The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
CO' iRT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 13.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 13.
CRORBIE V. CHURCH.

(Before Vice Chancellor WIGRem.)
THORNHILL V. DYER.
His HONOUR delivered judgment today on the excep-
tions taken by the defendants on the original bill. That
hill was tiled to recover 4.0001. on the estates of Mr.
Tb•irnhill, alleged t • have been placed in Mr. Thorn-
hill's bands in trust. The defendants on this filed a
cross bill fur discovery, and an answer was put in, to
which the plaintiffs in the cross bill took exceptions.
The Nta,ter's finding on these exceptions was that all
were bad, and that the costs of them should be paid by
the plaintiffs in the cross bill. They took exceptions to
thisfrnding in both its divisions ; first. that all the ex-
c..priork'were not bad ; and second, that the defendants
should pay the-costs. His Honour allowed the first of
tht4e.genersl exceptions to the Master's finding, and
disittlowed the second, as to the costs. After having
gone through the original exceptions, the subject of this
flatting., seriatim, his Honour expressed his hope that
pirties would not proceed further in the same inefficient
course.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 14.
(Sittings in Rine% at Westminster Hall.)
:Their Lorhhips entered the Court this morning at
the usual hour, and proceeded to dispose of the " New
'l4-rial Paper.'.'

PAGE V. HATCHELL.
This case was tried during the sittings of last term,
when the facts were published at full length; a short
summary, therefore, is all that is now necessary.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that the plaintiff got
a verdict, in the case last term, and he now moved to
have that verdict set aside, and a new trial granted.
The case went to a jury upon two issues ; one issue
was that of not being possessei, and the other, not
guilty. The declaration contained two counts, the first
of w loch alleged that the river Thames was a navigable
river at the place in question, and that the plaintiff had
a wharf upon the river near Battersea-bridge, where he •
carried on business as a coal-merchant, and as such had
certain barges, &c. coming up to their wharf, but that
hi trade had been obstructed by reason of the defendant
having Oleo i certain posts in the river in front of the
wharf. The second count was a count in trover, for
certain barges, carts, waggons, &c. The first plea was
to the allegation of not being possessed of the wharf ;
and the second, that of not guilty, to the count in
trover. The Solicitor-General then proceeded to describe
the locality of the wharf, and the premises connected
with it. It appeared from the statement that a family
named Long held certain other premises near to those
of the plaintiff, under a lease from Lord Cadogan ; that
a son of Mr. Long's was also a coal-merchant, and used
the wharf in question in conducting his business ; that
Mr. Long, sen., had let the wharf to plaintiff, but the
defendant, who had a private house near to the wharf,
conceived that the wharf had become his private pro-
perty, and th it should not be used. by the
public, and therefore he bad put up the posts
complaine of: "It had been given in evidence
that the family of Mr. Long had been in possession of
his premises for forty or fifty years, and that during
r.at time the wharf had been used by the public ; but
;.e plaintiff did no produce any lease to Mr. Long ; he
r-lied entirely on the fact of user. But the defendant
put iii the last lease granted by Lord Cadogan to Mr.
1.,,ng, by which it appeared that Lord Cadogan had
dvalised to Mr. Long the premises he held ; but as to
the wharf, there did not appear to have been any demise
oS
r that, other than the use of it heretofore. The Learned
ilieitor.General, having stated a number of extraneous
facts,
oc
then preeded to read the lease he had mentioned,
which was a most voluminous document.
Judgment deferred.

BAIL COURT, Jun. 13.
(Before Mr. Jdstice WILLIAMS.)
VIE QUEEN D. THE TOWN
COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH
OF lIOLToN
Mr. COWLING applied fo r;ile to show cause why
a mandamus should not irssuae
the town
council of the borough of BoltothnectOempraayailloclitnhge treasurer
for the county of Lancashire
857 L 11a. 3d.,
and also the sum of 7931. 19;., as their of
of the ex-
penses of the county. The Learned Counsel stated th
the borough of Balton, in the county of Lancashire, ~',,t
by a recent Act received the right of app,„,;iin"ga:
coroner and holding a quarter sessions. By the 117th
section of Will. IV., chap. 76, it was enacted that the
treasurer for the county should keep an account of all
expenses incurred by any borough which had the right
of holding a quarter sessions, in the prosecution of crimi-
nals, or the holding of coroner's inquests, and should
afterwards deduct such expenses from the sum at which
the borough was rated for the expenses of the county.
There could be no doubt that the borough of Belton
came expressly under this regulation, and accordingly,
on the 24th of November, 1843, the county treasurer had
sent his account up to the 24th of June in the same
year, with a request that the town council would mske
an order for the Pelnuent.of it.
an order accordingi The town council made
surer, and that was presented to their tree-
to liquidate the a
geettoZh nideclarea his perfect willingness
mount,
rrubtitshat he had not the funds to
do so in his possession b
cpu
fact was stated to the town ncil, With a reluest:that
they would make a borough

The Lord Chancellor sat to-day shortly after ten
o'clock. The further arguments in the part-heard mo-
tion of Ne-idham v. Needham occupied his Lord:hip the
whole morning.

This was an application to set aside an order with
respect to this case, made in Chancery in 1840, in conse-
quence of a defect in the evidence.
His LORDSHIP ordered the papers to be handed in, in
order to bring the facts of the case to his mind.

BUCK V. BOUCHER.
This was a petition on t.e part of the defendant,
praying that a sum of 2531. in Court to the credit of this
case should be invested in the purchase of Bank Three-
per Cent. Annuities ; and that a sumlof 90/. 16s. Bd.,
- interest on the said sum, should also be similarly dis-
posed of. The sum claimed was the residue of property
to which the petitioner had become entitled by the will
of the testator.
The case was ordered to stand over.
POOLE V. POOLE.
This was an application for an order to direct the
Master to tax costs.

It appeared that the plaintiffs were three out of fire
chit Iran of the testator, Mr. Jeremiah Poole, and that
the defendants were the other two children. The testator
had given his estates to his brother, in trust for his
ehldren tilt the youngest should have attained
her majority, when he directed that they should be sold,
and the money divided equally between his wife and
children. A decree had been obtained in the case, and
the matter %% as eventually referred to the Master. Coats
had been subsequently incurred, and the object of the
application was to have the same taxed.—The order was
granted.

- 'rho remaining unopposed petitions on the list were
then proceeded with, none of which possessed a particle
of public ieti rest. -

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jan. 13.
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
His ,Honour the Vico-Chancellor of England, -after
disposing of the unopposed cause petitions on his paper,
proceeded to giro judgment in the case of
DAVIS V. COMHERMERE.

This case, came before the Court previous to the
Christmas recess, upon the petition of Mr. Davis and
Mr. Fitzpatrick, the two surviving trustees of the late
Mr. Fulke Greville, praying that the Court wottld order
the Master to allow them to appear before him, and
watch the proceedings in his office with reference to the
sale of certain property belonging to the testator in the
cause. It appeared from the statements of his Honour
that the- testator, Mr. Fulke Greville, devised all his
real estates to three trustees upon certain trusts, thst
'lle of those trustees was dead, and that the plaintiff,
Mr. Davis, and another g-ntleman, named Fitzpatrick,
w. re the two surviving trustees, and also executors of
the will of the decased. .They filed their bill for the
purpose of having the provisions of the will executed.
and a bill had been also filed by Mr. Fulke Greville, the
sone of the deceased, for the same purpose. When the
case carne before the Court, one decree was pronounced
in, both causes, and the plaintiff in the second cause was
or.h.red to have the carriage of the decree. By that
decree it was directed by the Court that certain pro
perry belonging to the testator should be sold, and se-
e.iurits were also directed to betaken before the Master. To
c4rry these orders into effect, it was necessary thatcertain
parties should attend before the Master, and the trustees
I.ubmitted that they were entitled to perform that duty.
The Master decided against their claim, and the result
was the presentation of this petition. His Honour, after
going into the case at some length, stated his opinion to
he that the trustees were entitled to attend before the
Master when the question was with reference to the
purchase Of estates,. but where they were to be sold the
trustees were not necessary parties before the Master.
The result of his Honour's decision was to dismiss the
petition of the trustees, but without costs.
TILE DUKE OF BEAUFORT V. SIR JOHN MORRIS—
JUDGMENT.

His Hosoun also gave judgment on this motion, which
was argued previous to the Christmas recess, upon en
application on behalf of the noble plaintiff for an
injunction to restrain the defendants from working
coal mines in Wales .
in the manner in which
they were doing, on the ground of great injury to the
mines f the plaintiff:
His HoNoun declined granting the injunction on the
extend:tl form asked by the notice of motion, but ordered
an injunction to issue, restraining the defendants from
winking their collieries in a manner that was calculated
to injure the mines of the plaintiff.
The Court then proceeded to hear motions.
(Morrie Vice-Chan'ellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
BILLING v. WEBB (exce.,tions).
BILLING V. WEBB (further directions).
Ilii lioNona, in giving judgment, did not allow or
overrule any of the excep ions, and declared upon the
exceptions and further directions, that there was no
personal estate, that the real estate should be sold for
the paymant:of debts, and that there were no debts due
to or from-Trendal ar Alloway.
All costs whatever were reserved.
• PIERCE V. FRANKS.
The plaintiff, successor to the Messrs. Smyths, Bond-
street, obtained an injunction against defendant, who is
a brush-maker in Southwark, to restrain him from
stamping hiz brushes with " Smyths, Bond-street," a
mark which, in so far as it affects the sale of the goods,
is the private property of Mr. Pierce. The cause was
heard to day, and his Honoui, without hesitation,
granted a perpetual injunction in terms of the bill, and
gave costs to the plaintiff, except so far, if at all, the
costs had been affetted by an allegation in the bill that
the defendant, in addition to the words" Smyths, Bond-
ctre( t," 113 d used the private marks of the plaintiff, which
was left unsupported by evidence. Whatever expenses
had been incurred in consequence of this was to be re-
funde.l to the defendant by Mr. Pierce.