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

CHUCK V. CREAIER-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 mister, 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 tneaccounts,
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•
cite. The plaintiff, alleging that the arbitration had
miscarried, and that the accounts furnished at the
arbitration were not correct, filed his bill for a❑ in-
junction to stay the proceedings taken to enforce it.
The Vice-Chancellor refuse4_ 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.

WESTWOOD r. SLATER.-JUDGMENT.

The Loan CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
Cabe which came before his Lordship upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice-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 daughters had survived her
two sisters and left issue. His Honour was of
opinion that the settlement exhibited an intention
that the 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
take 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. TH E
BIRMINGHAM ♦ND oxroßD 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 tint:.
since, and was argued at great length, upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of
England, overruling a demurrer 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 ho must therefore diirniss 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 Junctio❑
Railway Company with costs:

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICR - CHANCELLOR or ENGLAND.)
STEWART V. FORGES.
The further arguments on this part-heard cause
occupied the Court the whole day.

QUEEN'S BENCIL—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr.
• Justice ERLI and a Special Jury.)
DURK OF 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
thedefendant 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
Hecker, and stating that he was but an instrument in
the hands of others, among whom the writer included
his Highness, and also stated that Rocker 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. Hes 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 Rocker,
and also the conviction and sentence of Mr. Barnard
Gregory for libel.
Several other witnesses were then called in support
of the plaintiff's case, at the conclusion of which
Mr. Cocxnuftst addressed the jury at some length
on behalf of the defendant.
The Learned JUDGE having stemmed up,
The jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff—
Damages, 1,000.

SECONDARIES'.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
QUESTION ON AGENCY.—SCOTT V. NICIIOELs.

The plaintiff in this action is a briclunaker, 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 with it stood in the list, the defendant's at-
torney was not present at 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 or the
plaintiff, a person named Jay was called, and he de-
posed that he was agent tbr 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
(Jay) had pail him. By that he meant he had de-
bited 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 urg,d 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 unless
the costs were paid.
The Learned SECONDARY summed up, and said
that the question for the jury was, whether at the
time of the dealing defendant knew he was doing so
with plaintiff, or whether he had had notice before
action. It was rendered a case of doubt by the
names of Mills and Jay being up at the wharf, and
the action by them ; but, at the same time, they or
Jay might on the previous occasion have mistaken
their rights.

The jury, after a long consultation, gave a verdict
for the amount claimed.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)

Henry Williaing, 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,
several
witnesses
eas as
and had not the slightest
called
nof any dishonest
intention on his part. He
to his character.

lie 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
was 161. los. 6d., and was for letters which have
passed through the Post-office since the first convio.
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 for time to pay the amount.
Mr. HENRY did not think the defendant deserved
the slightest 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 pay.
Mr. 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 be
would not ; but, indeed, his promise was of very little
value, for he held his written promise, given before
the second summons, to the same effect. However,
he would wait for one week in this instance, 43 he
hoped the promise would be kept now.
Ady left the Court without uttering a word.