The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-24 00:00:00

THE

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 23.
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster
today, shortly after ten o'clock, and before twelve
o'clock had disposed of all the cases in his paper, thereby
concluding the hearing of all the appeals at present set
down before him. His Lordship will not sit to-morrow,
there being nothing for him to proceed with.°oll Wednes-
day, which is the last day of term, his Lordship will
hear motions, and after the first seal his Lordship will
probably take original causes.
IN RE ROBSON—PETITION OF RIGHT._

Our readers will recollect that this case, which came
before the Court upon an application for a commission
toinquire into the allegation of a petition of right, was
ordered to stand over till to-day, in order to give
the Attorney-General an opportunity of consi-
dering what course he would adopt on behalf
of the Crown. On the case being called on this morn-
lug, it was stated that there was no objection to the
course proposed to be pursued by the petitioner.
CHRISTIAN V. FOSTER.
The arguments in this part-heard appeal were resumed
and concluded to-day, and
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give judgment
on Wednesday.
The only two other appeals on his Lordship's paper,
Stocker v. Dawson, and llawkes v. llowell, having been
disposed of, his Lordship rose before twelve o'clock.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 23.
STAINES V. TAYLOR.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
:o-day, and occupied his Lordship the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Non. 23.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
The further arguments in the part-heard case of Terry
v. Wacher occupied his Honour the whole day.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUcE.)
GEARY V. NORTON.
This was a cause in which the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Geary and Co., shawl manufacturers, in Leeds, sought
for the continuance as well as the costs of an injunction
that had been obtained last year to prevent the defend-
ants, James Norton and James Ford Haneford,
selling
an article called the Royal Mecklin Shawl, which had
been registered by the plaintiffs.
It appeared that the defendants, who travelled about
for business, had obtained an order from a person named
Burrell to supply him with a number of the shawls in
question, and that Norton accordingly went to a Mr.
Scott, shawl manufacturer, in Leicestershire, and
got the order executed. This coming to the ears
of the plaintiffs, they had a correspondence with the-
defendants, and eventually obtained the injunction. The
infringement of the patent was admitted by the defend-
ants, but they contended that the injunction was an uti-
called-for and vexatious proceeding, they having but
four days before it had been obtained, and on the dis-
covery of the fact of the shawl being a patent article,
wrote to the defendants, promising to suspend the sale of
all the shawls of this description in their possession, of
which there was a large number.
At the conclusion of the arguments,
His HONOUR said he would order the defendants to
pay the general costs, and would continua the injunction.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 23.
THE QUEEN V. THE OVERSEERS OY KIRBY LONSDALE.
In this case a mandamus had been obtained in the
Bail Court, at the instance of a person named Tennant,
who had been a paid assistant-overseer of the parish, but
who had been discharged from that office by the Poor-
law Commissioners for improper conduct, calling upon
the overseers of the parish to produce the authority
under which they held their offices.
Mr. GODSON, Q.O , now applied to the Court to dis-
charge the rule with costs. He read an affidavit from
Alderman Thompson, the largest proprietor in the town-
ship, stating that the value of Tennant's property in the
parish was only 101. 16s. a year, that the overseers were
appointed by the votes of nearly the whole of the parish,
that the conduct of Tennant had been refractory and
litigious, and that his only motive in the proceeding was
to harass and annoy the overseers so appointed. He
was supported in his application by a person named
Grundy, who appeared anxious to become one of the
overseers, but it appeared by the affidavit that he was
not a substantial householder, and not a fit person to
hold such an office. If he felt aggrieved he might ap-
peal to the sessions, or bring the matter by certiorari
into this Court. He had, however, appealed, but un-
successfully, and he now came to this Court in order
that he might annoy the parties, and put them to great

expense.
Mr. RA3ISEY, who was with Mr. Godson, argued
that such an application was wholly unprecedented and
untenable.
Mr. PASHLEY argued, on the other hand, that a party
who was interested in the appointments, like Mr. Ten-
nant, had a perfect right to call upon the overseers to
show by what authority they held their offices, espe-
cially as he was prepared to show that they were not
duly appointed. He cited the authority of Lord Camp-
bell, who, when Attorney-General, so argued. and cases
in which the Court had granted writs of mandamus to
inspect the accounts and other documents appertaining
to the affairs of the parish in which they
were rated inhabitants. A ratepayer, quite irrespective
of the amount of which he was rated, had a perfect right
to make such an inspection: it would be most unjust to
refuse him an opportunity of doing so, because, though
his stake might be small, he had to contribute his quota
to the expenses of the parish, and he had a perfect right
to examine the expenditure. lie submitted that the rule
should be made absolute.
The COURT considered that the opposition was un-
preced,nted and uncallo-d for. The rule must, therefore.
he discharged, with costs.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE regretted that ha granted the
rule in the first instance; he should not have acceded to
it if the faces detailed to-day had been before him.
TILE QUEEN V. TIIE COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS.
The ATToRNEY-GENERAL said he had to show cause
aeaiust a rule which had been obtained by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Crowder, calling upon the Commissioners
of Sewers to show cause why a certiorari should not be
directed to them, calling upon them to remove into this
Court a presentment which they had made against
William Kinnaird aenkin7, bearing date the 18th
of August last,, and relating to the construction
of a sewer under Monmouth-road, Paddington,
with the order of the Commissioners referred to therein.
Mr. Justice Erie would no doubt recollect that the case
had been before him on affidavits at chambers, and that
his Lordship refused to make an order to stay proceed-
iegs after the 10th of November. The facts were simply
these:—The affidavit of the Commissioners stated that
Mr. Jenkins applied to them for power to build a new
sewer from certain houses in Monmouth-street, St.
Mary's parish, into a sewer cal'ed the Ranelagh sewer,
the main sewer of the district, which was under the
direct;on of the Commissioners. The new sewer did not
extend to the boundary line of Mr. Jenkins' pro-
perty, and the Commissioners, in acceding to his
application on the 18:h of August last, directed
him to carry it to the boundary : lie had,
however, contemptuously refused to obey this order,
although he had received notice that the Commissioners
would exercise the powers vested in them it he did not
comply with the order—namely, amerce him in the sum
of 3,0001., unless he should complete the sewer in the
course of one calendar month. It went on to say that a
Mr. Anderson had obtained leave to build a sewer in
connexion with the Ittnelagh sewer, which ought, for
the public benefit, to form a junction with Mr. Jenkins's
sewer, and that they made an order to carry this into
effect, but that Mr. Jenkins had built a wall which en-
tirely prevented Mr. Andersoa from completing the con-
nexion. therefore causing a " hindrance and impedi-
ment ;" and he was amerced in a fine of 501. The re
gulations which the Commissioners were empowered to
enforce, with respect to persons making sewers, stated
that all persons who had obtained leave to construct
sewers leading through property divided by boundary
lines, being separate property, should be required, when
such boundary was within thirty feet of the buildings,
to carry it to the outside of the boundary line of such
adjoining property. He built the wall of his garden at
the very limit of his land, but he stopped two feet short,
in order to deprive the Commissioners of power over the
sewer, and to prevent any one from forming a junction
with it without paying him. Mr. Anderson built on the
adjoining lands, but he was unable to complete his on
account of the hiatus of the two feet. He appealed to
the Commissioners, who directed Jenkins to complete
the sewer in two months. , When the matter was before
the Commissioners various objections were made—
namely, that the notice was not properly served,
and that he had no notice of the proceed-
ings taken against him. No notice was neces
sary, as they were in the nature of an inquest.
and the proceedings were merely preliminary. Objec-
tions had been. since raised to the following effect:—
That he Was only a life-owner of the estate, and that the
Court had no power to amerce him; that they had no
power to compel him to build the sewer beyond
the extent of the boundary; that the fine was
excessive, and that the jury were misled in
imposing it, and that his interest in the property was
not adequate to the proceedings against him. Now the
defendant had admitted that he had notice of the inqui-
sition.. Then he did not traverse as he should have
done, he wished to urge those objections. It might
be said that an action might be brought by the Com-
missioners for breach of contract; but by the 47 Geo.
L "s
to p el/4'.
3,
He punish persons theun Commissioners
s aalways
olwno offending
ante
yss tore themselves
ddinwiththe Commis-
g
bym
a nwee
rrcee
em
powered n
or otherwise.
,ioners as if he was the owner of the property, and the
proper course to adopt, if he wished to get the fine set
aside, was by application to the Lords of the Treasury.
Then the sewers became the-property of the Commis
sioners of Sewers. He trusted on those grounds that
the Court would discharge the rule with costs.
Mr. &Men followed on the same side.
Mr. CROWDER appeared in support of the rule. lie
contended that the sewers were not the property of
the Commissioners, but of the public, for whom they were
trustees, and that the order of the Commissioners was
invalid, inasmuch as the power which they possessed
only extended to the construction of sewers under the
superintendence of their officer, and not to the entire
right of sewers built at the expense of private persons. It
would be absurd to say that an Act passed in the 47th of
George 111. gave them such a monopoly of private
property, without affording the owners compensation.
The real object of the proceeding was to afford Mr. An-
derson certain conveniences at the expense of Mr. Jen-
kins, who had done all he was required to do
substantial manner years ago ; but now, in 184.6, fault
was found with him. Ile was, however, willing
to complete the sewer on terms to be arranged
between him and Mr. Anderson. It was a great public
question whether the Commissioners did or did not
exercise powers to which they were not strictly entitled.
Tney had the control of public, but not of private,
sewers, except to see that they were properly made,
and did not become a nuisance, under the 47th
of George the Third, under which they stated they
l exercised their powers. There was no language in the