The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

DUNCOMB V. LEVY.

------,.................„._
.?„ CHANCERY.—(THISTi, DAY.)
The i _—°xAs I'. BLACKMAN.—
till, „ --',)413 CHANCELLOR ave udgmen
an appeal
---..,e w
neon
i„,.1
the' hlell came before the CourtJUDONENtT.to-day
in
l proP)sed
Ilia Lie dz,eisiou of the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce.
Puvebsr4shill was clearly of opinion that t
appeal, er s ease had failed on all grounds, andte that the
:11Nousto,lherefore, be dismissed, AND
Intas V. THE EARL OF X.,
Til w. . .
.i tEhx cßoositt
os .0 G n
OTHERS.
the deci-
eeeehu, e vietr,. n this cart
64:fattittlir"hts iheard appeal from
and
Th 2tl to. Chancellor of Eng
„ e Lett tty.
Sitler the e I.teee,,
saidcarefully con••
land, were resumed
OR he should _
_aw,
before he eetakes on this subject in the courts of. I.m:
Portant 0 gave jteig
The case was a
most
firstl
time t, . ne, inasa_ e:lent.
the
decision's Court had been
as believedheT
upon to act upon
144144118 e°Ene
t 0 in the courts called
of law
this was the
ts, the
relative
the ivY of provin:__ .
make
goodies
I,,tx .ses of ehltzTnal committee-men to
oRrORATION 0
ATTonb, enolders in bubble railway compui
1,
—,11.-OENERAL V. THE C
,„alktr. I
NEWCASTLE.
al to
"ftieli 5t4..111 aPPlied to the Court t) allow this app
seoall
4and "(;I', two out of this day's The Lf le the first day of appeals atter term.
resift
of
paper of appeals,
T,Nutin, 3tV CHANcELLon. was afraid that '
hearing of
11)etils'' these aPplications to postpone the
to
en with. would t.
Ir ri ..e, that he should have nothing
Ili •-oope quri,i, , . n observed, that his
afrkiciT HIS appeals with such rapidity, that
°I. appeals Would not have sufficient to constitute a paper
Lordship hiaide
was
The als...for to-morrow.
4'14 nh CUANc'rrcr. R ultimately directed that the
should stand over to the time asked.
, Thh, ANSLEY v. COTTON.
kitt j,i ease ea.nas before the court on
filed
by tt`'in of tllO Master of the Rolls. The bill was
appeal from the
ttkait at namul Sophia Ansley, and her children,
C1(41 )a. the defendantethe executor' of a lady named
under
,(tini who by her will left to the plaintiff a sum of
!bli'‘'t ~.Ihd the
question in the case was whether
free of
to "Ili the plaintiff was entitled to the amount .
~-,t4i a t
I, , tuld Master o
041 tl-Y. The Mast I the Rolls decided that she
knot. from that decision the present appeal was
kr. c
liPpeto %DER and Mr. LEWIS were in support of the
kr '4"
• 117%13andCRAIG upheld theitlagTheat, of the
erthei Mr.
T°w•
atm._ .-.oau c
clear] of opth- 1
ter (,f th .., RANCELLOR was
the appeal.
dismissed To e nulls was right, and
MIST.
Th, --- DUKE OF LEEDs V. EARL AMII . • ion the
Time reinainder of the day was occupied
le4t3 in this case, which came before the Cou_r_enPu_i_l_
tlie ..tien of re-hearing, from the decision of his li
.11(II
with the en ail-
het e 'ee•Chaneellor of En-fland. The arguments h
Onelißi.ed When the CoZ.rt rose.
IiChLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Llit I. PERRY V. MEADoWCROFT.
`.4 Tntn@t concluded his arguments, and.was fol-
, 1, on the same side by Mr. Heresley.
eer, wi
At
a, LeotE eplied.
to 1..,.°e conclusion of the Learned Counsel's address,
vq„,s,L.ertsiiie delivered judgment, in the course_
...1
giewa went through the facts of the case, and de
that the exceptions should be overruled.

o‘-1, -CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY)
.—etore the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.) 4 Mr. ST PARKIN V. SANDERSON.—I27JUNCTI4?Nr.a
pecial I
illitia,,tz,„u4llT applied to-day in this case fo
4titk.ll3, to restrain the defendants, who are the rep...re;
4e,i'llies and the execuwys de son tart of the I.ate
sM
n.
Nitson, -who carried on an extensive busin?s in
Mk, 'id, from carrying on that business, or collecting i
hy Jitlssets, and also for a receiver. The bill was filed
tati '' ereditors and a -t' alleo•cd the present apph-
an i,_ , , s i was b
0444. 'eatne necessary to secure the payment of their
I'll
fuitio Lour'
fo tgranted the injunction.
e4iiint-r directionsen
nnpnrteiceefedweidtietho
enhenatraildieedmuarn pointsryersand
particular notice.
I,lllefore Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
Thh, 11." V. SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY COMPANT• t a
hilar,h Was a motion of the plaintiff 011's. Naylor):. the °lder in the South Devon Itailw: y Company, for
l'all,l3l:Pse Of determining, her right to in'.trest on the
fir'
.'_ielt a.he had paid in January, 1845, and which ind
at the wtiaawithheld in consequence of further calls ma o
.-11c,c :lir' The matter turned chiefly tla tie construe-
'n that e c(!lnPany's Act, in which there wis a provi-
ahm.o2, i until the railway should be in operation, the.
alroe°,cle'rs should be entitled to intawit
1 ...e. toc. on their

This case was ordered to Ftand over.
BLAIR V. BROMLEY.
The arguments in this cause were then resumed.
The cause was postponed, in consequence of the ab-
sence of Mr. Pethell, who was to have replied.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS J) Y.)
IN RE SHUTTLENVORTH.
Mr. PARRY proceeded to raise his objections to the
order and certificates under which this lady was in
custody. He contended that the order was invalid, in
consequence of there being no statements as to the age
of the party, her religious persuasion, the duration of
the attack, the nature of the malady, whether suicidal or
dangerous to others, and whether the party was subject
to epilepsy. Mr. Justice Patteson, in hearing the case
on the previous day, gave it as his opinion that the
party making the order should at all events have made
some return to these inquiries on the order, even if it
were only to state that he had no means of ascertaining
them. The Legislature had no doubt some important
meaning in requiring all these inquiries on the order to
be answered, and he (Mr. Parry) contended that the
intention was either that the order should be signed
by same near friend or relative of the party, or if cir-
cumstances required that a stranger should sign it,
he should at all events make such inquiries as would
enable him to make a complete return. With regard to
the form of the certificates, he should submit that neither
of them came within the meaning of the schedule of the
Act. The certificate of Dr. Wilmot, which stated that
he formed his opinion as to the insanity of the lady
from the fact " that she laboured under delusions of
various kinds, and was dirty and indecent in the
extreme," was utterly insufficient. He should have
particularised the various delusions, instead of com-
prising them in one general statement. Upon the second
portion of the certificate, the statement of extreme in-
decency and dirt, such a fact was quite compatible with
perfect sanity.
Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that the last point
was a question of medical opinion into which the Court
could not enter.
Mr. PARRY continued--With respect to the second
certificate, he would submit to the Court that it was of
no value, as the forms required by the Act had not been
complied with. The Legislature had prescribe d a
printed form, and no surgeon had any right to alter or
deviate from that form. In the certificate of Dr. Grif-
fiths, a pen had been drawn through the words "following
fact, and the statement w hhic followed was m
of the
yhe
a
matter of his opinion, for he said that he judged
insanity of the lady "from conversation which he had
wish her." That was no statement of fact as required
by the schedule of the Act; and in a former case certifi-
cates which were much more explicit in their statements
of facts, were held to be of no value, and therefore he
would submit to the Court that this certificate was in-
complete, and an insufficient warrant to detain this lady
in custody.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said that it seemed to be ad-
mitted on the return that the lady was insane, and a
dangerous person to go at large; and were they, in con-
s,. quence of an informality, to discharge a dangerous
lunatic person upon society?
Mr. PARRY apprehended that they must do so if there
was no legal authority to detain her. It had not been
proved that this lady was insane.
Mr. Justice ERLE said it had been placed on the re-
turn to the writ that she was so, and it was competent
to him (Mr. Parry) to go into that question. Ile (Mr.
Justice Erle) was quite ready to hear that part of the
case. It could be done by affidavit in a summary way.
Mr. PARRY thought that a sane person was not com-
pelled to go such a roundabout way to obtain his liberty,
but if he could prove that he was in illegal custody he
was at once entitled to his dischargeent, said that there
Lord Disetmeer, in giving judgm
could be no difficulty in this case, for no doubt was en-
tertained by the Court. His opinion was formed from the
general details of the case, for it was his duty to form
his opinion upon such principles, particularly in a case
of so much importance, and so entirely exceptional to
the course of common legislation. It was plainly clear
that there could be no security for the public, and none
sions were
Aro rettolefer unfortunatearlianaent
w apu
was foamed,
se,d the n l
eosbsj eitcstsprf;
vi
r whom the
peculiar one. In
of oppression were
administered.dthuelyforer tate of things mcaansey wacatssa
and circumstances of that
terested in confining others,
perpetrated, under the pretence of lunacy, by parties in-
the
William IV. was
quence 2d and 3
quence of this, the
sort had frequently come before the public. In conse-
d to be so framed'
Act was passed, which was suppose
framed, but it was not found satisfactory, and a latter
as to prevent all sort of fraud
had been taken to prevent any
and it gave
acts of oppression, as extreme car©
in the operation of such cases,
regard to the*
safe which could be given with any
h
the could
to these unfortunate parties the greatest protec-*
safety of others; and in fact took care t at_
it was enacted that
found any peoceeding or complaint, not be injurious to themselves or others. In order to
order. No
the party who should proclaim what he believed to be
'insanity in any individual should issue an
person in particular was required to issue that order. ;
and the necessity of answering the printed questions in
the order was merely to show how the lunatic ought to
be treated. He thought that in this case nothing could
possibly be more proper than the conduct of the clergy-
man of the parish, for here he found the person in such
a state as to give him reason to believe that she ought to
be confined. The Act of Parliament is peculiar in its
wording, and in the 45th section it said that no person,
not a pauper, should be sent to any lunatic asylum,
unless under an order containing the forms men-
tioned in schedule Bof the Act. The question
was, whether those peculiar forms had been com-
lied with in this order ; and in his opinion
se order was sufficient, for there were some statements
expressly answered. The inquiry as to religious per-
suasion was properly answered, and with regard to the
inquiries relative to the previous history of the party,
he thought the excuse made was reasonable enough for
not giving the particulars required, because if there was
a person exercising a control over her, and if there was
any reference to be made at all in the matter, it would
be that they could not expect that information from a
person under the control of another, and disturbed in
mind, When that circumstance was alleged by any
person or persons as a reason for not answering their
queries, he thought that the reason was a good and bona
fide one. So much for the order, us to the certificates,
the language of the 46th section of the Act was different
from the 45th. It provided that every certificate should
contain such peculiar forms, but when they saw that the
persons called upon to act were persons known to the
law as being skilful in this particular disease, there was
some reason for not requiring from them the same exact-
ness which that' q
require from a stranger, or any
layman not acquainted with the question or disease.
The first certificate stated that the lady was of unsound
mind, because she laboured under various delusions, and
because she was extremely dirty and indecent in her per-
son. He thought it would be monstrous to require all
the peculiarities of these delusions in these
were conside cases. There
were, unfortunately, many things which
delusions, and which were, after all, a mere difference
of opinion ; and circumstances of this sort
to mig
ersons ht arise,
which now, according to the Act, referred p to
whore, in the exercise of their skill and opinions, these
delusions were perfectly well understood with reference
to the nature of the disease ; and the skilful persons
who certified as to the existence of delusions did quite
sufficient to show that the certificate ws a good one
and
The latter clause of it alone, " that she was dirty
indecent in her person," was sufficient to furnish that
opinion ; and the statement of particulars would only
be a matter of offence and disgust. The second certifi-
cate was not so formal; but still it didnot follow that the
form given in the Act must be implicitly followed. It
would have been much better that the form laid
down by the Act had been adopted ; but if they
found that the certificate given was equivalent,
they ought to be satisfied. If the gentleman
himself had kept to the printed form it would have been
better for all. The statement of the fact that he had
had a conversation of three hours' duration, from which
he was clearly of opinion that the lady was a person of
unsound mind, was perfectly sufficient- lie considered
that it wits the statement of a feet required by the terries
of the 46th section of the Act ; and this fact was one on
which a skilful person would be enablbd to 'found an
opinion. The ikot reiii.44 4 dcfuiito statement and