The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MOR,NING, NOVEMBER 6, )846.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, N, v. 5.

The Lord Chancellor sat in his court at Westminster
to-day, at 10 o'clock.
VANDELEUR V. BLAGRAVE.
The arguments in this part-heard case, which came
before the Court upon a petition of re-hearing of the
decree of the Master of the Rolls, were resumed to-day,
and occupied his Lordship the whole morning. We
gave a statement of the facts of the case when it was
opended yesterday.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the ar-
guments, postponed giving judgment.
The Court did not rise till a quarter past four o'clock.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, .Nom 5.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND).
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took
cause petitions to-day.
FEAR V. SUTTON.

The arguments in this part-heard cause petition occu-
pied the Court the greater part of the morning. The
object of the petition was the confirmation of the Mas-
ter's report, and the removal of the next friend of the
infant's in the cause.
His HONOUR, at the conclusion of the arguments, gave
judgment, confirming the Master's report, approving of
the sale that had taken place, removing the next friend,
and ordering the costs to be costs in the cause.
EX PARTE THB CROYDON AND EPSOM RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. ROGERS stated that this case came before the
Court upon the petition of the Croydon and Epsom Rail-
way Company, now the London, Brighton, and South
Coast Railway Company, praying that the sum of 1001.,
part of a sum paid into Court under the Railway Act,
should be paid out to the petitioners. William Lit-
tlewood, who has property in the neighbourhood
of Thornton-heath, near Croydon, part of which was
required for the purpose of the railway company some-
time since filed his bill, and obtained an injunction re-
straining the petitioners from workinw upon his land
until the value of it had been ascertained. The peti-
tioners, in order to stop all proceedings and put an end
to litigation, paid into Court the sum of 5401. to secure
all costs and expenses that had been incurred on the
suits; the bill of costs of the solicitor of Mr. Littlewood
had been taxed at a smaller sum than had been paid in
by the petitioners, and the balance remaining in Court
was the sum now asked to be paid out.
Mr. STUART, on behalf of Mr. Littlewood, objected to
the prayer of the petition being granted, on the ground
that there was a further claim against the petitioners of
upwards of 301.
Mr. ROGERS, for the petitioners, contended that all
costa required by the Act of Parliament had been paid
by the petitioners, and that they were not entitled to the
further costs.
His HONOUR directed a reference to the Master to
inquire what costs, if any, remained untaxed or unpaid.
GRACE V. WEBB.

This case came before the Court on the petition of a
lady named Capell, praying for a reference back
to the Master, ordering him to review his report
by which ho found that the petitioner, under the circum-
stances, was entitled only to an annuity of 201. instead
of 401. It appeared that the testator in the cause, a
gentleman of the name of Webb, lived and cohabited
many years ago with the petitioner, and had two natural
children by her. In 1802, in consideration of her agree-
ing to separate from him, the testator executed a deed,
by which he gave her an annuity of 40/. That deed
contained a proviso that in case the petitioner married
the annuity should be reduced to 20/ The petitioner
before the death of the testator married ; and the ques-
tion was, whether a gift restraining marriage was not
against the policy of the law, and therefore void ; and
whether such being the case, the petitioner was not en
titled to an annuity of 40/. It appeared that the deed
executed by the testator was confirmed by his will, which
was made after the petitioner had married. The peti-
tioner, in ignorance of her rights, as it was said in her
behalf, had agreed to accept an annuity of 201,
but upon being advised that she was entitled
to an annuity of 401., she took proceedings in the cause
which had been filed to administer the testator's estate,
to obtain the annuity of 401. A reference was made to
the Master upon the subject, who decided that the peti-
tioner was only entitled to an annuity of 201., and that
report, it was sought by the present petitioner, the
Master should be ordered to review. _ _

Mr. Bathell and a gentleman behind the bar appeared
for the petitioner ; Mr. Stuart represented the children ;
and Mr. Montagu opposed the application.
The arguments not having concluded at half-past
three o'clock, at which hour the Court rose, the case was
ordered to be proceeded with to-morrow.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM )
SAYERS V. LACON.

His HONOUR delivered judgment to-day in this cause,
which was part-heard. He said this was a case in which
the plaintiff sought to obtain costs which had arisen out
of proceedings he himself had instituted. The defendant
had purchased lands, the title to which was disputed by
the plaintiff, and to establish his position he brought the
case before the Court and the Master, by which proceed-
ings the costs had been incurred. Ile had carefully
studied the exceptions and the answer, and he consi-
dered that the plaintiff was entitled to all the costs in the
suit after the answer, and up to the hearing, as well as
the costs up to the abarvloning of the suit. With respect
to the other they must depend upon the decision with
reference to the costs of the Master's office. He would,
therefore make a decree to this effect.
CAMPBELL V. THF. BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
_ _ _

Mr. BETIIELL Q.C., resumed the arguments in this
cause. He contended that the company were not at
liberty to bring into existence any shares beyond the
number necessary to meet the claims of the creditors, and
were not entitled to take advantage of any technicalities
in the terms of the notes. The plaintiff was a proprietor
at the time that the resolution had been entered into, and
had not infringed the condition plainly expressed in the
wording of that resolu:ion. He also submitted that the
endorsement on the notes was not in conformity with the
resolution.
His HoNoun. said that, before coming to a decision on
this case, he must see the Act of Parliament, the reso-
lution, the advertisement, and the other documents cited.
There were two subjects to be decided upon : the first,

whether the time of sale was fixed in the resolution ;
the other, as to the clauses referred to in the Act of
Parliament, the obj?ct of which was to enable the com-
pany to fulfil their contract with the rateholders.
Neither party could contend that the Act was not in•
tended to apply to the case of the contract. He did not
doubt that the shares were allotted in compliance with
the Act of Parliament. No doubt could exist if it wet e
absolute, but it was contended that it was conditional.
He did not intend to express the least opinion on the
contract till he had seen all the papers. As boon as he
had perused them he would deliver judgment.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
SOWERIIY P. THE PONTOP RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. RUSSELL, who appeared for the plaintiff, said tha,
the object of this bill was to compel the performance of
a certain contract that had been entered into with the
plaintiffs. The defendants were the proprietors of a
railway, entitled the Pontop and North Shields Railway,
which bad been originally the property of other parties,
with whom the contract now sought to be enforced was
entered into. The plaintiffs were the proprietors of col-
lieries in the district through which the railway in q-aes-
tion passed, and the object of the contract had reference
to the transit of their coals, which the original pro-
prietors agreed to convey for a period of twenty-one
years at a low rate of charge. They, however, having
got into difficulties, disposed of the railway to the pre-
sent p?oprietors, who effected the purchase liable to
performance of the contract, which however they refused
- to fulfil on the terms specified in the body of the deed,
but immediately raised their charges, and his clients
now sought to compel them to adhere to the contract.
(The Learned Counsel here read a voluminous corres-
pondence that had taken place between the plaintiffs and
defendants.)
His HONOUR said he considered the plaintiff was en-
titled to claim the specific performance of the contract,
and would make a decree accordingly.
The Court rose at the usual hour.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 5.
(Sittings in Banco.)

BIGHT OF WAY-ROBERTS AND ANOTHER V. WILLIAMS.

This was an action brought against the defendant for
obstructing a private right of way, and was tried before
the Chief Justice at Brecon, when a verdict was found
for the defendant, who had pleaded not guilty, and
denied the existence of the right of way. The case occu-
pied two days, a deal of evidence having been adduced
on both sides. His Lordship was obliged to leave the
town before the jury came to a decision, in order to
attend the sessions at Mold. The jury were entrusted
to the custody of Mr. Horne, the bailiff, who, when they
became hungry allowed them to have wine and sand-
wiches. They afterwards were allowed to have a re-
gular dinner in the hall, of the court, where letters
and various other things were brought to them. Not
feeling much inclined to come to a decision whilst sup-
plied with such good fare, they had beds made up in the
hall, and next morning were supplied with a public
breakfast. They then expressed a wish to come to a
decision, and agreed to meet his Lordship on the confines
of the county (Denbighshire) ; and on his Lordship's
consenting, they were taken to an inn called, by a strange
coincidence, the " Loggerheads." Here Lord Denman
met them, and although the attorneys of both the plain-
tiff and defendant were present, the counsel and the
principals in the action were absent. The foreman of
the jury (a Mr. Cundiff) inquired of his Lordship if
possession of the right of way, by permission, lor 20
years, gave an absolute right for the future. H e replied
in the negative. The foreman then inquired if a road
bad been used for twenty years without permission, if
that would give a right. He also replied in the negative.
They then found for the defendant. It appeared, how-
ever, that the defendant had used the road ibr more than i
20 years.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now applied for a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
entered for the plaintiff. He grounded his application
on the fact that the plaintiff had held possession of the
way for 38 years, and that, according to the construc-
tion of Wm. IV. c. 71, twenty years' occupation, without
interruption, gave an absolute " right of user." He cited
tboauthorities in support of this, and held that, considerinc,
whole facts of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to considering
new trial.
Lord r,
_EN bum at
e length, referred to the notes of
hospitable
iLtrazpi:earesd°,lll he said, Mr. Horne was a very
sad had treated the jury with consi-
derable kindness b
itn e jury, when they appeared be-
fore him in the morn
red full of the subject,
and not affected by the' ga!odthatreatment they had re-
ceived. It appeared, also
Williams had
r which
asked leave to carry furniture ovet
a very bad one, and. that, subsequently it beeanie wthe
usual road which they and their friends traversed in
going to and from the house. The Court would Con-
sider the application.

LOCKWOOD V. WOOD.
Ti is case was tried before Mr. Justice Wightman at
York, when a, verdict was found for the defendant. It

was an action in debt for stallage at the fair held in the
manor of Easirgwold, and from which the inhabitants
claimed, by immemorial custom, to be exempted.
Mr. WATSON now moved for a rule to show cause why
a verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff, and a
new trial granted. The Learned Counsel went into a
lengthened argument to show that there was no evidence
of an immemorial custom to erect stalls at the fair free
of charge. He also contended that such a custom could
not exist.

The COURT took time to consider their judgment.
BUSH V. WEISS.--NOTTINOHAM AND PETERBOROUGH

JUNCTION RAILWAY.
This case was tried before Mr. Justice Coleridge at
the last Exeter assizes, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff for 1001.

Mr. WHITEHMIST applied for a rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case should not be set
aside and entered for the defendant. The action was
brought by Mr. Bush against Mr. Weiss, one of the ma-
naging directors of the Nottingham and Peterborough
Junction Railway, for preparing the traffic tables of the
company. The agreement upon which the action was
founded was made between the sub-committtee,
of which the defendant was one, and the plaintiff, and set
forth that the plaintiff should for the sum of 5001. per-
form the work to the satisfaction of the sub and general
committee, and in addition adduce sufficient evidence
before the House of Commons in support of
the traffic. During the progress of the work
he received the sum of four hundred pounds, and
it was agrerd that on its completion the remaining
100/. should be paid. The traffic tables were accord-
ingly prepared; and on the plaintiff applying to the
secretary of the company for the balance, he received
an answer on the same day to the effect that a meeting
of the shareholders would be convened to decide on the
abandonment of the project, and that as soon as the
accounts were settled a cheque should be drawn to dis
charge the amount. Now the Learned Counsel sub-
mitted that the secretary had no right to bind the
committee by such an admission, and that evi-
dence should have been brought to show that he
did so by the authority of the directors. It was im-
possible for the secretary to say whether the tables
in question were correct or not. There was no evidence
at the trial to show that such tables were approved of
according to the agreement by the members of the com-
mittee ; and the Learned Judge merely left, it for the
jury to say whether the work had been properly performed.
Now he (Mr. Whitehurst) contended that the traffic
tables were not completed at all, and that the plaintiff
had not employed one- half the number of persons that
he ought to have done. And he submitted, that if the
company had gone before Parliament the tables would
have been perfectly useless, in consequence of the fre-
quent mistakes which ozcurred in them. On these
grounds the plaintiff considered he was entitled to a new
trial.

Lord DENMAN considered that no improper evidence
was admitted, and that there was no misdirection on the
part of the Learned Judge who tried the case. He
would suggest, however, that the dispute between
the parties should be referred to two parties.
Mr. Justice Coleridge would look over his
notes of the trial, in order to see if there was
any ground for granting the application of the Learned
Counsel, and the Court would, therefore, defer its deci-
sion until this was done.
THE STEAM-SHIP SEA-HORSE.—BOYD V. THE ROYAL

EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY.
This case was tried at the last sittings at Guildhall, be-
fore Lord Denman, when a verdict was returned for tie
defendants. The action was brought to recover 22,5001.,
which had been secured on the ship and her machinery,
by a policy of insurance entered into between the pro-
prietors of the ship and the insurance office. She
plyed between Launceston, Port Philip, Sidney and
Hobart Town, carrying large quantities of goods,
one voyage and colonial goods on her return. On the
4th of June, 1843, she left the port of Launceston,
which is situated on the river Tamur, she anchored in
Briant's Bay, and next day, the tide ebbing, her anchor
was raised, in order that she might proceed on her
journey to Sidney, but owing to the extreme force of the
tide, she was driven upon some rocks at the mouth of the
river and stranded. She so much strained, that her back
was broken ; but by great exertions and care, she
was floated to Sidney, where she arrived on
the 12th of June. An inspection and survey
was made, when it was found she was not worth repair-
ing. The pleas of the defendants denied their liability
under the circumstances.

Mr. Sergeant SiIEE now moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a
new trial had, on the ground of improper admission of
evidence, misdirection, and because the verdict was
against the evidence. The improper admission of evi-
dence, he urged, consisted in receiving evidence from the
Port-master, Moriarty, of Sidney, to the effect that, by
the " log," it appeared that the pumps were
kept at work, which was clearly hearsay evidence ;
the exclusion of evidence, which would have shown that
the ship could not have been repaired at Sidney on ac-
count of the absence of a " patent slip," and the misdi-
rection consisted in the Learned Judge assuming from
the evidence that she was a total loss ; and that if there
were no means of removing her to a place where she
could have been repaired, that she was also a total loss..
The COI:MT granted a rule on the evidence stated to
have been rejected, and on the misdirection.

B AIL COURT, Nov. 5.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
LEMAGE V. OLDROYD.
Mr. Thomas moved to set aside a nonsuit which had
occurred in a case tried before the Under-Sheriff for
the county of Middlesex. The Learned Counsel said
that the grounds on which he moved would at once
establish his claim to a rule. There were two causes on
the list in the Sheriff's Court, the same plaintiff against
different defendants. These causes stood second arid
third. The actions were brought for money had and
received. In the case which preceded these causes, the
learned counsel engaged were not quite ready, and he
(Mr. Thomas) was asked to proceed with his cause. He
consented, on the understanding that all his witnesses
were in court, but on calling a must material witness to
prove the delivery of the money, he found that he was
absent, and a nonsuit was at once entered. The oth •r
cause was then called on, and the witness being present,
a verdict for the plaintiff was obtained upon his evidence.
It appeared from the affidavit made that the witness,
who was an attorney, had been requested to step into
his office close by, and fetch some papers, and while he
was gone the cause had come ou. He had been sub-
poenaed by both plaintiff and defendant, and a tender of
the costs of the day had been made to the other side, if
they would permit the cause to stand over for
a short time, but the opposing counsel had
no mercy. He believed that a motion was also going
to be made in the other case where they had obtained a
verdict, as the other side were equally unprepared.
There was every intention of proceeding to trial on both
sides.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take a rule.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
LAUDER V. JACKSON.
This was an action to recover the sum of 57/. 183. for
goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant.
It appeared from the statement of counsel, and from
the evidence that the plaintiff is connected with a com-
pany entitled the Wenham Lake Ice Company, and the
action was brought for ice and refrigerators supplied to
him. The defendant had on being spoken to admitted
the justice of the plaintiff's claim, and had promised to
pay it in a short time. As he did not keep his pro-
mise the present action was brought. The defendant
had pleaded a special set off of 371. 145., stating that he
had given an order for 29 refrigerators to be supplied
within 24 hours, and that amount of loss had occurred
to him in consequence of their nut having hem supplied
within the time agreed upon.
Mr. Justice PATTEsoN then summed up, and the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 571 18s.

GREVILLE V. STIJLTZ AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought on a writ of error to re-
verse a judgment of outlawry, on the ground that the
plaintiff was beyond the seas and abroad in foreign
parts at the time of the issuing of the writ.
Mr. MARTIN, Q C., stated to the jury that it was the
first instance in his experience in which such an action
had been brought. The point which they would have
to try would simply be, whether the plaintiff, Robert
Fulke Greville, was beyond the seas and in foreign
parts on the sth of June last. Messrs. Stultz, the tailors,
were formerly the plaintiffs in this instance. The writ,
which was the preliminary of proceeding to out-
lawry, was a very old one. For that writ to be
of any value, it was absolutely essential that
the party against whom it was issued should be in Eng-
land at the time, or the proceedings to outlawry wore of
no avail. In the event of the person not being in Eng-
land the proceedings would be set aside upon a writ of
error. It was on such a proceeding that the present
action was founded. The Learned Counsel was then
proceeding to put in the report of a commission ap-
pointed to examine two witnesses in France, under the
authority of the Lord Chief Baron, when
Mr. BASTOW (for the defendants), took several tech-
nical objections to the commission.
After some considerable discussion, the case was per-
mitted to proceed, and
The Clerk read the examination of Adelaide Vanden-
hewn and another, which proved that the plaintiff had
resided in France for a period extending considerably
before and after the dial of June, 1845.
Mr. John Bevan dilated, that he was in Paris durinc, the month of June, 1845, and during that time he saw
° Mr. Greville frequently. He was never more than three
days without seeing him. Is acquainted with his hand-
writing, and the letter produced, with the Paris post-
mark on it,is in the handwriting of Col. Greville.
Mr. William Bevan, a partner is the firm of Bevan
and Anderson, stated that they were attorneys for the
plaintiff. The plaintiff had not been in England for
some time. Witness received the letter produced in due
course of post. It is in the handwriting of the plain-
tiff. The other letters produced were also received in
a similar manner.

The three letters were then shown. One was dated
he 29th of May, the second the 91 of June, and the
,bird the sth of Jun:,.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. BASTOW having addressed the Court on a tech-
nical point, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 5.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron PLATT and
Common Juries.)
WHITE V. HARDING.
This action, which was heard in part yesterday, was
brought for the purpose of recovering compensation in
damages for a series of assaults alleged to have been
committed upon the plaintiff, partly by the defendant
himself and partly at his instigation.
Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Charnock appeared
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Corrie for the
defendant.
From the opening statement of Mr. CHABinEns, it ap-
peared the plaintiff was what was termed " a process

server," and was employed by several attorneys for that
purpose, and among others by Mr. Greaves, the attorney
who was engaged in the present action, ar.d who had
thought it necessary for the defence of his servant to
take the steps he had done upon the present occasion.
The plaintiff, in the exercise of his "professional
duties," was called upon to serve a writ upon a person
of the name of Etwall, for the sum of 31. 10s.
The defendant was a person of considerable property,
being possessed of upwards of two hundred houses, and
employing a large number of hands in brick-making, in
the neighbourhood of Fulham, and Etwall was foreman
or managing man to the defendant at the time plaintiff
succeeded in serving him with the process. Upon the 3d
of June, a few days after the service of the writ, as
plaintiff was passing by the Crown public-house, in
Fulham, he was called in by the defendant, who
was standing at the bar drinking some brandy and
water, and while the plaintiff was drinking sortie beer
defendant rinsed his mouth with some of the brandy and
water of which he had been drinking and squirted it in
the face of plaintiff ; not satisfied with a single per-
formance of this kind he rinsed his mouth again, and
again repeated the offensive conduct ; he then held up
„his fist to plaintiff's face, and said, "If it was not for
the law I would teach you to serve writs upon my men."
On the 10th of June following he was again in the Crown
public-house, defendant was in the house also, and two
navigators subsequently entered. Defendant said to
would treat them with some beer if they would go and,
what he called, " tar" the plaintiff. Accordingly they
proceeded to the tap-room, where plaintiff was sitting
in what was called " the lawyers' chambers," a portion
of the " settle" which long usage had set apart as the
domicile of the plaintiff, and to the possession of which
he had obtained, if not an actual, at least a prescriptive,
right. Whatever might be the modus operandi of
•• tarring," the Court was not told, but immediately upon
the entrance of the " navies" into the " chambers" of the
plaintiff, they at once commenced " bonneting him,'
an operation which was performed by knocking the hat
of the plaintiff over his face, which, although it might be
considered as a source of " fun " to the defendant and
other spectators, was not altogether a matter of fun to
the individual who was operated upon. Not content
with the punishment already administered to the plain-
tiff, defendant said to the " navies," "I will give you some
more beer if you will go and buy a candle and shove it
down that man's throat." A candle, or a rushlight, as
it appeared in evidence, was accordingly obtained from
a neighbouring shop, and one of these powerful " navies"
proceeded to hold the plaintiff, while the other endea-
voured to force the rushlight down his throat. Other trials
yet awaited the unfortunate plaintiff, for as he was about
leaving the house a chaise cart was standing at the door,
in which was a bullock's pluck, which had been pur-
chased by the owner of the cart as " food for his spaniels."
This treasure was forthwith seized by defendant, and
with it he proceeded himself to belabour most unmerci-
fully the luckless plaintiff: The Learned Counsel con-
cluded by stating that the present was not an ordinary
case of assault, but a most unjustifiable and a most unbe-
coming one, and hoped that the jury would, after having
heard the evidence he was about to offer, award such
damages to the plaintiff as should operate as an example
hereafter, to prevent persons in the situation of the de-
fendant from assaulting any of that class of persons to
which the plaintiff belonged, and who, though humble
functionaries of the law, were always entitled to receive
the fullest protection in the discharge of their onerous
and indispensable duties.
Several witnesses were then called, who deposed to
the fac►ts as stated by the Learned Counsel, several of
whom appeared to entertain considerable ill-feeling to-
wards the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES, for the defence, said that he was sorry
that he should have to trouble the jury with evidence
upon this case, but it was necessary for him to do so, in
order to show that the treatment was not of so serious
a nature as had been described by his Learned Friend.
And, further to show that the case was neither more nor
less than the result of a foul conspiracy between some of
the witnesses, who were publicans, and who enter-
tained feelings of jealousy and hostility to the defendant,
because, among the number of houses which he had
built, one of them was a public-house, for which he had
obtained a license, and the men in his employ, amount-
ing to a very considerable number, were in the habit of
resorting there, and not to the houses kept by the wit-
nesses, as they formerly did.
A number of witnesses were called, chiefly con-
sisting of men in the employ of the defendant, who
stated that the plaintiff was in the constant habit
of getting drunk, in consequence of the exercise
of the privilege which he enjoyed as occupant of
"'the lawyer's chambers," which consisted in his
taking " toll" of all the liquor brought into the tap-
room, and that the treatment complained of was nothif g
more than he was in the constant habit of receiving
from the labourers who used the Crown public, house,
as a return for the constant levy thus exacted from
them by,the plaintiff; and some of them even stated
that the plaintiff had requested them to put the candle
in his mouth.
Mr. H. CHAMBERS replied.
Mr. Baron PLATT summed up.
The jury, after consulting a short time, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 501.
(Sittings in Banco.)
KNIGHT V. BARBER.

In this case, which was tried at Liverpool, before Mr.
Justice Cresswell, the plaintiff sought to recover a sum
of money which he had lost is consequence of the re-
fusal of the defendant to eccept certain shares in the
Huddersfield, Halifax, and Bradford Railway, which he
had purchased for defendant, and which were subse-
quently sold, whereby the plaintiff was put to loss. The
result of the trial was, that the plaintiff was nonsuited
upon the ground that a certain document was put in on
the part of the plaintiff, purporting to be an agreement
between the parties. It appeared that the defendant had
given sn order to the plaintiff to purchase fifty shares in
the above railway at 101. each. In the afternoon of the
same day defendant signed a memorandum to that effect.
This written agreement was put in at the trial on the
part of the plaintiff, and when so put in the Learned
Judge who tried the case was of opinion that the docu-
ment should be treated as the contract between the par-
ties, and it was therefore necessary that it should be
stamped; no stamp being upon the agreement, the plain-
tiff's case, consequently, failed.
Mr. BAINES now moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had
upon three grounds— first, that the contract did not re-
quire a stamp, inasmuch as it was an agreement for the
sale of an article which he contended came under the
head of merchandise, which, with goods and wares, we: e
specially excepted from the operation of the Stamp Act;
secondly, that the document did not require to be
stamped, because it was not the agreement between the
parties, the contract having been a parole contract, made
in the morning of the day upon which the document was
signed by defendant in the evening ; thirdly, that the
document in question was not a contract, but a mere
memorandum, and, as such, did not require to be stamped,
and that, therefore, the Learned Judge was wrong in
treating the case in the manner he had done.
The LORD CHIEF BARON considered that no rule
should be granted in this case. It was his opinion that
the written agreement formed the contract between the
parties, and whatever parole agreement might have been
made, still as soon as the terms were reduced to writing,
then the written agreement nas to be considered as
binding, and not the parole, because if any difference
had arisen as to the performance of the contract, the
written contract would be that to which both parties
would appeal. The Learned Baron alio stated that
it was his opinion that the document in question
should have been stamped, because it was impossible to
suppose that scrip could be considered as merchandise.
The sale of scrip was nothing more than an agreement
to part with such interest as the party might hold in it,
in consequence of some agreement made between himself
and some company or companies; it could not, there-
fore, be goods or merchandise, ad not coming under
the exception contained in the Stamps Act, ought, there-
fore, to have been stamped.
Mr. Baron PARKE was of the same opinion. •
Rule refused.
COURT OF GUMMuN PLEAS, Nov. 5.
(Sittings in Banco.)
VAUGHAN V. HANCOCK.
Mr. CROWDER moved for a rule to set aside the non-
suit in this case and grant a new trial. It was tried at
last Bristol Assizes, before Mi. Justice Erle. The ac-
tion was brought to compel the fulfilment of an agree-
ment fur the purchase of a public-house. The defence
was that the agreement being a verbal one was void by
the statute of frauds. The Learned Counsel contended
at great length that the statute of frauds did not apply
in this case.
The COURT, refused the rule.
LAMBERT AND ANOTHER V. MILNE.—THE OXFORD, WIT-
NEY, CHELTENHAM, AND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY.
Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict given in this case for the defendant
should not be set aside, and a verdict entered for the
plaintiff for 1,0391. 13s. 6d., or a new trial. The case
was tried at last Newcastle Assizes, and under the direc-
tion of the Learned Judge a verdict was entered for the
defendant. The plaintiffs were lithographers, at New.
castle, and the defendant was a provisional committee-
man of the Oxford, Witney, Cheltenham, and Gloucester
Railway, and the action was brought to recover an
account due, for preparing the plans, sections, &c., of the
company. A person of the name of Potter gave
the order, and the work was executed under the superin-
tendence of Mr. Nicholson, the engineer. Now it had
been proved on the trial that the defendant was a pro-
visional committee-man of the company from the be-
ginning, and that he had acted as such ; but it was de-
nied that he had been a party to giving the order in
question, or was on the committee of management at
the time. The real point at issue was whether the
general provisional committee-men were liable for the I
pecuniary engagements of the committee of manage-
ment. The Learned Gentleman concluded by giving a
number of cases in which it had been so ruled. At
present, with respect to some evidence, according to the
particular view of a judge, a verdict in any one of these
cases could be obtained for either plaintiff or defendant.
What Mr. Baron Rolfe ruled to be in favour of the de-
fendant, Mr. Justice Alderson and others had decided to
be for the plaintiff. Such was the state of conflict at
present —Rule granted.

PRICE V. BELCIIIR. -THE RETURNING OFFICER 07

ABINGDON.

Mr. WHATELY, Q.C., moved for a rule to set aside the
verdict in this case for the defendant, and enter it for
the plaintiff for 40i. The action was tried at the last

assizes for the county of .13erk;, before Air. Justice
Menlo, and the verdict was given for the defendant, with
leave to move. The plaintiff was a Dissenting minister.
the defendant the returning officer of the borough of
Abingdon ; and the action was brought against the
latter for refusing the vote of the plaintiff, on the occa-
sion of an election in 1845, when Mr. Frederick Thesiger
was made Attorney-General, and also with denying a
scrutiny. It was proved on the trial that the plaintiff
had removed from Abingdon to Gravesend, and the vote
was alleged, in consequence, to be bad ; but, admitting
this to be so, he (Mr. Whateley) denied that the return-

ing officers had, under the Reform Act, the power at an
election to strike any name off the register, or refuse any
vote named in it.

The Lord CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion that, though
the defendant might not have a right to vote, yet that
the name being on the register the returning officer
could not take the power in his hands he had done.—
Rule granted.

BAKER V. BLA.RKITT.--STOCR. EXCHANGE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. WIIITEIIURST, Q.C., moved for a rule to set aside
a verdict given for the plaintiff in this case for
1,031 L Os. 5d., and fora new trial in an action tried
last sittings, after term, at the Guildhall, before Mr.
Justice Erle, and on the grounds of the improper recep-
tion of evidence; and also that the verdict was against
evidence ; also he moved to show cause why the da-
mages should not be reduced to 962/. 10s. The action was
brought by Mr. Baker, a sharebroker, against Mr.
Blarkitt, a gentleman residing at Gainsborongh, for the
purchase-money of 550 East India Railway Shares. The
price of each share was laid at 1/. 155., with 2s. 6d. per
share for brokerage and allowing the account to stand
cover till the next settlement day. 9621. 10s. was the nett
price of the shares. The Learned Gentleman went into
a variety of details, to show that the defendant gave the
order through a person named Stark, who negotiated
with Baker, and that he had expressed his willingness to
settle with Stark, who owed him a considerable balance,
but refused to recognise Riker ; also to show that seve-
ral points of evidence against the defendant had been ad-
mitted by the Learned judge, which ought to have been
rejected. The defendant likewise denied that any such
company as the East India Railway Company was recog-
nised by the statutes relating to joint•stock companies.
The main point at issue was whether the company was
in legal existence before the Ist of November, 1844,
when the Joint Sleek Companies' Act came into opera
tion, and in a position to issue shares, such as to admit
the fulfilment of any arrangement that might have been
come to in regard to purchasing for the defendant. The
Learned Judge left this point to the jury, and they gave
a verdict in the affirmative; thouth he (Mr. Whitehurst)
submitted that it was a legal point which ought to have
been decided by the judge.—Rule granted.
ELDERTON V. EBIINGS—CHURCII or ENGLAND LIFE AS
SURANCE COMPANY.
Mr. Sergeant BrLES moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict given in this case for the
plaintiff, for I,OOOL, should not be entered on the
first count for the defendant, or why a new trial should
not be granted, or the verdict arrested by a venire de
novo ; also, because the verdict was against evidence.
This action was brought by Mr. Elderton, a solicitor,
against the Church of England Life and Loan As.
surance, Trust, and Annuity Company. It was for
breach of contract, in discharging the plaintiff from
being the solicitor of the company, he having been, it
was alleged, appointed permanent solicitor, at 1004
a-year. lie received verdict on the first count for
SOOL; on the second, 2001. The defence set up was
neglect of duty, as solicitor of the company. The
Learned Gentleman went at length into the particulars
to show that the removal was justifiable, and that the
plaintiff had received all the remuneration he could
fairly demand.—Rule granted.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 5.

ROBERTS V. GOWER.-THE PRIVILEGES OF THE ROYAL

PALACE AT WINDSOR.
This was a summons under the Small Debts Act to
enforce the payment of 10/. Bs., debt and costs, for which
ajudgment has been obtained in the Court of Exchequer.
The plaintiff is a grocer at Windsor, and the defendant
is one of the grooms of her Majesty's stables at Windsor.
Mr. Maynard appeared as counsel on behalf of the
defendant, at the instance of her Majesty's Master of the
Horse.

The defendant did not attend, and Mr. Billing, the
plaintiff's attorney, applied for a warrant of commitment
for contempt of Court.
Mr. MAYNARD, at cansiderable length, argued that
the defendant was a privileged person, and protected
from arrest, and therefore the Learned Commissioner
had no power under the Small Debts Act to compel his
attendance, and that his privilege was a sufficient
excuse within the meaning of the Act. The
Learned Counsel quoted a variety of cases to show
that if the defendant had been arrested he would have
been discharged out of custody on the plea of privilege.
Mr. BILLING, in reply, contended that the Act gave
power to compel the defendant to appear, or take the
consequences for contempt, against which he was nct
privileged.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that it was a point
of importance, rand he would speak to his brother Com-
missioner. On his return, he said that he was strongly
of opinion that no sufficient excuse had been
offered by the assertion of privilege. As so
high an officer as the Master of the Horse
had thought it proper to send counsel down to argue the
case, and had no doubt taken the opinion of the At-
torney or Solicitor-General on the subject, it became his
duty strongly to express his opinion that he had not only
the power, but it was his duty to compel the attendance
of the defendant. He would adjourn the case till this
day week.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Nov. 5.
Although this was the first sitting of the Court in the
present term, no. causes were set down for trial ; the
first four days being allowed to plead, and in default the
cases are set down for inquiry in this court.

CENTRAL CR MINAL COURT.
SENTENCES AND SESSIONAL RESULTS.

Appended are the principal sentences pat,sed as
amended on the last day of the sessions, to which are
affixed other adjudications and results.
liamstimEtig,,-The undernamed were sentenced to
transportation beyond-the seas fir the terms specified:—
For Life--Charles Williapa Clarke, 42, for a rape on
his child.
For Twenty Years—v illiam Newbury, 24, for at-
tempted extortion.
For Fifteen Years—P. Hogan, 27, B. Latnrert, 23,
Robert Greeny, 20.

For Fourteen Years—John Walker, 20.
For Ten Years—J. Davis, 24 ;W. Anglis, 28 ;A.
Dutton, 28 ; Ann Sinner, 29, for manslaughter ; Villiers
Pc arce, 44, for forgery ; John Harman, 23.
For Seven Years—Sarah Beckham, 18 ; W. Jones,
alias Stock, 23 ; J. Williams, alias Hart, 22 ; J. Smith,
alias Sims, 19 ; W. Williamson, 26 ; r.
alias Stocks, 21 ; J. M`Ginnis, 18 ; W. T. Poyser, 42 ;
RWu.ssßelal, 1 Baylis,
; G. Stoddart, 24 ; J. Francklin, 25 ; It.
Davis,
visis4;J. Itobition, 54; Isaac Hoare, 44; J. hedge,
2Taylor, 19; W. Mears, 20 ; G. Biag, ,27 ;
W. Hoare, 56; J. Brown, 17; J. Dupper, 20; W. Hope, 17,
latratsoNmENT, &c.—The following were ordered to
be confined in the Houses of Correction for the counties
wherein the offences were committed, and kept to hard
labour:—

I
—Fur Two Years—William Vine.
For Eighteen Months—Edward Evans, J. Pratt, 11.
Wilkinson, T. Bassett.
For Fifteen Months—J, Brown, J. Smith.
For One Year—Louisa Hickman, Margaret Shehan,
Ellen Clancy, Orston Brooks, Ann Miller, Rachel Tus •
tin, Theresa Lewis, Elizabeth flicks, J. Hammond, R.
Wilson, J. Steward, J. Desmond, J. D. Hudson, C.
Howard, W. Collyer, G. Williams. alias Gill, J. Cham-
bers, W. Alderbury, alias Mills, H. Savory, G. Bergin.
A. Eagerton, A. Williams, A. Wilson, T. Handsconab,
G. iz„iings, F. Maddox, R. Roberts, G. Thompson,
Prince,Georgerreu e
,
Laurence
ee
W. W. Lewis, R. Adams, G, Wood, G.
W. Clegg,, J. Ragson, M. Baker, W. Hoare, I.
Ho
New, T. Ball, W. Curry, J. Ward, W. Brice,
J. Bruce,
J. Brown, W. Wood.
For Nine Months—Elenor Herridge,Herriet Crawley,
J. Driscoll, W. Mouler, 0. Dring, J. Riley, J. Lacey,
J. Reig, C. Dring.
For Eight Months—J. White, J. Brown.
For Six Months—A. Palsey, J. Scholefield, J. Wil-
liams, J. Pearse, D. Dormer T. Baxter, T. Bullock, J
J.
Summers, J. Whetstone, 0. Bagroy, J.
l‘)dHarriet Keefe, Flora Sullivan, Mary Grant,
Bridget Sullivan, T. Jackson, 0. Barton, H. Warring-
ton,Giair`tl.learid'
lI jopkins, J. Jackson, H. Orsell, J. Barnsley, J.
Durrant, J. Chapman, 11. Jones, T. Jones, M. Barry,
G. Smith, H. Amos, C. Aubery, C. Wright, R. Roas, J.
Fisher, C. Nash, J. Bruin, T. Jones, J. Smith. - '
For Lour Months—J. Martin, G. Harrison, J. Far-
rell', G. Baxter, G. Groves, W. Curtis, G. Smith, M.
Buini, W. King, W. Wire, H. Harrison, W. Ratcliffe,
A. Le Brough, Mary Cunningham, Sarah Cox, W.
Smith.
For Three Months—Maria Platt, Sarah Hicks, Elin-
beth Sale, Ann Driscoll, J. Edwards, G. Fisher, J. Wil-
mot, J. Purnam, W. Payne, A. Evans, H. Potter, P.
Curley, S. Laken, E. Cain, G. Green, W. Ward, E.
Safe, T. Greenslade, R. Henderson, W. Pennell, S. Del-
linger, George Barrington, G. Horsfurd, J. Spenser, H.
Davis, R. Brady.
For Two Months—J. T. Wanklin, G. Barrows, W.
Cripps, Catherine Mahoney, Mary
Campbell, Ann
Berry.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
. A young man, named Edward Denham, was brought
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having stolen a
watch, the property of Mrs. Sinderby and Co., of Bull
and Mouth street. The prisoner, who is respectably
connected, was committed in the mayoralty of Alderman
Gibbs, for having used threats to his uncle, who had
been long supplying him with money. At that time he
was a person of most dissipated habits. The present
charge was attended with an odd circumstance.
As Thomas Belcher, city policeman 618, was in
Bishopsgate-street on Monday evening, at half-past six
o'clock, he saw the prisoner, who was very drunk,
and he staggered up against him, muttering at the
same time, " Oh, ha, this is all through that
bl'e4fed watch." The policeman, whose ears were
open to what he considered to be the language
of self accusation, said to the prisoner, " What watch ?"
"What watch !" replied the prisoner," haven't you heard
of the watch that was taken near the Blue Coat School?"
"You don't mean that you stole that watch ?" said the
policeman. " Don't I though," cried the prisoner ; " I
had it, and no mistake, about the 15th of October, and
I pawned it at Cotton's, in the Hackney-road, near
Shoreditch." " You did?" said the (policeman. " Ay,
and more than that" said the prisoner, " I'm blest if I
didn't sell the duplicate for a shilling."
The LORD MAYOR—Have you ascertained whether
the prisoner betrayed himself in his cups? The police-
) nan replied that there was no doubt upon the subject.
lie had found that a robbery of the kind had taken
place, that the watch had been pawned, and that it had
siilce been redeemed.
Miss Sarah Sinderby stated that she carried on the
business of watch-maker, silversmith, and jeweller, in
partnership with her mother, at No. 18, Bull and Mouth-
street ; that between two and three o'clock in the after-
noon of Thursday, the 15th of October, the prisoner
walk( II into the shop, pointed out a watch in the win-
dow, and requested to look at it. After having looked
at it, he asked to see another, and then turning his at-
Pentici 11 to the first, he suddenly started with it out 9f the

shop and disappeared. It was a hunting watch, and
worth 41. 10s.

The Lon MAYOR—Are you sure that this is the
man? The witness-1 have not the least doubt of it.
ft was stated that the young lady immedictely upon
casting her eyes upon the prisoner, identified him as the
thief.

The prisoner—l was driven to it by distress, and I
am sorry for it.

Conu;;itted for trial.

The Logo MAYOR Elect mentioned, in the course of
the day, that a paragraph had gone the rounds of the
newspapers, stating that it was his determination to
commence business at the justice-room every day at ten
o'clock. He had, he beggtd it to be distinctly under-
stood, determined, for the accommcdation of the
public, not to commence business until twelve o'clock,
except upon Saturdays, on which days he should tom
mence investigating into hackney carriage complaints at
ten o'clock, so that he might be prepared to go into the
general business of the Court at twelve o'clock. He had
made that arrangement under the impression that it
would give satislacticn to the merchants and traders in
the city of London.