The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-12 00:00:00

4r; •
.:41,
\''bi 41 444 'l-1

CR

oTtACER-....CTHIS DAY.)
srow
xteisLord CN
han V.
cellor took appeal motions to-day.
v• Es, Ronsmart v. ABBEY, AND THOMAS
but
htellej..4°l4 Chancellor, on takinga his seat, stated that
heist attw-,a not had time to look into the papers, they
aeu over for a day or two.
'Ns a Toutzurt V. couPLAND.
Was, ord appeal motion, u
vepon the applioation of counsel,
ered to stand
or.
In
,this eas TIIL TROUTBECK CASE.
)%as wade e, ears eaders will recollect, an application..to
inquire i ' °a t rst day of term, for a commission d
to the.erlit° the allegation of a petition of right prersentet.
.},i.eek, of Maras
t 7 the representatives of the late W. frou _
"Pon that --4ragl claiming a sum of upwards of 400,000/.
refused ea I.'lsldication being made, the Lord Chancellorils
served.
~.stnterfere unless the Attorney-General
etend pp fed, officer of the Crown had now been served,
,slau th Land this morning,after some short di
vlllll-'4lleier'iurOrede-r tehawelitshoerd d t stand over till Nonday
se
he
would take.rtoerneya -General might consider
This appeal I,lEvvnta.x V. RING.
111(1,ti°I1 WaS dismissed with costs.
The Pr
:Ir t. alen„ -eooTtt V CRESSWELL.
t- 'Rglatici•metta ill this ap• peal from theVice-Chancellor
-4)llling. beeaPied the- Court the remainder of the
T,,, -,•
~...,naneellar
to -e 4.40 rd 1-',IIIE PRICKING FOR SHERIFFS.
, stteqd
eae 'e Prick' rose shortly after two o'clo_ck,
quer, leg for sheriffs in the Court of Ex-
lia;:ta
Afterl'' COLM. 1---,----7---rftllS DAY')'
disposin , . .—(
whi,„l, -:.:g of the motions, the cause of
le eotQtnene
,ERRY G. MEA.DOWCROFT, •
to r. tai..tx, ed yesterday, was resumed.
11._4(1 that thelO proceeded with his statement. It was
f„-" fooodt,...rnarriage had been solemnised, and it was
trther f 44t that
marriage had been nullified. It was
Ntte,.er °anti tha lathe said William Meadowcroft, the
!'uri that
centered a marriage with Harriet Davis,
Illtereen Ille died n the feuds--,
re--rted With °Eli llth of March, 1830, when he
ti• zabeth Hammond, now the de-
•is--d k izabeth Meadowcroft. It was further
Issoe kl, the
To ek. Whatever o
Master that there had been no
Imiei,is report
~ resulting from . this last
et& 4 objeetio' :dlr. Meadoweroft, alias Gregory,moab.jected, le •;.!I°l* that 'la were overruled, and having obtained
.an
e 11 the 2..._, PurPose on the 20th of February,. 184°,
gaioas , du. of the following month, filed certain ex-
ofete're that report These exceptions set forth that
had reeei„
tl. seer-ai ed as evidence against the except-
'4o4(ionn decree of the Consistory Court of the Bishop
eaneeti . , dated the 12th ti y f July, 1816, pro-
kid th In 4 Stlit el, a- ' Gre ory "
linea, at the 14_, ran ed ' Meadowcrott v. g !
ladc4aehd:3`er, ht.td found that there was no male
repo tot William Meadoweroft, the younger.
tie report of j •
iti aides that e I
R Y,1846, it was further set forth by !he
h NI .811 h was an erroneous finding, he standing
elit ation to will M d
gee allied Counsel ? MA ea owcreft the. younger.
t.,... as to i.., use' ei.ted the opinion of Chief Justice
fije,rsal of 4i,tlignients
- In the Ecclesiastical Court, the
rq r ite.c hr , •t_
show •.`P'atihurst -. :al, ceuOr Knight Bruce's decree by
hot e 'nut the WIC
-Case of "Barnes v. Jackson," to
like onsid,-.,-e-e.rees f the Ecclesiastical Court were.
seoe:.°ll'asiert4 heading in civil courts when anything
etr 4ti yr() °I. fraud, or in the words of the Court,
pandolog3,
of non sententim per collusione. From the
Litlvort o, Reath° Words, covenant and collusion (con
as much r and ludo), it was evident their
.im-
bueh°r4 Coke by e 'lame, which opinion was entertained
he moss of aciet,,Lord Tenterden in the ca3e of the
teid'wer°siltiAl d,%f-,-3 84e- Now, from these authorities
atuzling b....oodthi
or suit
h 'it e---non. as a secret agreement, or
Ihe.pro'll7o-tfreb,Y irle;tlrtWe or more parties in an action
rreudie,, .1' or Plaintiff are so conducted that
tilkiow ~u7h7sr petriteen't
at an
allowedbet tourstyu.cceed to the
He would
the" eUrttordi)nrdahil4
case. Mt 4 4 Were
‘4.l)eaternsever'al pets °n the decree was made
,7111i,„,41Y said el:Lai-4,4'1,0ns
Liverpool, who
residing at ..
hat 1;4 Mr•a(lowerof., 'l_3' had heard the father of
tit, e would -:
--•' tue younger frequently state
he 'aka b not interfere with the suit that had been
t'v 3" ills brothki,, eell h,_er the testator, to effect a divorce
40 1%13-4 Son, tv-,,.
Ore - Iniam Meadowcroft the younger,
14:1 he ha,PrY, the widow of an officer to
NtoNe tiod,4, ". been married. Mrs. Gregory was
ellt to „_ marital influence, and induced to
ttei. het to
,s`tte decree for the nullity of the mar-
qteltiit hAtiroceeded with, notwithstanding the injury
l,lle ki,hrY r 04,„ 0•11 herself and her child. Mrs. Mary
04Certy C eertain statements which he would tke
I°lttl Littlcl ‘y,° Mention. They were dated Julyllth,
erqt".4ed ~P 3 to the effect that in the lettemrseawdhoiwch.
tuillit'l4B v,:tte stated that her husband, Mr.
'eliohr3r•e ir"inger, was in the office of the testator, and
too, -.llseas enceinte which she represented to
she atiellttel td I.iitleP, 'her ae-ents and stated that i
_f
ea_
tlhttclit, ke Proceedings then
and
Chet flltle beP. hUsband, promised to re-marry her,
pending Mr. M
l)tir atiler leved that the nominal promoter of the suit,
see 13' to it F Ilr m d
1 iaci wha, ea owcro t,
pro-
f the younger,, was no
Nat ' and 'ever, but that it was originated; c e
aqta et, 1 the expense of it defrayed by 13
Nllhelleic'hilefeat:Vea,,s j)erf.eCtly.evient, therefore, that there
I3' the v!. this suit. This statement was con-
of:;°r t'eraer,:?..dence, of John Webs.ter, Jordan,
Iden. . The -'? "a, Field and his wife, Wanmd 'Pott, the
Iv `'e la d "'earned Counsel then went through the
tr •ke etail, f
h'lsd,s.'t wit etlow , rota which it appeared that the father
e mesa weft, the Younger, had repeated to the
it? l':tittlii tetee!bater) the statements he had already
aolltilepCi,,, the t'oiseteato his son, Mrs. Mary Gregory, 11111
in tae was eet 1.,,r1°r- The evidence of Wm. Jordan,
waspthe 11,34° th, 3' Gregory, who was his maternal
cri ae w• %Tett that he had been living
ger, I,th h.
Iv tlding. tl,illiq tlisi aunt and W. Meadowcloft,
tlay' r411,1(1 fiat t".l.,4tsth v.l, Bait to nullify the marriage
1e,,, uetw elt„ "e*tiade' hwere living together as man and
his oivereef;'" the .„.• Mare
several conversations take
Dry:nele, ae", uisereVtles respecting the suit,_ which
P4eeditts 40that h'e
._Was instituted enstuirueul
yas the
4/41 th retaajni Rid ter,J.. Rid marry her as
pi-HS DA-V.)
dell _ e tear lag ~,,iti-_-i_eaate.
0 uRT.—( - --
‘114: of kr. 11,e,4 Cetto'sne,e was entirely corrobtereateivvie:. BAIL C- -
moTTRAM.
THE QUEEN
Sort'' .dated „cett, the et dwelt at length upan h
writ of
hey am _ the 22,i
__„
__proctor, who stated in his affi- HAWK INS applied for a
,
i• Dlr. Mottram,-now lyingd for
Gre- M. r•this Court the case o. a
manslaughter, an. _
iii,el'ed fr,steade similar usecember, 1844, that Mrs.dtat he up into
sel
up
on a charge of
admitted
should not be
yap bLklie'r het,
manner tatenaents to him, an
in Derby g
cause why he
eat y. Sall; CoartatTniaer that her story was correct..
a lute to show U.
certiorari to bring
copttai 41111 set havin t d the case of Sulk-
s,. -tied , , and se_ g quo e
to bail.
:
the
._etoeeti by sad leper
cases to show theo view
Thefacts of the case were these
a severe cold
what
fo tni ht before his death, caughte
II gradually be-
ilo„tuiatlie,
voelliellosion`%dent.dt authoritieslded as
aboduet
this part of
called in in fortnight
regular surgeons.tnight the defendant
Thoel(l4l.4eterh excites considerebolne interest from its
camean worse, and at the end ofl a
oitrt , and the
__. a e
evidence against him w
The deceased,
' • volved.
VI seatre threunt:lcate legal points in
went up to see him. The olutaty3
white stuff in a cup,
The andde-
etc,e o clock. -
that he was seen to mix
trlliCfc'r IIetNCII, I' --(THIS DAY.) itdeairt3tow.
the
a sort of quack, and he administered sPI
oti„li ot,,e, t1:1- .10E..0..._ . ..
the deceased. On
BA, "Ss t uur ti„,. ~--.4Nerzr.ou of ENGLAND.) he deceased, who afterwards died.
. ..
ritual, as well as bodily, consolatiounudo
a charge of admi-
'rtitas-tlay. -v v loe-Chancellor of England took ,_
tnese grounds, they sought to fo
• -..ap,
nistering drugs to cause death. . •
1, 'tlli,Nll3,-, -4-lit AND
'Alf -' ca,_ s•Cli, Roy OTRERS.--TIIE GLASGOW AND
Mr. Justice PATTESON-
4„,Orth" canle
..k
, L be COMPANY.
and a rule to show cause why the defendant should not
h",ilot ° ph; afore th C
on be-
to bail in the country.
--, I. -,a ii, ---etiff, fo . e Court upon motion,
him ' .--te director rbe admitted You may have a certiorari
CONTRACTS BETWEEN MASTER
an injunction to restrain
.the de-eain p a of the Glastrow and Liverpool THE QUEEN V. LORDA.N; CSOENRTVRAANCT.
~Itt'tti Cam hi - acket Com a '''' from removing
Iti Ntlet 1.8 (4•Ce of P nY'r.' shareholder HUDDLESTONE moved for a writ of certiorari to
4th verPe le cir the affailfirra'ing C
defendant,in order that he might be
4ti,,e Vail° • It of the ompany remMor; a conviction into this Court for a habeas. corpus
to bring up the.
of 41, ell davit _ . anpeered from the statements
, ,t 4
at
ill
theot the
Plaintiff, in support of the spelt- admitted
been ob-
dmitted to bail until the argument
.up.cm
hadthe certiorari
h d been heard. In this case a conviction sty PY in
Year tan a
Nol re- rtke gentleman of the name
rested his appli-
tit, lion' gias ed the notion of running iron-steam tame
had
under the Masters and Servants' A 4th Geo.
chap. 34. He (Mr. Huddlestone)
tt hilh4 %14, that i.tr),./v and the ports of the Clyde to Liver-
oints
cation on two very important
1111°,p.iit 'lie® further ports of his project communica-
rei,,,a the'ker ~,,i bet
hito and the plaintiff, who was,
was compelled to enter uypoenowith the master ;
The first was the validityo t and
substantialntractwhic% thC
tilNere. llndersteneral agent at Liverpool, and that
and, second, whether these. contracts were binding upon
aeritrtpoeie,kt ot.
tilting
affairs
that he was to have thet
rat
instance had been drawn
infants. The conn
mtrascsteumatuhdis2ns
.lamesa Lord ; that the said
tiell i" to ttlile Plaintiff undertookof thteo Companyutii su h . workman
up betweendJ h
e„ oli,„ . e u..., .
serve John Mason for twelve months;
e Lord should
theq for 'tete ; tkueertaking at Liverpool, Mancheater
or accident to
tl)lsiall?ed an fiat he had-done, and 'the Company had
machinery, by which Mason should o
n t, have the
coatill tilted out • tl successful - that
kt 4 IN t WaS aspen eminen y . the
and in case of any illness, absenteeism,
cease to pay him
air tf) t,, a be
__n.ted manager at Liverpool, and .
infraction of this agreement
wages. It was for an
Lei: th,ir4e be
until last year, when the directors
' benefit of Lord's work, Mason should
He (Mr. Huddlestone)
tish!,.tOaerounda 7 of removing him, declining to
contract' was null and
submitted to the Court that the co
e,, ,ift - ~. or doing -,
tiO upon an application
as it was unreasonable
and in
Clain 41er !he
1, re for that s TJ th' th hthislttthe conviction took place.
void in the trade"stance,
purpo e: of
is e
11,1,i1ki4t2 (1,4 -solaa_bill,
.denying the rights of the d.e- restraint of
fell (e4v.,K fee. an
eording to the deed of partnership,
to him to be in
ref sath tel.:•czt" LnJ nction.
view 13 r•
f the case. It did not appear
TTESoN could not concur in any such
4td °tit> * 414ext.Loit thought the defendants had resMtrainjtulotfietrealideA.
1° i 'tl'adollat the
1„ NI, 4t,rf,r_ _ course they had pursued, and Mr. HIIDDLESTO
in conse-
against the cont.rac. , .
//ill ql4 C Z: LA 114.4.,
vision had been obtained
t of
slit4Tat ‘'' cani„ b-'' e. THE RICRIII,,ND RAILWAY. quence of its being unreasonable and in rear=
NE cited many eases in•wh,ich the de-
'on as to how
se-
of tistl Da,.elay,iain,ter,c:_ree the Court upon motion for the
_tt.d_F. Then. yuesatui
d cided.
f ts had never yet been
',,o4).;,°_,,s.ucit ,_lle.cotii,,_ . declaim of the Court as to wlea bin_cl.trng o
tewere binding
far the contract was
Ki''uirq tnatitet?. of an award, and also the costs At . Justiceup PATTESON—If the contrac
Thoseh e the e b ~.i• y the plaintiff for the purpose of upon the master
he would leave when .
te,l e ertstbl rielidants to complete a contract to might say to his master that
alee.-Q land from theplaintiff,
him back wb.-
1143, alit!t (th itAt,,,x_
chose, and compel his master to take
...a ne
and not upon the infant he (the infest)
11
n-
he .- Itieh Qdott was of opinion that the de. chose;
_.unless, perhaps, you consider n _
(4 4:0%4. 4101,1(1 Itailvvay Company) ought to out notice to annul the contract -
on both sides.
't • 41% Ari„.
Mr. HuDDLESToIig 10::
u that. that was another point
ttithi4
~
~ Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE. ' to be decided.
1.01,,5ree 4s o Ascot ,
~
sq 11 thq i 'll3q in
vv, • alteisinEas.
A_after sn.7-ae further technical points had been
a leaving with-
put for-
,l. the ~ .ultiina.-. ulch two mortgagees sought to war°- t'iti, application was granted.
a4z_. /.!..!tiird motto of a contract or settlement to
t, is ,_ the , Pared for the defendant', tie'l Mr.
tit.qh fo7ett el,„_ tgagee refused to anent lIIE QUEEN v. VICKERY.
kr. PARKLEY moved for a rule to show cause why
1,4
vis-feetety Plaintiff..
tt-eatao4,,asel, „11', at the „ , an attachment should not issue against a gentleman
• named Vickery,lin inhabitant of the county of Somerset,
, asel;•-l'
_had "patld4.4.it
.app-ealar,Ti!ti°nt -ei Elm erg umen ts of who had been summoned to give evidence as to the settle-
to,htts !fah '-'Bl6ll „ a • one of the tenant-4 in meet of a pauper, hut declined, as
.it would be against his
(-. owll luires_ and that . •
' i till')l4t to" :1 others, a eetr,rtal..n deed, which h ,
•,- .t ' • I
~ of lis parish. A subpcena was
r 'tee • ca whom was the obtained from the Clown office, but as Mr. Vickery
144 4tl the .
tile, hands
°f
a solici. persisted in his refusal the present cause was aan •
ted
• act of dojo,' litde nisi granted,
„ so
' '

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
MIIRIETTA V. OLDFIELD.

The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
at the sittings of the Court this morning. The case
arose out of a dispute with regard to the policy of an

insurance on the ship Harold, —which received so many
injuries in its voyage that her captain was obliged to
put in at Monte Video in order to have her sur-
veyed and repaired. A survey was made, but the
surreyor reported that the expense of the renovation
would be thrown away upon her, and the ship was sold.
It appeared, however, that Monte Video was under
arms at the time, and that the expencc and difficulty
of repairing a ship in such a state of things would
have been so great that it was thought better to sacri-
fice her for an insignificant sum, and that if she had
been taken to some other port in an undisturbed state
that she might have been easily and cheaply re-
paired. An action was brought by the owners
in order to recover the amount of the policy,
on the ground that the vessel was not destroyed by
negligence, and a verdict was found for the defendant.
A rule was subsequently obtained from this Court, call-
ing upon the defendant to show cause why a new trial
should not be had, on the ground of the reception of an
improper document in evidence. The document was the
surveyor's certificate of the state of the ship when he
surveyed it and estimated the cost of her repairs at
Monte Video.

Mr. Burr and Mr. WILDE appeared against the rule.
Mr. MARTIN and Mr. WATSON followed at great length
support of the rule.

The COURT took time to consider the matter.
THE LATE CASE OF MILITARY FLOGGING AT HOUNSLOW—

THE QUEEN V. MICHAEL COOKE AND THOMAS HEALEY.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, I have to move, your
Lordships, at the instance of Mr. Wakley, a Member
of Parliament for the borough of Finsbury, and coroner
for Middlesex, for a rule calling upon Michael Cooke
and Thomas Healey, who are the printers and publishers
of a newspaper called the Medical Times, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against
them for a libel published in that paper of the
Ist of August last. Your Lordships will perhaps
recollect that an investigation was held, a short time
since, on the body of a person called White, a private
soldier in the 7th Hussars, who died in the Hounslow
brrracks. The attention of Mr. Wakley, as coroner, was
directed to the death of that individual by a letter which
he received from a minister of the neighbourhood. The
Rev. Mr. Trimmer, and also a magistrate. Until the
receipt of that letter Mr. Wakley was not aware of the
death of White, and consequently had no means of hold-
ing an investigation on his body. Upon the receipt of
the letter he directed the Rev. Mr. Trimmer to
communicate with the constable of the district, for the
purpose of making the necessary inquiries, in order that
he might afterwards furnish him (,Mr. Wakley) with
the _information he might obtain, so that he might
determine whether it was necessary to hold an in-
quest or not ; but before that letter was delivered
the constable came to the residence of Mr. Wakley, and
stated that from the rumours which were then prevalent
in the neighbourhood that it would be necessary to hold
an inquest on the body of the soldier. He stated also
that he came to town by the direction of the Rev. Mr.
Trimmer and of another magistrate (Mr. Pownall). Upon
the receipt of this information, Mr. Wakley, as was his
duty, issued directions to the proper officer, of holding
an inquest on the body, and on the jury assemhling and
viewing the body, preliminary to the investigation, they
ascertained that excoriations of the body had taken
place, but that the spine, and the muscles about it,
had not been properly examined, and they requested
the coroner to appoint a person whom he thought fit for
the office, in order to make an examination. He ac-
cordingly named Mr. Day, who resided in the neigh-
bourhood. When the jury met on the second occasion,
it was found that Mr. Day had not, as the jury
thought, made a proper examination of the body, particu-
larly about the spine and adjoining muscles, and asked
him to nominate another. On his way to London be
met Mr. Wilson, a gentleman of great eminence, whom
he appointed to examine the body. On the Ist
of August, the inquiry was adjourned, Mr. Wilson
and all the medical men gave their evidence
on the Ist of August. On the 3d the jury were to hear
the summing up of the coroner, and arrive at their ver-
dict. The libel appeared between, the Ist and the 3d.
The Learned Gentleman then read the alleged libel,
which stated that the whole proceedings at the inquest
were a farce ; that he would be consigned to infamy
after what had taken place if he did not prove that the
soldier died from military torture and that he had coaxed
the private soldiers of the regiment in order that he
might bring a charge of murder to the door of an
eminent medical man (Dr. Warren) to conjure up such
a charge against him and Colonel Whyte, and the
farrier and drummer, and that he had acted throughout
the investigation, in order to gain public sentiment in
his favour, to help his fortunes for the future. It went
on to accuse him of prostituting the office of an English
magistrate for the purpose of seeking applause ; that the
inquest was a melodrama; and that Mr. Wilson and
Mr. Wakley had connived together for the purpose of
preparing a colourable statement to the jury; and con-
cluded by stating that they shared the fees which Mr. ,
Wilson received for post mortem examinations.
The COURT granted the application.