The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-09 00:00:00

EaTlish ......

triSil. •• •• •• •• --
Foreign ...... 2,160

CHANCERY.-(THIS, DAY.)

The Lord Chancellor satin his Court in the Old
Hall, Lincoln's Inn, to day, and gave several judg-
ments and heard appeals.

Malt,lso Ctrs:
WHITECHAPEL.
Prime Mutton and Veal sold freely, at n slight ad-
vance in the quotations; otherwise the demand was in a
sluggish state. Beef from 33 2d to 43; Mutton, 35 6d to
4a 6d; Veal, 4s 2d to 5s 2d; and Perk, 4s to 5s 2d per
Sibs, by the carcase.

CIIUCK V. CREMER-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, which was argued some time since before
his Lordship, upon appeal from an order of the
Vice-Chancellor of England, refusing to grant an in-
junction to restrain proceedings at law. The plaintiff,
a malster, and a farmer named Bell, had dealings for
several years. Bell died, and the defendant Cremer
became his administrator. Disputes arose between
him and the plaintiff on the settlement of the accounts,
and it was ultimately agreed to refer the matter to an
arbitrator. A certificate of the award was returned
in due course, and judgment obtained on the certifi-
cate. The plaintiff, alleging that the arbitration had
miscarried, and that the accounts furnished at the
arbitration were not correct, filed his bill for an in-
junction to stay the proceedings taken to enforce it.
The Vice-Chancellor refused the application on
the ground of want of jurisdiction.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the plaintiff had
failed in making out a case for the injunction, and
affirmed the judgment of the Court below.

WESTSVOOD V. SLATER.-.TUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
caee which came, before his Lordship upon appeal
from the decision of the Vict:-Chancellor Knight
Bruce. The question in the case was whether the
next of kin of the settlor, who. had settled a fund in
fifteenths to his three daughters and their children,
took any interest in the event which had happened,
namely, that one of his daughter s had survived her
two sisters and left issue. B.is Honour was of
opinion that the settlement exnibited an intention
that tliL! next of kin of the settlor should not
take anything if there should be any child
of either of his daughters who should live to
thke a vested interest in the fund. His Lordship
was of opinion that the decree of the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce was correct ; that it properly declared
the right of the parties in the cause, and he must
therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE

131RMINGHAM ♦ND OXFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY
COMPANY.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment to-
day in this important case, which our readers will
recollect came before his Lordship a short time
since, and was argued at great length, upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of
England, overruling a dernurrer put in by
the defendants to the bill filed by the Great Western
Railway Company against them, for the specific per-
formance of an agreement to sell the Birmingham
and Oxford Junction Railway to the Great Western
Railway Company. His Lordship, after shortly ad-
-verting to the facts of the case, stated that he was not
prepared to say, by allowing the demurrer, that a
contract which had been entered into between parties
was to be treated as a nullity, because an Act of
Parliament was necessary to carry it into effect. In
his opinion the defendants had failed in showing
that the plaintiffs were not entitled to have part of
the relief asked, and he must therefore diimiss the
appeal with costs.
The result of this decision is to affirm the decision
of the Vice-Chancellor of England overruling the
demurrer of the Birmingham and Oxford Junction
Railway Company with costs:

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE•CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
STEWART V. FORBES.
The further arguments on this part-heard cause
occupied the Court the whole day.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before Mr,
Justice ERLE and a Special Jury.)
DUKE Or BRUNSWICK C. PEPPER.

By this action—the Duke of Brunswick sought to
recover damages from the defendant, for a libel pub-
lished by him in the Satirist newspaper.
The Duke of Brunswick conducted his own case
in person, and Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Hugh Hill
appeared for the defendant.
His Highness said his object in bringing this
action was to protect himself from the consequences
of several serious imputations which had been cast
upon his character by a series of false and malicious
libels contained in the Satirist newspaper, of which
the defendant was the present proprietor. On several
previous occasions he had obtained verdicts in hiS
favour against the proprietor of that journal for simi-
lar libels, but notwithstanding continued attacks
were made upon him with the same vehemence and
malignity. His Highness then read a libel published
in 1844, referring to the case of Thomas Henry
'locker, and stating that he was but an instrument in
the hands of others, among w lom the writer included
his Highness, and also stated that Hooker was the
least guilty of the party, and that he was employed
by them to put his victim to death, in order to prevent
any exposure of their practices. He also referred to
other paragraphs, which repeated the accusations
made against him while the journal was under the
management of Mr. Barnard Gregory, of being the
murderer of Eliza Grimwood. In consequence of
these repeated libels he was ashamed to go into public,
for when he did so people seemed to shudder and look
aghast. The different legal proceedings which he
had been forced to take to vindicate his character from
those scandalous attacks,' he said, had cost him
10,0001., and besides his life had been endangered.
Spies had been set to watch him in every direction,
and in fact every step had been taken to drive him to
self-destruction. His Highness then said that he had
lost his duchy through unjust political persecutions,
and had sought protection in this hospitable land, and
he asked the jury with confidence to repair the injury
inflicted upon him by the defendant by the publica-
tion of the libels in question.
The clerk of Mr. 'Walker, his Highness's solicitor,
was then called, and proved the proprietorship of the
newspaper, the conviction and sentence of Hocker,
and also the conviction and sentence of Mr. Barnard
Gregory for libel.

SECONDARIES'.--(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
QUESTION ON AGENCY.—SCOTT U. NICIIOLLS.

The plaintiff in this action is a brickmaker, and
defendant is a builder, and the claim was for three
guineas for bricks supplied.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
In consequence of the case being taken out of the
turn in wich it stood in the list, the defendant's at-
torney was not present a the commencement of the
case, and as the Learned Secondary said that he could
not let the case stand over, Mr. Simons undertook to
assist the defendant.
The facts were peculiar. On the part of the
plaintiff, a person named Jay was called, and he de-
posed that he was agent for the plaintiff, and sold the
goods on commission. lie delivered a bill in the
name of Scott, and subsequently one in his own
name, and also sued defendant in the Bloomsbury
Court, when he was non-suited, although he swore
that plaintiff had nothing to do with the case, as he
paid him. By that he meant he had de-
bited(ja39 had
himself on account. There was another suit
by Mills and Jay, as partners, for some tiles. The
goods were delivered from their wharf.
Mr. SIMONS urged that the plaintiff must be non-
suited on Jay's own evidence, that he had sent in a
bill on his own account. _ _

The Learned SECONDARY said it was a case for
the jury.
Mr. DELAMARE, the defendant's attorney, and his
clerk, proved that they on the previous trial swore
that the debt was due to him. The defendant sent
the money, which was offered to be paid if a joint re-
ceipt was given by Scott. and Jay, as there was so
much doubt as to whom defendant was liable; but a
writ having been issued the offer was rejected unle:s
the costs were paid.
The Learned SECONDARY summed up, and said
that the question for the jury was, whether at the

TUE LATE MADAME ADELAIDE.--The Pattie says
—" W 3 are assured that in the wi►l of her Royal High-
ness Madame Adelaide there is a clause in the following
words I bequeath to Madame Miel, widow of the
dentist, who first put on the uniform of the National
Guard in 1830, and who was killed at that time, an an-
nual pension of 500f.' "

ELECTION COMiIIiTTEES.. time of the dealing defendant knew he was doing so
(THIS DAY.) with plaintiff, or whether he had had notice before
YA RMOUTH. action. It was rendered a case of doubt by the
The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the names of Mills and Jay being up at the wharf, and
truth of the allegations contained in the petition the action by them; but, at the same time, they or
complaining of the return of Lord Arthur L-nnex Jay might on the previous occasion have mistaken
and Octavius E. Coope, Esq., for the borough of their rights.
Great Yarmouth, met, for the first time, this morn- The jury, after a long consultation, gave a verdict
ing, in the Committee-room, No. 22 ; Mr. Seyrner for the amount claimed.
in the chair.
The Committee having passed the usual resolutions,
Mr. Sergeant WRANGITAM opened the case of the
petitioners, who sought to unseat the Members re-
turned, on the grounds that either they or their agents
had been guilty of corrupt practices in bribery or
treating. Now, upon the register of the borough of
Great Yarmouth there appeared the names of
1,800 voters, 1,000 of whom were freemen.
It was discovered that two days previouly to the no-
mination, Lord Arthur Lennox received, through the
Post-office, a bulky registered letter, which it was
conjectured contained a number of hank-notes, and
the suspicion was strengthened by the fact, that upon
the same day his Lordship transacted business at a
well-known "Red" banking-house at Yarmouth.
There were other suspicious circumstances connected
with the election, which placed boyond all doubt
that bribery and corruption were freely resorted to by
the " Reds," Lord Lennox's party. For instance,
155 freemen who voted for the Blues in 1841, at the
recent election, voted for the Reds while the general
results proved that 513 freemen voted for the Reds as
against 370 for the Blues. One batch of voters
offered to sell their votes to the Blues at a certain
price, but the offer was refused, and they immediately
went over to the Reds, and the proofs which the
petitioners were prepared to put in mould fully sub-
stantiate that it was by bribery alone that the sitting
Members for Yarmouth had obtained their return.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)

Henry Williams, an old man, was charged on sus-
picion of being concerned with another person, not
in custody, in stealing a suit of clothes, the property
of Joseph Lawrence, of 63, Broad-street, clothes
salesman.

The prosecutor, the proprietor of a cheap tailoring
establishment, said that the prisoner entered his shop
this morning with a youth of about 18, and said he
wanted a suit of clothes for the latter. A suit was
selected and tried on by the youth, the prisoner ask-
ing the price and " abating." The boy did not speak
at all, but when he had the whole suit of clothes on
his back he made a spring at the door and ran off,
before either prosecutor or his foreman could stop
him. They detained the prisoner.
The prisoner said he knew nothing of the lad, but
had met him at a public-house a few minutes before,
and had not the slightest notion of any dishonest
intention on his part. lle called several witnesses as
to his character.

He was remanded till this day week.
The notorious Joseph Ady, who has been twice re-
cently summoned at the instance of the Post-office
authorities for non-payment of considerable sums of
money due for the postage of returned letters, again
appeared before Mr. Henry to answer a charge of
a similar nature. The sum sued for on this occasion
Has 161. 103. 641., and was for letters which have
passed through the Post-office since the first convic-
tion, but not since the second.
The defendant, acting on the advice of a solicitor
who attended in his behalf, made no attempt to defend
this case, but begged fur time to pay the amount.
Mr. TlENnir did not think the defendant deserved

the slietest mercy. He had had quite sufficient
notice, having been twice summoned before. He
would convict him, and order him to pay at once,
and if he did not pay a distress warrant would be
issued as soon as Mr. Peacock chose to apply for it.
Mr. Peacock said he would not a pply for the war-
rant till'next week, but would give Ady that time

to
Mr. pay.
HENRY thought this kindness was by no means
merited. He hoped, however, that the defendant
would not again put Mr. Peacock to this trouble.
Mr. Peacock said that Ady had promised that he
would not; but, indeed, his promise was of very little
value, for he held his written promise, given before

the second summons, to the mime effect. However,
he would wait for one week in this instance, as he
hoped the promise would be kept now.
tidy left the Court without uttering a word.