The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-09 00:00:00

Ll:brz

Mr. COATF.S opened the cass for the petitioner Mr. Joseph
Keys, against the subscription contract. lle had to explain
to the Committee the nature of the allegation which he was
of opinion would not fail tc upset the case for the promoters.
The contract deed was not an invalid deed, inasmuch as the
trustee, Mr. Garrett, was a subscriber to the capital, and
therefore he could not sue upon the covenant of the deed. In
that very room on Thursday last, a decision was coma to
in the case of the Ayrshire and Galloway, upon the very
same ground. The allegation was just of the same character,
and he could not see how the Committee could come to any
other decision in the present instance. It was held in law
that no partner could sue his co partners for any expenditure
in the outlay of their business. In the very exact position
was the present deed. Take away Mr. Garratt altogether,
and then the case was still the same, for the other trustee,
though not a shareholder, could not sue either himself or his
partner, Mr. Garratt. The Act binds two trustees to carry
out a certain contract; one of the trustees was a shareholder
in the scheme, and the co-trustee, who was not a shareholder,
was answerable for the liabilities of his partner to the deed, and
therefore, if he were to sue Mr. Garratt, he would in reality
be cueing himself and his partner. This deed was, he would
not deny, per se, a valid deed, so far as the capital of the Com-
pany was concerned, but as far as the protection of the public
was concerned, there was no power under the present deed
to enforce the principles of that contract, and, consequeAly,
the public might suffer. Having then the decision of a Com-
mittee on his side in an analogous case, having common
sense on his side, and having the law on his side, he trusted
that the Committee would see that the standing orders had
not been complied with on the part of the promoters.

22
1 Si
1%
2
2'

Sub• Committee No. 2.

This Committee sat to-day a few minutes before one
o'clock. There were present—Sir J. Y. Buller (Chairman),
Mr. Walker, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kemble, Mr. Bell, and the
O'Conor Don.

THE CAMBRIDGE AND OXFORD RAILWAY
was heard.

Mr. Perm. (in Fupport of the motion) said—The first alle-
gation in the petition was, that the plans and sections of the
line, as deposited with the clerk of the peace at Oxford,
were not in compliance with the standing orders. In No.
12 the parish of Barington was not marked in the line of
deviation.

Mr. M. J. Davenport (engineer) proved the omission
alleged. The distance of deviation was about 15 perches.
The CHAIRMAN said that in this case the orders had been
complied with.

The next allegation "was that the distances, miles and
furlongs, were not correctly'marked on the plan.
Mr. ELLICOMBE objected to the term the plan, as being
too vague.

Thiii led to some discussion, but the Committee were of
opinion that the term was sufficiently specific.
Mr. M. J. Davenport was examined in support of this
allegation. In one section (50) for 10 there were marked
11 furlongs.

The CIaIRMAN said the standing orders had been complied
with in the present instance. _ _ _

The neat allegation was, that the alternate miles, as laid
down on the datum line, were incorrect.

Mr. Davenport was examined in support of the allegation,
and the Committee considered that on the 8d mile and 46th
furlong there was incorrectness, and therefore that the stand-
ing orders in that instance had not been complied.
The next allegation was that the gradients wore impro-
perly marked.
Mr. Davenport said that in one section instead of 84 it
should have been marked 90. He did not survey the line.
Mr. Denton (the engineer of the Company) was examined.
He said in the section alluded to the markirg was perfectly
correct, in which the Committee concurred.

Sub-Committee No. 3.
The members of this Committee resumed their sitting at
the tisaal hour this morning, Mr. Aglionby in the chair.
ITOR.TH BRITISH RAILWAY BRANCHES.
This was a petition from the North British Railway Com-
pany, praying for leave to bring in Bills to enable them
construct a number of branches, and other works, on their
main line.

Th North British Railway commences at Berwick-on-
Tweed, and terminate in a junction with the Edinburgh and
ac . , :n length,
anti tuts a branett to hadutugtull, in the county of that name,
and a branch to;Fisherrow ; and the line, it i3eXpiCtO, will
be opeue4 f9rtotilic in about three

The same Company are the proprietors, by purchase, of
the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway.
The present Bill was for making four branches, and alter-
ing and deviating the Fisherrow Branch, the cost of which
works was estimated by Mr. John Miller, the engineer of the
Company, at 170,0001.
The Committee took an objection to the subscription con-
tract, because it included a number of other works to which
the present Bill was in no way related; but in all other re-
spects the Committee decided that the standing orders had
been complied with.

HOUSE OF LOItDS.-(THIS DAY.)
The House sat to-day, a eleven o'clock, to hear English
appeals. The Peers in attendance were the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenhan), Lord Campbell, and Lord
Hood.

THE LATE JAMES WOOD, OF GLOUCESTER. -THE MATOR,..AL-
DERMEN, „AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH. OF GLOUCESTER

V. OSBORN AND SURMAN,

This case, which comes before their Lordships upon an ap-
peal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, stood
specially appointed for to-day. The question for the decision
of their Loidsbip is,whether, under one of the codicils to the
will of the late Mr. James Wood, of Gloucester, the Corpora-
tion of that borough are legatees of two sums of money
amounting to 200,0001. The late James Wood, the banker,
of Gloucester, died in 1836, possessed of immensexcalth, both
freehold and personal, and upon his death considerable liti-
gation took place upon the subject of his testamentary dispo-
tions in the Ecclesiastical Court, the Privy Council, and the
Court of Chancery. In the Eceleastical Court two papers
were propounded by the executors, and another paper
which had been anonymously cent by the post to
the late Mr. Thomos helps, one of the legatees, was
propounded by him. By the judgment of the Ecclesiastical
Court probate was refused to all these papers but upon ap-
peal to the Privy Council, the two papers propounded by the
executors and also that propounded by Mr. Helps, were ad-
mitted to probate, the two first as being the will of the tes-
tator, and the last asa codicil to that will, and upon the latter
paper the question now at issue arose. That paper was to
the following effect :—" In a codicil to my will I gave to the
Corporation of Gloucester 140,0001. In this 1 wish my
executors wd give 60,0001. more—to them for the same pur-
pus as I have before named I wd also give to my friends Mr.
I'hillpotts 50,0001., & Mr. Geo. Council 10,000.—& to Mr.
Thos. Helps, Cheapside, London, 30,000/., & Mrs. Elith.
Goodlake, mother of Mr. Surman, & to Thos. Wood, Smith
atr. Chelsea (each) 2,0001.—& Saml. Wood, Clevland st.,
Mile End 14,0004-8 c the latter gentu. family 6,0001.—& I
confirm all other bequests & give the rest of my property to
the Execs. fur their own interest.

" JAMES WOOD."
"Gloucester City Old Bank, July, 1835."
Upon probate of these papers being granted, the executors
refused to pay any of the legacies contained in the codicil,
and the result was, the legatees filed their bills in Chancery
for the purpose of obtaining payment. The Corporation of
Gloucester also filed their bill for the payment of the two
sums of 140,0001. and 60,000/., given them by the codicil.
The cause came on for hearing before the Vice-Chancellor
Wigram. It was argued for several days, and ultimately his
Honour gave judgment, dismissing the will of the Corpora-
tion, but without costs, and directing that the. sum of
255,507/. 10s. 2d., New Three-and-a-Half per CentS., stand-
ing in the name of the Accountant-General, in trust in the
cause, should, together with the interest and dividend, be
transferred to the surviving executors, the respondents in the
present appeal, his Honour, at the same time, refusing
to direct any inquiry, or to direct that that the dismissal of
the appellants' bill should be without prejudice to the ap-
pellants filing another bill in relation to the legacies, not-
withstanding that it appeared by the. printed proceedings in
the suit in the Court of Probate, that the testamentary pa-
pers and the repositories of the testator had been improperly
dealt with during Iris last illness, without his knowledge, and
also after his death; and that at least one paper of the tes-
tator's, of a testamentary character, had immediately after
his death been burned ; and that the:cocicil of July, 1835, it-
self, when propounded, was in a mutilated state, and partly
burned ; and that in the envelope in which the same was for-
warded to Thomas Helps was enclosed a paper on which
were written in pencil the following words :---" The enclosed
is a paper saved out of many burnt by parties 1 could
hang—The pretend it is not J. Wood's hand, • many will
swear to it—They want to swindle me—Let the rest know."
From this judgment the Corporation of Gloucester brought
the present appeal, contending that the codicil of July, 1835,
amounted to a substantive gift of 140,0001.; that the re-
ference in the codicil of July, 1835, to a former codicil, did
not prove that that former codicil ever existed ; and that,
although such-former codicil should be considered as having
once existed, yet the gift of the 140,000/. referred to as made
by such former codicil was not revoked, and that the non-
appearance of such codicil did not affect the validity of the
gilt either of the 140,000/. or the 60.0001.
Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Swanston, and Mr.
James Wilde were counsel for the appellants; and Mr.
George Turner, Mr. Ramilly, Mr. Walker, Mr. James Parker;
and Mr. Rolt were in support of the decree of the court
below. The case will probably occupy six or seven days in
argument.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice IPIITMAN.)
The Court was occupied the greater part of this day with
two cases—one, an action for the recovery of an attorney's
bill of costs; and the other an action of ejectment, but nei-
ther was of the least public interest.

EXCHEQUEFL -(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court was occupied this morning with the new trial
paper. The greater part of the day was spent in hearing
the arguments on a case relating to a notice on a dishonoured
bill, but it possessed no feature of public interest.

COMMON PLEAS—(THIS DAY.)§
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN and a Special Jury.)
GAMBLE V. KURTZ.

The further hearing of this Case, which commenced on
Saturday afternoon, was resumed this morning, Mr. Sergeant
Channel, Mr. Sergeant Bylee, and Mr. Cowling appearing
fur the plaintiff; and Mr. W. D. Hill, Q.C., Mr. Webster,
and Mr. Atherstone fur the defendant. The action is inati
tuted by the plaintiff for the recovery of damages arising out
of the alleged infringement of a patent effecting an improve-
ment in the furnaces used in the manufacture of muriatic
acid and sulphate of soda (Glauber salts), out of muriate of
soda (common salt), and sulphuric acid.
In support of the improvement effected in the furnaces,
and the general case of the plaintiff, Mr. Cooper, lecturer on
chemistry, and several other witnesses, were called, in
answer to which it was contended that the process em-
ployed by. the defendant; though an improvement on the old
method of making the chemicals in question, was not a copy
of the plaintiff's mode, and did not agree with the specifica-
tion of his patent. The whole of the forenoon was occupied
by counsel for the defence, urging that there was not a
aUfficient case, on the part of the plaintiff; to go to the jury,
but this being overruled by the Court, the calling of wit-
nesses ou behalf of the defendant was proceeded with. The
case is not expected to close to-day.

CRIMINAL COUItT.-7(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
The Court was occupied all day with a charge of mis-
demeanour, preferred against John liinchin, Edward Mackay,
John Dodd, John Satc'air, arid John Ireland, tire persons
connect ed with the Waterman's Steam-picket Company. The
indictment was founded on some squabble between the above
Company and the Corporation of London ; the former claim-
ing the right to land their passengers at the new Blackfriars-
pier, or, tailing that, the power of mooring a floating pier off
Paul's-stairs, The Corporation resisted both claims, and
hence the riot that led to the present trial.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, Mr. Ryland, Mr. Prendergast, and
Mr. Laurie, appeared for the Corporation, and Mr. Montagu
Chambers, with Mr. NVylde, attended fur the defence.
The case is expected to last till a late hour.