The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 25.
Ile LORD CHANCELLOR sat in his Court at West-rain-
to day at ten o'clock.

NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.
The Right Hon. C':-axles Buller, the Judge-Advocate-
coral, one of the Under• Secretaries of State for the
Colonies, and Member for Liskeard, was called this
morning by the Lord Chancellor within the bar, her
Majesty having been graciously pleased to appoint him
one of her Counsel learned in the law. The Right Hon.
Gentleman, having received the congratulations of the
members of the bar, withdrew.
CHRISTIAN V. FOSTER.
This case stood on the paper to-day for judgment, but
his Lordship postponed giving it till the first seal (Tues-
day next).

COOTIE V. LOW.NDES.

Mr. BETHELL replied to-day in this case, and
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment.
The hearing of the appeals of " Walford v. Adie,"
and " Bartleet v. Green," were postponed; and his
Lordship, having thus disposed of all the cases in his
paper, rose before twelve o'clock.
Thia was the last day 4 term, and his Lordship will
not sit again till the first seal, Tu"sday next.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 25.

THE HENSAL-GREEN GAS WORKS.-ELLINTES V. TAYLOR.-

JUDGMENT.

Mr. KINDERSLEY having replied today,
His LORDSHIP delivered judgulent. He said this was
a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendants
from proceeding with works which they were erecting
near the dwelling-house of the plaintiff. The question
involved in this motion was one of great import.
ance, for the public had the greatest interest
in the maintenance of such I, gal rights as
were contended for in the present case. The
plaintiff was possessed of a house in which he re-
sided, and which was situated a short distance from a
piece of land possessed by the defendants, and upon
which they proposed to erect a gas manufactary. Their
works were now in progress of erection. The only mis-
chief that could ensue to the plaintiff was from the ma-
nufacture of gas, and he had nothing to apprehend from
the works considered in themselves, and without
reference to what was to be manufactured in them.
The manufacture of gas was not to commence till
March, consequently the mischief apprehended by
the plaintiff was future —speculative —and if the
description of works were of that character which
would produce unquestionably those effects feared by the
plaintiff, the Court would give the relief here sought for.
Bat, looking on all the cases any way analogous, he could
not find, with the exception of one particular case, that
the Court had granted an injunction before the matter
had been decided by a court of law. The principle upon
which that (the Rolls') Court acted was clear. It had no
jurisdiction to determine what was, or what was not, a
nuisance, but had a power to prevent a nuisance when
mere legal orders were insufficient to do justice. If it
were clear that a court of law could not give
those adequate orders, the Court would be
right to interfere. The question then really to be con-
sidered was, whether there was any instance where
carrying on gas works was to be regarded as a nuis-
ance, and no legal proceeding had determined such. It
was, no doubt, very disagreable in any case to be sub-
jected to the effects of the volatile products that arise
from the distillation of coal, but whether these
effects were necessarily such as would consti-
tute a nuisance was a different question. He
considered that the plaintiff should have given
a notice to the company before they had proceeded
so far with their works, and incurred the consequent
expense. Looking at all the circumstances, it was not
in his power to grant the injunction. He should wish to
refuse the application in a way that would not preclude
the plaintiff, in the event of obtaining a verdict, apply-
ing again to the Court, or of bringing his case before
another judge.
Mr. KINDERSLEY applied, on the part of the plaintiff,
that the case should be allowed to stand over.
His LORDSHIP said he had no objection, and the case
was accordingly ordered to stand over.

VICE CHANCERY COURT, Non. 25.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
This being the last day of Michaelmas term, his
Honour the Vice Chancellor of England took motions
to-day, but none of any interest came before the Court
during the morning.
Mr. Charles Buller, M.P. for Li,keard, having been
appointed a Queen's Counsel, was in the course of the
day called by his Honour within the bar.
It is generally understood that the Court will not sit
again till Tuesday next, the first seal, when his Honour
will hear motions in his Court at Lincoln's Inn.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
BLAIR V. BROMLEY.—JUDGMENT.

Judgment was delivered in this cause this morning.
His lioNoua said that at the conclusion of the
arguments he had expressed an opinion, to which he
still adhered, that he must decide upon the liability of
Bromley to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff.
The only question was, as to whether the act of William
Bromley should be considered the act of the firm of
which he was one of the members. The false repre-
sentations of Bromley must be admitted at el taken as
the act of the firm, to raise money for the purpose of
effecting the mortgage. There were some points raised
in the discussion into which he did not enter, such as
whether or not the defendants were injuriously effected
by the act of William Bromley, which act un-
questionably constituted a suggestio falsi. In order
that his decision might be placed on as broad
a basis as possible, he had looked into the Jaw on the
question to see how this 'matter could be treated at law,
and he believed he was correct when he stated that there
here no means by which the plaintiff could have had a
remedy at law, in consequence of the intervention of the
Statute of Limitation, for the evil effects that had re-
sulted to him from the misrepresentations of William
Bromley. He considered that this was a case which
came legitimately within the jurisdiction of that Court,
and he would make a decree that the defendant should
pay the money with costs.
JORDAN V. JONES.—JUDGMENT.

His 110 NOI7R also gave judgment it this case.
A decree was made to enable certain parties to make
s conveyance, and one of those parties being a married
woman, who had refused to join in the conveyance, the
order applied for was, that she should be directed to exe-
cute the deed of indenture, which the Court granted.

PENNINGTON V. BUCKLEY.
His HONOUR delivered judgment in this cause, which
ca-ne before the Court on Saturday last.
The will of the testator directed that an income of a
given amount was to be paid to as many persons
as the interest of his stcck would admit.
The question was who were the objects to which the in-
come should be given. They were described as being
such unbeneficed curatos in a certain deanery in Not-
tingham, whose salaries did not exceed 35/., and who
should be recommended by the beneficed curates of that
deanery. It was contended that this description
applied to one class of persons only, namely,
these whose incomes did not exceed the above sum,
35/. per annum. It appeared to him that these words re-
ferred to two classes of persons—namely, those of such
limited income as was specified in the will, and those
who obtained the specified recommendation of the bene-
ficed curates of the deanery.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 25.

Mr. Edward Strutt took the oaths on his acceptant e
of office as one of her Majesty's counsel.
Mr. Charles Buller, M.P., Judge-Advocate, was called
within the bar, he having been appointed " one of her
Majesty's counsel learned in the law."
THE QUEEN 5. WATKINS AND OTHERS.
The defendantshadheen found guilty on an indictment,
at the instance of the Navigation Committee, of creating
a nuisance in the Thames, at Garden-stairs, Greenwich,
by persisting in maintaining a pier there, after repealed
notices to remove it. The matter was brought before
this Court, and an order was issued directing the Navi-
gation Committee to abate the nuisance. It appeared
they had misunderstood the order, and at once directed
the "water-bailiff to remove the pier, and he accordingly
did so on the 28th of July last, the defendants assisting
him in its removal, believing that he was empowered to
do so by the order of the Court, but subsequently, find
ing they were in error, they forcibly replaced the pier.
Mr. WORDSWORTH now prayed the jedgment of the
Court on the defendants for transgressing the order of
the Court.
Mr. Sergeant Sums., who appeared for the defendants,
dwelt upon the fact, that the order had been misunder-
stood by the Navigation Committee, who, it was under-
stood, were to appoint a properly qualified person to see
that the nuisance was properly abated, not absolutely re-
moved. The pier could not now be considered a nuisance
as a stone pier, which was objectionable, had been re-
moved, aad access to Garden-stairs might now be easily
obtained.
After some discussion, on the suggestion of Lord
Denman, it was agreed between the parties that Mr.
Walker, the engineer, or a properly qualified person to
be appointed by him, should be empowered to adjudicate
and abate the nuisance with as little injury to the pre-
perty of the defendants as possible, the defendants to pay
all reasonable costs.
THE QUEEN S. THOMPSON.
In this case a rule had been obtained calling upon the
defendant, who is an attorney of this Court, to show
cause why he should not be struck off the rolls.
Mr. WHITEHURST, Q.C., showed cause against the
rule. His objections were—that the offenca imputed to
the defendant was clearly an indictable one, and, on ac"
count of the time which had elapsed since the offence
was stated to have been committed—namely, December,
1844—whereas the rale was not applied for
until last June. The defendant was ch irged with the
concoction of a scandalous conspiracy to obtain money
under false pretences. He was charged with temspirine:
with a person named Luke, who, in August, 1344, oc-
cupied some property in Noithamptonshire, to concoct
a fraudulent title in his name to some land, for the
purpose of inducing a solicitor named Pell, or a client
of his, to lend him (the defendant) 82/. or Tool. upon
~,,them. mid that the defendant well knew that Luke hail
DO title to the land in questi at, and that the whole
matter
.7:{../r.voiciF.walini a pie" of fraud; but then the
1: moved and-obtained on hearsay evi-
sse
take-raw he apprehended that the Court would not
Y',lYrPeeedloo.s in a case in which the offence
an
charged "
s' one, and consequently indict-
, able. Beat*, if the case was allowed to proceed in its
• present femy the defendantmtztili)e betrayed into
mighte be used
usetdo
the admisiglita of statements
against Wel on his trial. The
when
proper
mike stleYi an opposition was,
proceedint ga had been completed. In the ulterior
a case r
roiled i the sth of Barnwell and Adolphus,
Mord Denman was reported to have said with re-
•spect to * rule calling upon two solicitors to show cause
'why they should not be struck off the rolls for improper
'conduct, that the offence was an indictable one, and that
the defendants should undergo the ordeal of a trial
before such an application was wade to the Couet. The