifi-„“r Ship at the port of Bombay, and to grant a
to d of such registry, which the respondent refused
134:, whereupon the appellant brought his action in the
this Court, but the Court found against him. Hence
►e
eal.
ROUGHAM, at the conclusion of the arguments,
below Judgment, reversing the decision of the Couit
' tuld giving judgment for the plaintiff.

,N_RANCERY—(THIS DAY.)
Innil-,r
,td Chancellor sat in the Old Hall, Lincoln's
rh°ol' appeal motions to-day. His Lordship was
e Part.h Whole morning with the further arguments
sieard appeal motion of Toulmin v. Copeland
Viet. -
(p,,,`,rIANCERY—(THIS DAY).
Tut —ore the VICE•CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. GAMBLE AND
kr. w NOTT.
resume asTER, at the sitting of the Court, was about
his arguments on the part of the defendants
en,:ase, which our readers will recollect came before.
yeti art Yesterday for the purpose of obtaining an in
hibt.°Tl to restrain the defendants from making use of
ltent they had obtained for making electric tee-
. Pit; tt' an the ground of its being an infringement of the
14111-. b" the plaintiffs, when he was interrupted byAble d
done
ks'aTRELL, who stated that that had been o
4alt r,•"° eXPected ; namely, an affidavit had beenfiled.
NCI:At by the defendants, which he submitted, ac
,110th„gto the practice of the Court, his Honour could
404-'ll:Lye. He wished, therefore, to know from his
teei,r,,`,, he under the circumstances, he would
or not.
teiaetbiea-CiLiaieELLon said he should certainly re-
at affidavit, because sometimes justice required
1%07e. '4174s should be made even during the hearing
kr t
,_°l44loe E,,TIiaLL observed, that such being his Honour'ste
to "40 case could not proceed, as there were sta
tiletiltinttiffhsat affidavit which called for an answer from
Ylea-CReiceELLon had no objection to
.the case
krtorlo°Yer,
Part he would, in order to facilitat.e
-40111(ets-` the ies chose, direct that the plamti
Mt; ling such action as they might be advised.
no
°llbise..ZEtorrzn on the part of the defendants, had
t 4) the adoption' of such a course ; that was all
biroallteti.
)traltr, who had just come into Court, and who
4r. Webster on behalf he defendants, sai
'es had felt all along that suchmust be the end of
easelideret. it was a purely legal question, and he con-
Zia dine Course that had been pursued. .yest.erday by
the _ing counsel, on behalf of the plaintiffs, in forcing
fort ,:motion, for the injunction was one of the mosthe
had
~er e,•et,eises of the power of counsel that
Niks.44lessed in that or any other Court. H. e should
The -1
consider it inexcusfable and most unjustifiable.
the °4l3' redeemingtellent and instructing part
speech of Mr. Webster, and
doable explanations explanations he had given with respect to so
tttera.-- 411 invention. His clients had been chargedd
L'''Y with fraud and falsehood, and the Couyt ha
clear a'„ uPied the whole d with a case which, it was
"ke -1 the beginning, must end as it had done, b 3
hitt sent to law.)3'rstuu.., with some warmth, observed that they
Ilese new proceed to some other portions of the bust-
teedel the Court, which he trusted would not be at-
theso „with such loud and uncalled-for declarations as
Tb that had been made that morning by Mr.
hSetuitrit-
?notion was then orderedh attiVaos7er'stinmild be
itclvi..ll? at liberty to brimy_usuc-
Ti? to try his legal "
seal .Court then proceeded to hear motions, the third
being continued.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
DAWES V. BETTS.
tt...Ulla bill as filed for the specific performance of an
reetnent made by Mr. James Betts, on the part of he
other, mr. Wm. Betts
' •
bury-
, the defendant. It appeared
?lat the plaintiff was proprietor of a house in High _
ace, Islington, which Mr. James Betts agreed to take
from •
him for the use of his brother, who was
the continent.
It
•,401 purchased defendant
then on
appeared further, that the
_a
in January, 1843, the interest of
iticelntleman named Salamons in the house in question,
together with the lease of a field and other ground at the
stel_itr, of the house, which he now alleged should be in,
was in the lease granted by the plaintiff to him.
C I,
as_ 'however, admitted in the answer that this field, & •
mg._ at that time let to different persons. Messrs. Robihn;
i; and Hype were the solicitors employed by t
of "ant, whom he had consulted as to the best method
therlilstaining a removal of the lease of the house. On
eq‘..Oth of
May, 1843, the solicitors of the plaintiff
.re-
sisjeci back a proposal from the defendant's solicitor
thep,ting the premises, with an agreement signed bj
ale,uefendant's brother on his behalf. The agreement
havi,ste the effect that Thomas Betts, the plaintiff.
jilPurehased the interest of Mr. Salamons in the house
41101ury-place, Islington, and the letter containing
haeci°effer of the plaintiff to give a renewal, having been
to ti,,e(l to the defendant, who had signified his consent
Sttr terms of the plaintiff's proposal through his bro.
The receipt of this letter was acknowledged, and
tier answer answer it was distinctly stated that the field, &c ,
deft not included in the agreement. It was denied b)
So in his answer, that Mr. James Betts was au.
to act for him in this case. Mr. James Betts,
18,,,r:T1y to this last communication, stated that
returnil .7"er was then on the Continent, but would
17411),;uortly; he returned in the latter part of De-
44obishi,- arid took the draft of this agreement to Messrs.
"Wet 1 and Hyam, so that it was evident he was
1843 e of this agreement. On the 29th of September,
!t4ol,,,,e.cletter was sent by the defendant,. requiring. to
le it he
ts 1 Was secure from the erection of any build-
-I_l4lB e3l to annoy him in the neighbourhood ofthea
letter th Highbury-place. Shortly afterwards
kaki was received from the defendant's solicitors
the
solue inquiries as to the field at the rear e_
should
have d expressing a wish that their client
thell .at, together with some other ground; whichtoin
liolietstieall,tlwffat he hrieepi as
lliewdthat he could not give the land
at time that
let to other persons.
ldeahave another field near the
land tint°,
ret the
urn en stated that he heard no more ee
6th of October, when Mhesieshrs.
bßaodbihneseoini
fleirased by the defendant
%draft of the lease w
ree times.
tt the l'isi-24011dant and his solicitorte no less than
plaintiff November, 1843,
that he had
at note was received
Nthillealri-ettng a denied Mot!..e.HrigYraor:s'msent from Mr. Betts,
e oe'er„laYed the
- proceedings. Defendant was all thit
followin the house in uestion. In the April
Wet Cg the house requiring some repairs, plaintiff
W 4,118 surveyor to inspect the premises, betweene
Piece, arid the defendant some altercation
dton„,
oil tit l3ut up to this period there was no de nisi
of h;_e, part of the efendant for the authority
the brother to act ford him, or of his being bound by
8o agreement that had been executed in his behalf.
tie/I%er, in seven months after he entered into posses-
pi4l,l°.the houses, he called on the solicitors for the
aftei,,",l%, and stated, for the first time, that Mr.
447 ,kietts had no authority to sign the agree;
• comp, out he did not even then state that he would not
~hiehY with the agreement, or sign the lease; the rent ,
plaint' had become due, was offered to Mr. Jenkins,
cot t'"Ls solicitor, provided that it should be considered
kite: Prejudice thel position of Mr. Betts, by being
Viith the a recogon on his part of a right to ant
aithand,
_e agreement. This was refused and defendant
his then solicitor called on Mr. Jenkins,
kittane lease was examined, and it was ad-
apt bY Mr. Robinson, that the defendant was
Itohl fotitled to the field at the rear of the house.
mr
bad tiseo then handed the plaintiff the amount of the
bef„Year's rent, which he stated was due by Mr. Betts.
pro;ladant Contended that this money was paid under
sen,et, which was denied by the plaintiff, and the pre-
' was filed.

1'411161 DISLIKE OF THE OFFERTORY. On
a-4Y laht, there was a collection
)evonport, in aid of the funds of some char;,..et-
-- .1115titution connected with the chapel, and on the
*atop the Rey. Samuel Rundle, the officiating minister,n.r
110—,tnelleed the reading of the offertory. No sodo
the
set had the reverend gentleman commence
attend than many of the officers of the regiment, who
1:11111114 that chapel, stood up and adjusted their arms.
the Ziklln their gloves, and giving a signal to the soldn re
heev-"6le Party began to march from the chapel. Thr.
33afteel tread of the soldiers ma tie the reverend gentiw-
keli v°ice perfectly inaudible. and it was not until rare
that
t e se
Wherearvi
arranged in rank and file outside the do:.rs
Port
~ce was able to be proceeded with.—Devon-
__9_ra
_,Nt.
as tor ‘‘ EATHER.—Fahrenheit's thermometer fell
4," as 16i, or 151 degrees below freezing poiut
-Ile Yesterday, is the j3lackfrisra-road.