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

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

PERRY V. MEADOWCROFT.
This was a case which came before his Lordship on
an exception to the Master's report. The Master had
found by his report there was no male lineal descendant
of a William Meadowcroft, who had been left a property
by Mr. Meadowcroft, a solicitor, of Gray's-inn, who
died on the 7th of July, 1821. The testator left his
property under a condition that it should accumulate for
twenty-one years. It was alleged that the decree was
obtained by collusion and fraud, and that the excep-
tant was the male lineal descendant of William
Meadowcroft the younger.
Mr. WALPOLE, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated
the case, from which it appeared that William Meadow-
croft the younger, in 1813, came to London, and
entered the office of his uncle, the testator, as clerk. lie
then took lodgings in the house of a Miss Lewis, where
he became acquainted sr ith another lodger, a Airs.
Gregory, the widow of a lieutenant in the navy. An
attachment grew up between the parties. The
uncle having expressed himself extremely op-
posed to his nephew forming an alliance with
Mrs. Gregory, it was agreed that a marriage
should take place without the knowledge of the
uncle. The banns were published shortly after, hut the
following mistake occurred. It appeared that the per-
son who usually entered the banns was absent from the
office, and the woman who officiated in his absence en-
tered the name " Widowcroft," instead of " Meadow-
croft," which was one of the grounds upon which a
decree had been obtained in the Consistory Court.
The Learned Counsel was proceeding with his state-
ment when the Court rose.
His Lonnsmr, however, ordered the case to be in-
serted on the list for to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY)

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)

THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occu-
pied the Court the whole day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)

CAMPBELL V. THE BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.-

JUDGMENT.

His HoNoun delivered judgment in this cause to-day.
He said, that with reference to some of the points at
issue he would not now express an opinion. If there
had been any objection against the instrument, upon the
construction of which the case chiefly turned, the parties
who now objected could have asserted their claim to
the shares in a legal way. It did not appear at the
time that there had been any protests against the in-
strument respecting the notes which had been treated as
a perfectly valid instrument. The plaintiffs clearly con-
sidered the instrument not binding; but under these
circumstances they sliculd have made their claims not
later than the 15th of February, 1545, and not have
made the delay they did. Indeed, .the arguments ad-
duced on behalf of the plaintiffs utterly
failed here. They had no excuse whatever
for that delay. With respect to the Act
of Parliament it was obscure in tome points. There was
or.e point at all events which was quite clear, namely, as
to the object of the company in obtaining that Act. No
one could for a moment suppose that in applying for
wa Act of Parliament, such. as they had done,
that it was not the intention of the company
to be empowered to exchange the shares for the loan
notes. And here be must say that he could not believe
the plaintiffs in their statements with reference to these
loan notes. He had no difficulty whatever in this case
until he came to the resolution of the 9th of January,
1845. The Act empowered the company to dispose of
these shares in any way they desired. Here
the words of the resolution became difficult to be
reconciled, because it appeared to refer again to the Act
of Parliament. But the resolution was free foom all
ambiguity to the extent that there was a perfect allow-
ance to convert the loan notes into shares. Nor could it
be doubted for a moment that by the resoluticn there
was no other than an ordinary power given to the share-
holders. He would therefore dismiss the bill with costs.

DUNCOMBE, M.P., V. LEVY.—JUDGMENT.
His Ilorroun, in delivering judgment in this cause said,
This was a case in which tl-.e question at issue was
—whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled to claim the
execution of a trust-deed. A bill was filled for that pur-
pose, and Mr. Levy, one of the creditors, whose debt
was satisfied had been made a party in the cause. The
other creditors, whose debts had not been challenged.
had been served with copies of the bill. Ile was re-
quested by the defendants to counsel whether or not the
other creditors should have been served with subpoenas.
The question depended upon the terms of the order.
Those parties served with copies of the bill
had a right to appear then, and have a suit
prosecuted against them if they thought fit to do
so. It was fur their benefit that the order should be
made to apply to them. Another question raised was
with respect to Mr. Levy. On that part of the case he
had to observe, that it was extraordinary that -having
judgments against which he might have proceeded
gnot do so. It was shown that directions had
He did not wish to decide against him, but
the question might be taken on an issue. On the other
bhtweeeodu jidugd given.
question, also, he (Mr. Levy) might take the opinion of
a court of law.

COURT OF RE V IE W.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
BRUMMAGE V. JONES. •
The petitioner in this case was the defendant Jones,
who was a bankrnpt.
It appeared that the bankrupt had among other assets
three shares in a legacy of 4001., and as the payment of
the same was attended with some difficulty, the de-
fendant considered that his interest would be sacrificed
were it to be disposed of at present, and therefore
applied to the Court for an order to prevent such imme-
diate sale.
His HONOUR said he attached great credit to the ob•
jection here made. Here was a peculiar case. The
bankrupt had one share in the reversion of a legacy, and
bought two others. He then made two assignments of
the same, but a severance had now taken place between
the assignees, consequently the interests of the bankrupt
might suffer materially.
After some discussion between the Counsel,
Is HONOUR ordered the matter should be referred
to
e Commissioner before whom the bankrupt ap-
peared.

• QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
RYALLS V. THE QUEEN IN ERROR.-AMENDING THE
FINDING OF A JURY IN CRIMINAL CASES.
This was an indictment for perjury. The case was
tried at York, and the plaintiff, Joseph Naylor Ryalls,
was found guilty. A rule was subsequently obtained to
show cause why a certiorari should not issue from this
Court, calling upon the Commissioners of Oyer and Ter-
miner of York to send in the indictment and the record
thereto, in order that the finding, which was stated to be
incorrect and invalid, might be amended. The mistake
consisted in the jury finding the prisoner guilty of the
perjury," and the clerk of the Court endorsing the bill
" guilty of the perjury and of the misdemeanour afore-
said."

Mr. PASHLEY showed cause against the rule, and
held, on the strength of numerous authorities, which he
cited that the Statute of Amendments did not apply to
criminal cases, and that the Court should not, therefore,
accede to the application.
Mr. BLISS followed, and contended that such an
amendment could be made, either by this Court or the
Court below, and quoted the authority of Lord Mans•
field and older authorities, to show that such amend-
ment might be made in both civil and criminal cases.
The prisoner was found guilty on all the counts, the
verdict was a general one, and the Court could amend
the endorsement. If the Court considered that the mat-
ter ought to be brought before the Court below, he
trusted they would subsequently grant a certiorari to
bring the amended indictment and record, and grant
The COURT acceded to an enlargement of the rule, in
time
order that the matter might be brought before the Court
for doing so.
below, and before this Court early next term. The Court