The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-10 00:00:00

VISCOUNT DU N GANNON V. &SLIM

Their Lordships gave judgment in this ease this morning,
affirming the decision of the Com t below.

PINKERS V. THE ILATCLIFFE GAS COMPANY.
The further arguments in this part-head appeal occupied
their Lofdships the remainder of the morning.

COURT 0 CHANCERY, June 8.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE. )
CHAPLIN V. GARRICK.—OHAPLIN V. CHAMBERS.
This case excited a good deal of attenti,ai in Court this
morning, on account of the interests involved, and the cir-
cumstances out of which it rose They were these :—The
testatrix was married to Robert Reid in 1805, at Carlisle,
where they continued to live till the death of the husband.
Two children are still alive, the issue of this marriage, and
appeared by the plaintiff in the suit. In the year
1809, the widow went to Gretna Green, in Scotland,
and was married to James Reid, the brother of her deceased
husband, with whom she continued to live as her husband
up to the close. of 1821, and had ten children by him, all
living, and defendants i❑ the suit. In the month of No-
vember, 1821, the mother, then being pregnant with her
youngest child, made a will, devising property to the amount
of about 3,0001 to all her children, re-ervieg a beneficial in-
terest in it to her husband (James Reid) during his life; and
she died about five drib's etar the date of the will, in child-
bed.

A suit under this will was instituted by the children
of the fist marriage, who oi.jevt against the claim of
the children of the seiiond marriage, that that marriage being
:olemiliscd hi Scotland was void by Scotch law ; and that,
therefore, these ten children were illegitimate, and could not
sustain tlieir claim at law.

The Master's report, among other findings, found that, by
the law of Scotland, the marriage of a widow with her de-
ceased husband's brother is void, and set forth the opinion
of the Lord Advocate, and other legal gentlemen of the
Scotch Bar.

Mr. Wigrain, Q.C., and Mr. Faber, were beard for the de-
fendants on exceptions.

ROLLS' COURT, June 8.
ZYVES V. THE I►UYE OF WELLINGTtN.
The further arguments iu this part-heard case, a detail cf
the facts of which we gave on Saturday, occupied the Master
of the Rolls the whole nt.rning.

VICE CHA vc:EuY COURT, June 8.
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE EARL OF DEVON.

Mr. BETilta.L's reply in this case occupied the Court the
whole morning, and had not concluded when onr evening
edition went to press.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 8.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HOLFORD V. CILAWSHAY.

This case came before the Court on a demurrer to two
pleas, in which the defendant set out his acquirement of a
right which annihilated the right of the plaintiff, for the in-
fringemet of which the present action was brought.
The plaintiff complained that the right he enjoyed of the
benefits of the unimpeded flow of the waters of a well conti-
guous to his property was interfered with, by a cut and dams
etected by the defendant, and which diverted a portion of
the water,

The plea set up by defendant was that he occupied a close
and iron works adjoining the water, and that he enjoyed the
use of the cut for such a length of time before the present
action was brought.as gave him a right to the diversion of
the water, even suppDsing that such right did not exist be-
tore. In short, the uninterrupted possession of the " right
and easement" of said cut for such a length of time now
justified the possession.
The Coutt would take time to consider its judgment.
June 9.
(Sittings in Banco.)
FARINA •. HOLMES.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered, tried be-
fore the Under-Sheriff of Middlesex, on Thursday last, when
a verdict was given for the plaintiff for 14/. ss. The plaintiff
is an extensive perfumer and vendor of eau de Cologne,
and the defendant a gentleman residing in Albemarle-street.
The defendant, it appeared, ordered twenty-five dozen of
eau de Cologne, which order was forwarded by plaintiff' to
Cologne, and the goods were sent shortly afterwards to de-
fendant's agent, and the invoice and dock warrant to de-
fendant himsslf. The Under-Sheriff, in summing up, said
that the Fl :intiff had, by the latter act, put it in the power of
the defendant to receive the goads, and his liability, therefore,
was the same as if the goods bad been sent to hint in the first
instance. The jury consequently, without a moment's hesi-
tation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed.

The prevent application was for a rule to set aside this ver-
Wet on the griund of misdirection, and that there was no
evidence to ho to the jury.
Rule granted on all the grounds.

COURT OF QUEEN"S BENCH, June 8.

IN RE NV3I CORBETT.

The whole of the forenoon wa, occupied in the hearing of
an application from Mr. Wm. Cubbett, sou of the tate cele-
brated po irical writer, for an order to be di,charged from
the custody in which he has been placed for some time,
arising our of cer.,.in proceedings in the Court of Chancery,
and an alleged contempt of that Court. When the Learned
Gentleman had finished his statement,
The Comm, after a few minutes' consultation, dismissed
the application, and he was remanded to the charge of the
officers who had brought him up.