The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 16, 1848,

wise been saved, which the payment in and out, under
the Legacy Act, would have occasioned. This had ac-
tut ted the executors in doing as they had done, and the
pie in tiff alone, out of many legatees, had complained.
U, :der these circumstances, the case was an exc,!edingly
ha rd one, and of vast importance to executors.
The VICE-CEIANCELLOR said, that the executors might
ht ve freed themselves entirely bad they acted under the
L egscy Act and paid the money into court; but not
Ja; lying done so, he considered the plaintiff entitled to a
crce. The costs to he paid by the executor.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 15.
(;Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN,
and Justices COLERIDGE, WIGHTMAN, and ERLE.)

REGINA V. THE HAIUMERSMITEI BRIDGE COMPANY.
In this ease the Hammersmith Suspension-bridge
company had been assessed to the poor-rate of the
:parish of Hammersmith in the sum 0f4751., in respect of
the net rateable value of a moiety of the bridge and ap-
purtenances, situated in that parish. The company ap
pealed against the rate to the quarter-sessioni of the
county of Middlesex, when the rate was amended by
striking out the sum of 4751, and inserting in its place
the sum of 360/., subject to the opinion of this Court
upon a special case. The case stated, that under the
-powers vested in them by two Acts of Parliament, the
company had constructed a suspension bridge from Ham-
:znersmith, in the county of Middlesex, to Barnes, in the
.county of Surrey, and had made a convenient road from
the north-end of the bridge to Hammersmith, and also
a road from the south-end of the bridge to Barnes, and
another from the same end of the bridge to the road lead-
ing from London to Richmond. By the Act of Parliament
it was provided that one-half of the bridge should be con-
eidered as being in the parish of Hammersmith, and the
-:esther-half -in the parish of Barnes," 'The company were
bound to keep the roads which they constructed in re-
-pair, and were authorised to erect gates upon the roads,
:at which they might take tolls for the roads alone, or
they might take the whole toll for the roads and bridge
an one sum. In fact, the toll had been taken in one sum
.at a gate on the Hammersmith side of the bridge. The
,case also stated, that of the roads made by the company,
there were 678 yards in the parish of Hammersmith, and
.5,328 yards in the parish of Barnes; and that 7201. was
-the net rateable value of the bridge and appurtenances,
based upon the amount actually received, after snaking
lawful deductions and allowances, including the cost
of maintaining the roads. The sessions decided that the
aid rateable value should be equally divided between
but if this Court should be of opinion
-ithheatt
iwtosizpsamdshldbees;dividecl in proportion to the quantity of
land occupitil by the bridge and roads in each parish,
the rate was to be reduced from 3601. to 1101.
Mr. PASULEY and Mr. WILLES contended that the
4leeision of the quarter-sessions was right, in dividing the
last rateable value into equal moieties, and that, even if
the sessions were wrong, the net rateable value could not
• be divided in proportion to the quantity of land occu-
pied by the bridge and roads iu each parish. This
Court had never sanctioned the mileage principle of cal-
culation.

Mr. 13oltuti with whom was Mr. Prentice) contended
that the sessions were wrong, and that the mileage prin-
ciple of calculation ought to be adopted.
Lord DENALIN said,. the Court would consider their
decision.

COURT OF EXCHEQUISP, Nov. 15.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, bc,fort. Kr. Baron
PLITT and Common Juries.)
BORNE v. TIIORNDORtIMILL

This; WaZ an action of trespass, whereby the plaintiff
sought to recover compensation in damage!, tu. injury
:sustained by means of the forcible entry mei ta!iing pos-
:sesBion il certain premises, by an assault committed
;upon the wile of the plaintiff, and by her false imprison.
;mem. The defendant pleaded that he wai not guilty by
statute.

Mr. E. W. G-oc conducted the case for th. 3 plaintiff,
a.Pd Mr. SergTaut Chadwick Jones and Mr. Charnock
appeared for the defendant.

It appeared from the statement of the Learned Counsel,
apcl supported by the evidence which that Learned Gen-
tleman called, that the plaintiff was a working jeweller,
carrying on his business in Leigh-street, Burton-crescent,
whilst the defendant was a wheelwright; possessed of
very considerable property. Amongst property which
he had become the owner of was the house which was in
the occupation of the plaintiff, which occupation he en-
joyed under a lease of 7, 14, or 21 years, determinable
by the usual notice on the part of the tenant so long
as the quarterly payments for rent were duly main-
tained. The defendant made his purchase subject to
this lease, of which at the time there were some nine or
ten years unexpired. It chanced that in the month
of January last the plaintiff was imprudent enough to
acceptbe
en
duly
ua billy
honoured,
forafr
hietnde, which acceptance not having
plaintiff, as the acceptor, was
arrested, and in the end thrown into Wiiitecross-street
Prison. The rent of the house house the plaintiff had
regularly paid up to the Christmas. In the month of
April the plaintiff was still in prison, and at Lady-day a
quarter's rent had become due. On the 26th of April
the wife of the plaintiff left the house for a short time,
and on her return was greatly surprised to learn that
the son of the defendant had been there, turned out her
son from the shop, taken possession, and then locked the
door. The wife very naturally endeavoured to re-obtain
an entrance, and, as the upper part of the shop-door was
composed of glass, she did not in the end decline break-
ing it ; but no sooner had she done so than some boys
made their appearance, and the defendant coining
up, seized her and tried to push her out of the
passage. A scuffle ensued, and a crowd collected
round the house. In the end, after some argument,
the defendant gave the wife into the custody of a
policeman, by whom she was taken to the Clerkenwell
Police-court. The magistrate, having heard the mi-
ter° of the accusation against her, instantly directed
that she should be set free. The defendant admitted
' to the magistrate that his son had taken possession of
the place by his directions, but he was then told that he
had acted most illegally in the step he had taken, and
had rendered himself liable to an action. He was also
informed that he must give up the possession to the
plaintiff's wife, but on her returning to the house that
intimation had proved of no avail, seeing that posses-
sion was still denied to her. The wife thereupon made
an appeal to the magistrate, who sent two policemen
with her to demand possession. The appearance of the
policemen had the desired effect, and the poor woman
was once more reinstated -in her house. For the ill-
treatment the wife had received, and the trespass which
had bean committed, compensation was therefore sought
by the present action.
On the part of the defendant it was urged that the
plaintiff's wife had, in 'truth, not only abandoned the
possession, but had previously removed the goods and
stock-in-trade. Finding this to have been the case, and
that the door had been found open, the defendant
directed his son to take possession, and to lock the door.
The jury eventually returned a verdict for the plain
tiff, with 251. damages.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
35108 S v. MTH.
This action was tried before the Lord Chief Justice,
at the last sittings after term, at Guildhall, when a ver-
dict was found for the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN applied for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had,
on the ground of misdirection, and of the verdict being
a4ainst, the evidence. The plaintiff was the mortgagee
of a ship called the Alfred, and the defendants are the
directors of the Marine Insurance Company, from whom
ao
,fntohtel
nvt.e s
h,
ea ni
nds
utrhai
ns
caec tvri(ams
wtaaksebnroouugt
a policy for 1,0004 had been obtained upon the freight
iiint recover o
andve r thatthe
ship sailed in September in the same year, upon a
voy-
age to Australia, and from thence she went to the cost
of South America, arriving on the 28th of June, 1844,
at a place called Cobya, where she took in a cargo of
guano. On the 2d of September she got to Valparaiso,
and took on board a quantity of dollars and whalebone,
and set sail for England on the 12th. Between the 12th
and the 29th she met with a great deal of bad weather,
and sustained considerable damage; and on the 29th she
put back, and arrived at Valparaiso) on the 19th of Oc-
tober. Upon being surveyed it was found that 19,000
dollars would be necessary to put her in complete re-
pair, but as that was more than the value of the ship,
she was treated as a total loss, and sold for a small Sum.
For the defence, it was contended that there was no
total loss, that the damage was greatly over-rated, and
that a much smaller sum would have been enough
to put the ship in repair in order to bring
her to England. The sum of 150/ was paid into court.
In support of the defence, a German captain was
called, who stated that with slight repairs he
brought her to England; that she went back to the
West Indies and returned to this country in good
repair on each occasion with a cargo, and that she
was now employed as a ship of war by the German
Republic. The Learned Counsel said it might be quite
true, that with slight repairs, she could be brought to
England, but she was incapable of bringing the cargo
which was on board of her, and therefore ought to be
treated as a total loss. The Learned Judge directed the
jury, that, if the ship could be repaired at all
within a reasonable time, there was no loss of freight.
The Learned Counsel held that this direction was
wrong, and referred to several authorities in support o
his argument.
The COURT took time to consider their decision.

-------
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HO USE.
&eorge Whitaker was charged with having committed
a violent assault upon a poor young woman.
On Tuesday night the girl, who was passing home to
the Borough over London-bridge, sat down to rest her-
self in one of the alcoves, immediately after which two
or tlaree young men turned as they went along to look
at her, amongst whom was the defendant, who put his
hand rudely upon her. She pushed his hand aside, and
he immediately struck her with the greatest violence
with his fist in the face. Au honest labourer named
Durmain, who resides in David-street, Dover-road, hap-
pened to see the transaction, and immediately collared
the defendant, and called for the police. The defendant
resisted such interference, and not only struck the man
but knocked his hat over the bridge. The police, how-
ever, soon separated them, and took the defendant to the
station-house.
The LORD MAYOR—Defendant, what have you to say
in answer to this charge of most cowardly and brutal
assault?
The Defendant—l saw other young men go up and
look in her face, and I did so, and she gave me a slap in
the face, which I returned.
The LORD MAYOR then sentenced the defendant to
pay the fine of 40i., and the money not being forthcom-
ing sent him to prison for a month. His Lordship con-
cluded the case by making a present of a new hat to the
poor fellow who so benevolently interfered.
Rolfe, a plumber, and his son, were charged with
having robbed the premises of Messrs. Southall and Co.,
of Nos. 13, and 14, King-street, Cheapside, warehouse- ,
men, and were remanded for further examination.