The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-12 00:00:00

DUNCUIIBE, M.P. V. LEVY.-JUDGMENT.

Ms HONOUR, in delivering judgment in this cause said,
This was a case in which the 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. He 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
bad a right to appear then, and have a suit
prosecuted against them if they thought fit to do
so. It was for 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 havirg
two judgments against which he might have proceeded
he did not do £O. It was shown that directions had
been given. He did not wish to decide against him, but
the question might be taken on an issue. On the other
question, also, he (Mr. Levy) might take the opinion of
a court of law.

COURT OF REVIEW, Nov. 11.
(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 a'Rets
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 cb-
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,
His HoNourt ordered the matter should be referred
to the Commissioner before whom the bankrupt ap-
peared.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)

RYALLS V. THE QUEEN IN ERROR.-AMENDING THE

FINDING OF A JURY IN CRIMINAL CASES.

This was an indictment for perjury.— E;-Case was
tried at York, and the plaintiff, Joseph Naylor Ryall3,
was found guilty. A rule was subsequently obtained to
show cause why a certiorari should not issue from thi,.
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. Buss 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 up the amended indictment and record, and grant
time for doing so.
The COURT acceded to an enlargement of the rule, in
order that the matter might be brought before the Court
below, and before this Court early next term. The Court
ex officio granted costs, the plaintiff having brought the
matter before the Court in forma pauperis.
The remainder of the day was occupied in the hearing
of cases of disputed pauper settlements, which involved
no points of interest.