The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-26 00:00:00

RAILWAY BILLS.

Several' petitions in favour of railway Bills were then
presented, and ordered to lie on the table. Amongst
them were several in favour of the North British Rail-
way Bills, Nos. I, 2,3, and 4.
Mr. CARDWELL moved that copies of the army
and navy estimates be laid on the table..--Ordered.
SUPPLY.
Mr. CARDWELL then moved that that portion of
the Address relating to supply be read.
This being done, the HoN. GENTLEMAN said, on Mon-
day night he would move that a supply be granted to
her Majesty.
The Speaker, in his state carriage, accompanied by
the movers and seconders, and the Members, left at two
o'clock precisely for the Palace, and the House was ad-
journed till a Quarter to Four o'clock on Monday.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 24.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL V. GRAINGEH, AND OTHERS.-JUDG

DENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, which was argued before his Lordship a
short time tince, upon an appeal from the decision of the
Vice-Chancellor of England, giving the plaintiffs liberty
to amend their bill a second time, after the expiration of
the time prescribed by order of the Court. The bill was
filed by the governors of Christ's Hospital on the nature
of a cross bill to an information by the Attorney-Gene-
ral for the better administration of a charity, founded by
a person named Kenrick, in the town of Reading. The
bill filed by the governors of Christ's Hospital, claimed
the whole estates belonging to that charity, under a
clause of forfeiture in the will of the- founder, on the
ground that those estates had not been ad-
ministered according to his expressed intentions.
Kenrick by his will, dated in 1684, ciirected that a sum
of 75,0001. should be invested in the purchase of land,
and that the income should be applied for the better em
ployment of the poor of Reading. When new trustees
were appointed in the place of the Corporation,
who had managed the estates up to the pass-
ing of the Municipal Corporation Act, an
information was filed for a new scheme,
and then it was that Christ's Hospital Was advised there
had been a forfeiture, because the income had not been
properly applied, and a claim was made in their behalf
for the whole property, which now produced upwards of
2,000'. a-year, in addition to a sum of 10,0001. in
the public funds. 'l'o the claims of Christ's
Hospital, or rather to the will put in by
that body, an answer was put in by the trustees, the
corporation of Reading and the Attorney-General,
who were all made defendants. The answer was pro-
nounced sufficient, and such being the case there was a
limited time, according to the order of the Court, within
which the plaintiffs would be at liberty to amend their
bill should they think it necessary. The plaintiffs
took from the 20th of February, 1845, to the
4th of December, in the same year, and they applied to
the Vice-Chancellor of England for leave to amend on
the affidavit of the clerk of their solicitor, in which it
was known that it had become necessary to go through
above 21,000 papers and deeds ; that he had at various
times occupied twenty days in that examination ; that
it had become necessary to vary and limit the case
made by the bill; and that the amendments so required
to be made were material. The Vice-Chancellor, in
conformity with the practice under the 13th and 15th of
the orders of 1828, as modified by the orders of 1831,
and still further modified by the 68th of the new orders
of May 1845, gave the plaintiffs leave to amend a second
time, and from that order the defendants appealed. When
the case came before his Lordship it was argued on
behalf of the appellants that the Vice-Chancellor had
no jurisdiction to make such an order of amendment ;
and that even if he had, that his Honour had violated
the exigency of the 68th order, by giving leave to
amend an insufficient affidavit sworn by a clerk, instead
of by the solicitor of the plaintiff himself, that affidavit
not stating any grounds for amendment, or averring or
showing that any reasonable diligence had been used to
procure the means of making the amendment earlier.
The raised by the appeal, although one of mere
practice, was of vast importance to the profession, be-
cause if the new orders of May last, which had been
framed with so much care and attention, were
not strictly maintained, it would be much better that
they should be abrogated at once. The words of the
68th of the new order were—" After the plaintiff has
filed or undertaken to file a replication, or after the expi-
ration of four weeks from the time when the answer
or last answer is deemed sufficient, a special order for
leave to amend a bill was not to be granted without
further affidavit showing that the matter of the proposed
amendment is material, and could not with reasonable
diligence have been sooner introduced into such bill.
The amendment had not been made in compliance with
that order, because the proper course for the
plaintiff would have been in the first instance
to have gone before the Master. In support of
the decision of the Court below, it was submitted that
the new orders had not superseded, but merely modified
the old ones, and that the Court, under the 21st of the
new orders of May, had an express leave to exercise its
discretion. With respect to going before the Master,
the plaintiffs had merely adopted the practice as it ex-
isted under the old order, by coming at once to the
Court, when after the expiration of the ordinary time
they asked for extraordinary indulgence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, this mm ping, at considerable
length gave judgment, reversing the decision of the
Court below.

ROLL'S COURT, Jan. 24.
His LORDSHIP sat at ten o'clock, and resumed the
hearing of motions, which were quite uninteresting.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jan. 24.
. NORTH WALES RAILWAY COSIS'ANY V. ARCHER.
This was a motion to dissolve the injunction, prohi-
biting the defendant from prosecuting the works at a
port called Porthdynllaen Harbour in North Wales,
under- an .agreement entered into in May, 1845. The
ground upon which the motion-was made was the imputed
suppression of material evidence at the time of applying
for the injunction. The facts of the•case appeared to be
these :—" In the year 1805 a person of the name of
Parry, since deceased; bad obtained from the Legisla-
ture an Act empowering him to'construct a harbour at
Porthdynllaen. In the year 1844 Mr. Archer and some
other . persons projected a railway company, to be called
the North Wales Railway Company, which was to commu-
nicate with the harbour: In 1845 Mr. Archer entered
into an agreement with Mr. D. Williams, of the firm of
Williams and Breeze, solicitors of the executors of the
late Mr. Parry. The letter, dated May, 1844, in which
this agreement was contained, stipulated for the sale of
the rights conveyed by the Act of Parliament of 1806
to Mr. Archer for a sum of 6,0001., the agreement to be
void unless the terminus and the port should be com-
pleted within three years. The North Wales Railway
Company obtained their Act in June, 1845. In con-
sequence of some disagreement Mr. Archer entered into
negotiations: with another company, upon which the
company obtained the injunction, upon the ground that 1
Mr. Archer had only acted as trUstte.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 24.
(Sittings in Banco.)
• COOK} V. WETHERELL, CLERK.
This.was an action brought by:the plaintiff to recover
compensation for the damages sustained by him in con-
sequence of the criminal conversation between the de-
fendant and the plaintiff's wife. The action was tried
on the 15th of August, 1845, at Croydon, before the
Lord Chief Justice of this Court.
The circumstances of this horrible case are, no doubt,
fresh in the recollection of our readers.
Sir Thomas Wilde havinr, during the la 4 term, ob-'
tained a rule to show cause why that verdict should not
be set aside, and ,a new trial had on the ground of sur-
prise, that rule came on for argument this day.
The LORD. CHIEF JUSTICE proceeded to read the evi-
dence given before him upon the trial at Croydon, after
which,: • • _ -

Mr. Sergeant SHED, as counsel for the plaintiff, rose
to show cause ngainst the rule, and contended that the
defendant was not in any manner taken by surprise, for
he perfectly well knew, the charges to be brought against
him, and the times and places where the crime had been
committed, The defendant bad ten days for procuring
evidence to rehut,these charges, and might have brought
up witnesses from Byfield, Chepstow, and the other
places. He had not done so, and the general statements
hy the witnesses had not been impugned. He had
actually been in communication with the landlady at
the Beaufort Arms, where it was said he had slept with
the plaintiff's wife, and yet no evidence was brought, to
rebut these facts. No witnesses from Chepstow had
been subpoenaed, although the defendant well knew he
would be charged with adultery at that place. No
stigma was cast upon the character of Williams, and yet
if her evidence were true, the defendant's guilt could not
be denied. No new trial could be granted, according to
the rule of this Court, on the ground of surprise, unless
it were shown most distinctly to have been so. At
Byfield the affidavits were all made by the defendant's
servants. Why had they not been called at the trial?
Some of them had actually been. at Croydon during the
trial. .At any rate none of their statements contradicted
the positive evidence on the trial.
The further hearing of this case was then postponed
till Tuesday. •

BALL COURT, Jan. 24.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice WiLussts.)
Mr. CLARKSON applied for a writ of certiorari to re-
move a certain indictment from the Court of Middlesex

Quarter Sessions. The Learned Counsel said, that the
indictment on which this application was founded was of
rather a novel character. The party was charged with
exposing his person, and the first count charged him
with " exposing his person in a certain public p.a ce
the view of a child of tender age—to wit twet
The second count charged him with exposing, &c., in a
certain public place in the view of several of her Ma-
jesty's subjects ; and the third, charged a common
assa ult.

Mr. Justice WlLlA.tais—A common assault ?
Mr. CLARKSON—Yes, my Lord, a common assault.
It would not be necessary to detail all the circumstances,
as they were of a very indecent character, and his Lord-
ship would see them in the eepositions. It would appear
that a party in Paddington churchyard had beckoned to a
girl on the footpath outside, and when she came he hid
exposed his person to her. A gravedigger had followed,
and had seen the party expose his person to the girl,
who did not appear to be at all unwilling to submit to
the treatment to which she was subjected. Ile (Mr.
Clarkson) was aware that the first count had often been
held valid in the " junior courts," as he would term
them, but he had frequently had great doubts as to its
legality. A girl of the age of twelve years was not by
th• English law one bit more protected than any
woman of full age, except in the case of mar-
riage or abduction, where the party had money,
and was in fact under some sort of legal guardianship.
The second count was wholly unsupported by the evi-
dence ; and the third was an absurd one. The question
he wished to raise before the Court of Queen's BercL
was one of considerable importance, as under the cir-
cumstances it would be necessary to make a new law to
meet these cases. His Lordship was quite aware that
juries in the courts of quarter sessions (and he said so
with great respect to the persons who presided over
those courts), in such cases as the present, with a sort of
natural teeing..., omitted to notice both law and tact, and
it was rather difficult to obtain for such cases anything
like a legitimate legal deterniination.
The application was granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 24.
(Sittings in Banco.)

EX PARTE THE DERBY,* UTTOXETER , AND STAFFORD•

SHIRE RAILWAY.

Mr. J•atits said he had to move their Lordships for
a rule nisi to show cause why the plaintiff in this case
should not deliver to the defendants a further and better
particular of the nature of his demand. The plaintiff
was an engineer, and the defendants provisional com-
mitteemen of the Derby, Uttoxeter, and Staffordshire
Railway, and the claim, which amounted to 3,7741. 45.,
was alleged to be for preparing the necessary
levels and surveys of that Hue. The cause of action set
forth in the declaration was simply for work and labour
done, and upon no special contract, but the particulars
of the demand, which consisted of six items, were of so
general a character that the defendants had some diffi-
culty in shaping their defence. One item, for instance,
was for surveying 36 miles of the proposed line, 1,4601,
and another was for preparing and delivering books
of reference, &c., 630/., but the terms of these items
were so general and indefinite, that the defendants had
no means of ascertaining either the amount of the work
done, or whether the charges for it were fair and reason-
able.

The LORD Cum. B.i.rtorr—The particular is similar
to that of an electioneering agent for conducting the pro-
ceedings of a contested election.
Mr. JAMES agreed that it was, but the cause of action
being simply for work and labour done, and not upon a
special contract, the particulars ought to be more defi-
nite arid explicit of the (xtent and nature of the work and
labour done.

Mr. Baron Pews—You gave the plaintiff his instrue
tions, and ought to know whether he has followed them
out or not.

Mr. JAMES said the defendant could not gather from
the particulars whether he had or not, and neither
the defendants nor their solicitor had seen any of the
work alleged to have been done, because from the in-
definite nature of the particulars they were at a loss
%here to look for it. In the first item there was no rata
per mile specified.

The CHIEF BARON—If you divide the amount charged
by thirty-six you will easily ascertain that. If a doctor
charges a hundred guineas fora certain cure, can you call
upon him to divide his demand into charges for medicine,
attendance, &c. ? Certainly not.
Mr. JAMES differed from the opinion of his Lordship,
bnt the case his Lordship had put was not analogous to
the one they were discussing. The doctor's case would
be on the general contract, but here it was for work or
labour done. Not knowing, however, the nature and
extent of the work and labour done, the defendants
could not ascertain, by appealing to other engineers, whe-
ther the charges were usual and fair.

The LORD E'IIIEF BARON—Doed your affidavit state
that the defendants are ignorant of the nature of the
work and labour done ?

Mr. JAMES said he had no affidavit made by the de-
fendants themselves, but they were certainly unac-
quainted with the amount or extent of the work alleged
to have been done.

The LORD CHIEF BARON—You had better, then, pro-
vide yourself with such an affidavit, and make your ap
plication to a Judge at Chambers.
Mr. JAMES thanked his Lordship for the suggestion,
and promised to act upon it.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Jan. 24.
An insolvent named Manning, who had been a general
shopeeker in York-street, Westminster, was opposed by
Mr. Curtis, a cheesemonger, and supported by Mr.
Lucas.

The complaint was, that the insolvent had defrauded
the creditors who opposed out of some goods when he
was about to dispose of his business. The evidence
established the fact that on the 15th of December last,
he sold the business (having a short time before been
paid a deposit) for 119/., and on the 19th December
(only four days after) he petitioned this Court. To
account for the disposition of the money, he stated that
he paid his landlord 601, paid 251. into court for his
crediVrs, paid his attorney 141., and had " frittered
away," it was termed, the remainder. Just four days
before be sold the business he obtained goods from Mr.
Curtis to between 41. and Si., promising to be more
punctual in future. The creditor had not heard of the
intended sale of the business.

Mr. Commissioner GOVLBURN said he considered a
gross fraud had been committed on the creditor. The
principle involved was to be considered, and not the
amount. It was a gross fraud to get goods from trades
men when he knew that in three or four days he should
sell the business. The Learned Commissioner asked the
amount of dividend that the money in court (251.) would
pay.
Mr. Lucas said it would pay 2s. 6d. in the pound. He
could not justify the getting the lest supply of good.;,
but if the case were adjourned the amount should be
paid.

The creditor asked the Court to dismiss the petition.
Mr. GoutnuaN said he should not dismiss the peti-
tion, but would make an order to punish the insolvent
for the gross fraud he had committed, which would at the
same time benefit the creditors. By dismissing the peti-
tion the money in court would revert to the insolvent ;
but by adjourning the case sine die, the money would
be divided among the creditors, paying them 2s. 6d. is
the pound, and leave the insolvent without a protection.
The Court adjourned the case sine die, and ordered a
memorandum to be made on the proceedings, to the
effect that the adjournment had been made on the ground
that a debt had been fraudulently contracted.

EDMONTON PETTY SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. BUSKE, Chairman, and Dr. ROBINSON. )
On Friday Win. Suminerfieg A drayman, in the service of
he Messrs. Whitbread, the brewers, appeared to a summons,
upon the information of Murray, a common informer, that
he, on the 9th January, was driving a dray with reins con-
trary to the 3d Geo. IV., c. 126, and the 4th Geo. IV., c. 95,
which inflict a penalty on all persons driving a vehicle with
reins, such not being intended to be used with reins.
Mr. Norton, a solicitor, was engaged for the defendant.
Robert Harwood, the informer's witness, said that on the
day in question he was near the Seven Sisters-road, when ho
saw a dray, which was loaded with empty casks, and drawn
by three horses, two of which were abreast, by the side of
the shafts. The defendant, with whom was another man,
was driving with reins. He spoke to them, upon which,
after some delay, they both got down, but after walking a
short distance, they again got in the dray and rode in it all
the way to Shoreditch Church.
By Mr. NOLTO2I—.I have a weekly salary from Murray.
I give him an account of all informations that are necessary
to bs laid against persons. ,
Mr. NORTON said he trusted that when the Bench saw the
source from whence the present information emanated, that
they would be inclined to- dismiss the summons. The case
was not introduced with atiy circumstances of aggravation,
and he tlrought that, on looking at the 132 d section, of the
3d Gen. IV., they would find his client had come within the
interpretation of that clause, as by that it provided a penalty'
against a driver who. had not the government of his horses,
which in this cue was not attempted to be shown.
The defbndant was fined 20s. and 6s. 6d. costs, which
were paid.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
111ANSION-ROUSE.
Joseph Thompson, charged with having' stolen a banker's
receipt for 1201., the property of Mr. Hitchin, which amount
had been paid as the first deposit upon 40 shares in a rail-
way company, called the British and Irish Union Railway,
which shares were at a. premium of 2 per cent.. was brought
up for Anal examination. ,
The evidence of several of the witnesses having been read
over,
The prisoner's solicitor said, be had a question or two to
put to Mr. Ebenezer Pell Brown, who had given his. testi-
mony on -the last examination.
It will be recollected that the letter of allotmeht for the
shares in the Company had been directed to a Mr. Joseph
Fletcher, the exigence -of which individual the prisoner's
solicitor altogether denied, thereby arguing that the affair
was, from beginning to end, a "stagging" concern, and that
the prosecutor must have been aware of the necessity of
having somebody to represent ,a person of that name before
the deed could be executed.
The prisoner's solicitor—Did you direct that any letters
should be sent to your place directed to the .Rev. Mr.
Fletcher? Witness—l am not aware that I did.
The LORD MAYOR—You must know whether you did or
did not. Witness—l do not know. Not to my recollection.
The prisoner's solicitor—l must have a direct answer.
Witness—l say Ido not recollect anything of the kind.
'I he prisoner's solicitor—Can you positively say that you
never desired that letters directed to the Rev. Mr. Fletcher
should be left at your chambers ? Witness—l cannot posi-
tively say that I never did.
Mr. Humphreys, for the proSecution, said that Mr. Hitchin
wished to say a word or two in explanation of part of the evi-
dence he had given.
Mr. Hitchin said he had mentioned in his former exami-
nation that hehad nevergone by the name of Gibbons. He
meant when he said so, that he-had never gone by that name
with respect to his transactions in Capel-court. He had, in
consequence of some family disputes formerly; gone to live in
lodgings by that name, and Mr. Pyle, who was then his
attorney, knew of the circumstances under which he adopted
that name.
The prisoner was then committed for trial at the Central
Criminal Court.
Mr. Buller, who stated that he resided at eilisbury-

terrace, Walworth, complained to the Lord Mayor of the
conduct of a railroad company. He had, he said, got some
shares in that company, upon which he paid the sum of
40/. 12s. on the 4th of October, and from what he had learned
he could come to no other conclusion than that the company
was insolvent at the very moment he had paid the deposit.
In fact, he had ascertained that the scrip was issued subse-
quent to the loss of the Bill in Parliament.
The LORD MATOR—Then the Bill was lost last session ?
Mr. Buller—So I believe. At all events, the officers of the
concern state that the concern is altogether at an end. Now
the receiving of money after the whole business was at an end
looks very like obtaining money under false pretences.
The Goat) MAYOR—Gs over to the Lord Mayor's Court, in
the Old Jewry, and see whether they cannot do something
for you.