The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-10 00:00:00

LEIGH V. EARL BALCARRAS.

This was a petition praying for certain directions in
reference to trustees, to compel them to carry out the
intentions of a testator. The plaintiff was pres'nt tenant
for life on the property of the testator, and there were
two defendants, viz., the Earl of Balcarras and a Mr.
Gaskell, who were the trustees of the estate of Sir R.
Leigh, the testator. Miss Loveday Cook was entitled
to the estate of Sir R. Leigh by his will, which, after
granting certain legacies, &c., gave his personal estate,
chattels, &c., to the aforesaid parties, to be kept in trust
for Miss Cook, and after her demise to be appropriated
to the purposes of other parties afterwards mentioned in
the will.

His HONOUR, having heard the arguments on both
sides, said that he would reserve his judgment.
The new Lord Mayor made the customary visit to this
Court, and invited his Honour to dinner to-day at
Guildhall.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 9.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND MESSRS.

COWARD.

Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., applied to the Court for a rule
calling upon the South-Western Company to issue a
warrant, for the purpose of assessing the amount of
compensation to which Messrs. Coward, the extensive
starch manufacturers, of Lambeth, are entitled, on ac•
count of the injury which will be caused to their pre-
mises by the extension of the line to Waterloo bridge.
lie made the application under the Lands Clauses Con•
solidation Act, c. 65. The private Act of the company
gave them power to take the whole of the premises of
Messrs. Coward, in Princes-street, Lambeth, where
they have carried on business for upwards of 60 years ;
and accordingly on the 14th of May last, they gave
them notice that they would require only a portion
of their prcperty, but that portion was in the very
centre of their factory, and if taken would entirely
destroy their works. They stated this to the company,
and expressed their willingness to sell the whole of their
Property to them, in conformity with the Bth and 9th
Vic., clause 92, cap. 18, which was to the effect, that a
railway company should give compensation for the whole
of a persons property, if it could be proved that taking
a part would render the remainder valueless. The com-
pany had stated is reply to the applications of Messrs.
Coward, that their demand was too large, and that they
could not facsimile to it. The Learned Counsel cited the
cases of King v. the Hungerford-market Company, 4th
" Barnewall and Adolphus," p. 327, and Stone v. the
Commercial Railway Company, which was tried in this
Court, in support of his application,—Rule granted.

CON PIRACY.-THE QUEEN V. GOMBERTZ AND OTHERS.

This was an indiAment at the instance of Captain Rose
against Gombertz and three persons of the name
of Witham for conspiracy. The conspiracy con-
sisted in obtaining bills from Captain Rose for a large
amount, for which he was to receive wine warrants and
other valuable documents as security. Although the
bills were obtained, the securities were not forthcoming,
and hence the indictment, and Gombertz and one of the
Withams (Robert) were found guilty. An application
was subsequently made to this Court for a rule to show
cause why a new trial should not be had, and also to
arrest judgment in the meantime, to which the Court
acceded.

The case to-day was called on for argument.
Mr. COCKBURN showed cause against the rule, and
why the judgment of the Court below should not be
further arrested, but at once pronounced. He said one
of the grounds on which the rule was obtained was, be-
cause the third and fourth counts did not specify to
whora the bills belonged, which he held was untenable,
inasmuch as the indictment contained a number of
counts, each varying the offence, in most of which
Captain Rose was set forth as the drawer and owner.
He cited a number of ewes in support of,
and proceeded to deal with, the other objection, namely,
that a number of unstamped documents, which ought to
have been stamped, were admitted in evidence at the
trial. Such documents it appeared, and the Learned
Counsel cited several cases, were admitted in evidence ;
it was frequently necessary to adopt such a course, in
order to promote the ends of justice, which, if wholly
excluded, would be frequently defeated ; besides, if the
objection was to stand, a guilty person might commit a
crime with impunity, by drawing bills and agreements upon
unstamped paper, and, consequently, escape conviction,
on account of the non-admissibility of the instrument.
Injthis case the unstamped documents consisted of me-
morandums
of agreements alleged to have been framed
for the purpose of defrauding Captain Rose, and were
absolutely necessary to establish the caso against the
defendant.

Mr. Him., Q.C., followed, in support of the rule, on
behalf of the defendant Gombertz, and urged that the
mere form of a bill of exchange upon a piece of un-
stamped paper was nothing more than a valueless piece
of paper, and not a bill of exchange at all ; and even if
it were subsequently stamped it would be equally invalid.
He was supported iu this view by the words of the Stamp
Act, which rendered an officer punishable if he affixed a
stamp to a document which had been completed before
it was sought to be stamped. Various cases which he
cited favoured this line of argument.
At the conclusion of Mr. Hill's address the Court
rose.

In the course of the afternoon the Lord Mayor, the
Recorder, and Sheriffs, entered the Court, and the Re-
corder invited the judges, in their names, to the banquet
at Guildhall this evening.
Lord DENmaN said some of the judges would attend
the banquet.