The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 14, 1846.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 13.
The Lord Chancellor took lunatic petitions, cause
petitions, and appeals to-day.
BLARE V. LORD WALLSCOURT.
This cause petition, which stood on his Lordship's
paper for hearing to-day, was ordered to stand over, on
the application of counsel.
BRISTOW V. NEEDIIAM.
This cause petition was also ordered to stand over,
upon the application of Mr. Cooper.
His LORDSHIP, after disposing of the unopposed lunatic
petitions in his paper, proceeded with the hearing of ap-
peals.

per annum in lieu of the tithes leviable on a cer-
tain parish, and by Acts of Parliament he was
empowered to distrain upon the property of
defaulters. The plaintiff owed 38/. 16s. 94d.
in this way, which was made up of numerous small sums,
each of which included a fraction. Two of these sums,
the first 31. 19s. 94d., and the second 31. 19s. 10d.,
were incorrect, inasmuch as one was a id. too
little, and one id. too much, or an overcharge of
a single farthing. All the sums together, however,
made up the proper amount. Nevertheless, the plaintiff
refused to pay the demand, and a distress was put in for
the amount. He subsequently brought an action to re
cover compensation for an illegal demand and trespass,
but the jury found for the defendant. A rule was after-
wards obtained, calling upon the defendant to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial bad. It appeared, however, that the plaintiff had
stated in a letter to the defendant that the only differ-
ence between them was the amount of the income-tax on
the amount levied.
The case now came on for argument.
Mr. Sergeant JONES and Mr. PEACOCK showed cause
against the rule on the ground that the aggregate amount
was correct, that the distress was properly made, and on
the admission of the plaintiff with respect to the income-
tax.
Mr. CHILTON, Q.C., and Mr. CowLING followed in
support of it. They held that the distress was only
levied with respect to the two sums mentioned, in
which there was an overcharge, and thereforc
the demand, though apparently insignificant, was an
overcharge, and, in distraining for such an amount, Mr.
Thomas exceeded the powers vested in him by the Act,
and that the verdict must therefore be set aside.
The COURT did not think it right to disturb the deci-
sion of the jury, inasmuch as it appeared that the parties
understood that the aggregate amount claimed was cor•
rect, although there might be a fractional. mistake in
some of the items.
The Judges all agreed in the decision.
The Court then rose.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
SOUTHWARK.
Philip Adam, a private in the 77th Regiment of Foot,
was charged before Mr. Seeker with stealing half of a
leg of mutton from a butcher's shop in Millpond. street,
Bermondsey.
John Webb, foreman in the complainant's service,
saw the prisoner snatch up halt a leg of mutton off the
stall beard, and run off with it; witness pursued him and
gave him into custody. When he was searched at the
station-house his written discharge from the 77th Foot
was found in his pocket, and also some money,
In answer to Mr. Seeker, the prisoner said that he
had been invalided home from Upper Canada; had ar-
rived in London on Thursday, and was about to proceed to
his destination (Manchester), when the present awk-
ward affair happened.
Mr. SEcKER—What have you to say in answer to the
charge? Ycu were seen to take the meat off the board
on which it was exposed for sale. Prisoner—The wit-
ness has sworn to it, and I suppose there is no use in
my denying it.
Mr. SEcit.Ea.—You are committed to gaol for one
month, for having unlawful possession of the com-
plainant's property.

BOOTH V. CRESWICK.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal from
i.he decision of the Vice• Chancellor of England were re-
sumed, and occupied the Lord Chancellor the whole
morning.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the
arguments, gave judgment, dismissing the appeal with
costs.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 13.
EARL NELSON V. LORD BRIDPORT.-JUDGMENT.

Lord LANGDALE, in giving judgment, said this cause
came on on exceptions to the Master's report. Horatio
Earl Nelson was possessed of the estates of Bronte, in the
kingdom of Sicily, which had been raised into a duchy
by Ferdinand, King of the Two Sicilies, and conferred
upon Earl Horatio Nelson. The present defendant,
Lady Bridport, claimed to be possessed of that estate
under the will of her father, Earl William Nelson. The
Master had reported in her favour, and the exceptions
went to impugn that report. The law of Sicily was to
be considered most particularly in this case. King Fer-
dinand gave the grant of the estate in Bronte to Earl
Horatio Nelson in 1799, with the title of Duke of
Bronte, that estate to descend, in conformity with the
law of Sicily, the eldest male child taking precedence of
the younger, and the male and his heirs of the female
descendants. It was further commanded that Earl
Horatio Nelson and his successors should hold the
estates in fief. Earl Horatio Nelson had obtained per-
mission from George 111. to accept the estate in question
tinder these conditions. He was then Baron of the
Nile, but had been subsequently created Viscount Nel-
son. Earl William Nelson was the eldest brother of
Earl Horatio Nelson. Mrs. Bolton, his (Earl William
Nelson's) eldest sister, and the present plaintiff was her
grandson. Horatio Earl Nelson left his estates to his ,
brother, on the condition of his carrying out certain
trusts specified in the will. He was to convert, accord-
ing to the terms of the will, those estates into money,
and purchase an estate of 1,0001. per annum for his wife,
and in case of the money derived from that sal° beim-,
insufficient for such purpose, the deficiency was to be
made up out of his estates in Sicily. He then left the
rem ainder of his property to his brother and his children.
subject to an annuity of 5001. to Lady Hamilton. The
will then proceeded to appoint William Lord Nelson as
his successor to the Duchy of Bronte, granted by Fer-
dinand, under and subject to certain trusts afterwards
mentioned in the will already stated ; and that the in-
tention of the testator with regard to that sale of the
estate in Bronte should be carried out as far as possible
according to the law of England, but at all events as
much in conformity with it as the law of Sicily would
permit ; and that in default of the issue of his brother
to the estate, it was to go to Susannah Bolton and her
heirs and successors, and that the remainder of his pro-
petty was to descend to another female relative, or Mrs.
Catherine Matthew. It then desired that the money
accruing from the sale of the estate in Bronte should be
invested in the purchase of an estate in England, Ire-
land, or Wales, in that manner in which the law
of Sicily pointed out. The testator then gave certain
legacies, among which, and by a codicil to his will, tho
aia.nuity of 5001. out of his estates in Bronte to Lady
Hamilton, notwithstanding his former will. Horatio
Lord Nelsen died on the 21st of October, 1825, and the

CLE RKENWE L L.
Henry Gray, described as a law- writer, was placed at
the bar, on the charge of breaking into the house No.
25, Rawatone street, under the foliowingcircumstances:—
. Mr. Thomas Glover stated that he was one of the trus-
tees of the late Mr. Skinner, who held the above pre-
mises under the Brewers' Company, and a long litigation
had ensued between them and the prisoner and other
members of his family. Owing to the circumstance of
the house in question having been, contrary to
the terms of contract, convert...d into a beer-shop,
to the detriment of the adjacent property, and the
result was that he (Mr. Glover) received possession
under the sheriff on the 11th inst. That morning, at
three o'clock, the prisoner broke open the door with a
hammer, for the purpose of re-entering the premises,
when he was taken into custody by a policeman. Mr.
Glover now applied that the prisoner should be required
to find good bail to keep the peace to all her Majesty's
subjects as according to the present state of the case
many other parties beside himself might be subject to his
violence.
Mr. CONDE acceded to the application, and the pri-
soner was locked up in default of bail.
A coal-porter, named Henry White, was charged with
stealing a quantity of leaden pipes, the property of :Ar:
J. Morgan, builder, of Islington-green. He was stopped
with the propeny i❑ his possession.
The case was remanded to Wednesday, as the police
thought they should be able to establish other charges
against the prisoner.

AIL COURT, Nov. 13.
EXPARTE SRUTTLEWORTH.

Sir JOHN BAYLEY said that in this case his Lordship
had granted a writ of habeas corpus last Monday, to
bring up into this Court the body of this lady from a
lunatic asylum. He now applied for time to make the
return, which could not be done before Monday next.
Mr. PARRY, at whose instance the writ was granted,
said that as the interests of his client would not suffer if
the course proposed were adopted, he had therefore no
objection to make to the application.—The application
was granted accordingly.

THE QUEEN V. CALDWELL AND ANOTHER.-TREATMENT
OF PRISONERS IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH PRISON.

Mr. BALLANTINE moved in this case for a writ of
certiorari to bring up an indictment for assault from the
Central Criminal Court into this Court. The indict-
ment was filed by a Mr. Herring, a prisoner in the
Queen's Bench Prison, against two persons, named
Caldwell and Carr, officers in the prison, for an assault
committed upon him within its walls, in the execution
of the rules according to the Act sth Victoria, c. 52, t.
16, by which the Secretary of State was empowered to
draw up rules for the prison. He bad an affidavit which
stated that a question would arise as to how far the
rules were framed according to the Act, and how far the
orders of the Secretary of State had been carried out. It
had been sworn that questions would arise upon those
points which would render it necessary to have the as-
sistance of Queen's counsel.
Mr. Herring (who had been brought up upon a writ
of habeas corpus to hear the application) asked whether
he was entitled to have copies of the affidavits ?
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that he was not, until they
were filed, and then he would have to answer them.
He could then have copies at his own expense. If the
assault took place in the execution of the rules of the
prison, the only question was whether the proper course
would not be to remove the indictment. He could not
say who were the guilty parties.
Mr. Herring said he was guilty of no offence.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—You do not deny that the
assault took place in consequence of a breach of the rules.
Mr. HERRING said that the case was one of common
assault, but committed under the most aggravated cir-
cumstances. There was nothing which would at all
render the question an abstruse point of law upon which
the jury at the Central Criminal Court would be at all
at a loss to arrive at a clear judgment. He con ld
fee Coansel in consequence of the expense he had been
put to, and his friends had been denied access to him.
He had brought an action against the keeper, and that
action would be most materially prejudiced by the grant-
ing of the present application.
Mr. BALLANTINE said that the writ had been issued
against the keeper six months ago, and it had not been
tried yet.
Mr. HERRING said that it would come on at the sittings
after term.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—BUt you have not declared
yet, and of course your indictment will be tried first, un-
less some accident interfere. _ _ _

trusts of his will, as far as regarded his English property,
were duly and ecrrectly executed. The only
question was as regarded the estate in Sicily.
if this question were to be considered
according to the law of England the
duty of the trustees would have been unquestionably to
have effected the sale according to the law of this coun-
try, and to have made the specified settlements. But
such were not the circumstances, and it was rendertd
necessary to adopt other steps. In January, 1806,
Earl William Nelson presented a memorial to
the King of the Two Sicilies, in which he
stated what were the intentions of the testator,
and 6 xpressed a hope that his Majesty would allow those
intentions to be carried into effect ; and on the 20ih of
June, 1806, the King of the Two Sicilies granted the
estate of Bronte to the said Lord W. Nelson, his heirs
and successors, with the obligation of perpe-
tual trust, according to the law of Sicily. By this
act of his Majesty (the King of the Two Sicilies)
Earl William Nelson became entitled to the estates tit
Bronte, with the limitations that were placed upon the
heir to the same. He had at that time an only son, who
died without issue, leaving the present defendant, his
only sister. In the interim a law was made in Sicily
which abolished the law preventing the alienation
of an estate in that kingdom, and Lord W.
Nelson then appointed Lady Bridport his heir, with all
powers, by a will dated the 20th of February, 1833. It
was under that testament that Lady Bridport claimed,
while the claim of the present Earl Nelson was made
under the terms of the will of Horatio Lord Nelson. In
considering the Master's report it would be convenient for
him ("Lord Langdale) to state the propositions on which
the Master based that report, the grounds upon which the
exceptions were taken, and the grounds upon which he
(Lord Langdale) had come to a conclusion in this very
difficult cause. The law of foreign countries was to be
decided by a judge of this country, by facts, of which a
testament was one, for it could not be supposed that a
judge in one country could be so conversant with the
original state and the alterations that might take place in
the laws of another country as to enable him to give
a correct decision upon those points that might arise
in a complicated cause like the present. In the cause,
then, before the Court there was conflicting evidence
and, unfortunately, other difficulties that rendered
coming to a satisfactory conclusion almost impos-
sible. Looking carefully to the testimony and the
arguments, and certainly leaving nothing, however
trouble:;ome, undone to come to a correct conclusion,
he had. made up his mind on the matter ; but it yet re-
mained to give an account of all the means he had em-
ployed for that purpose, and upon the careful considera-
tion of which- his opinion had been formed. The Mas-
ter's conclusions were, that Earl Horatio Nelson held
the estates in Bronte according to the law of
the Franks, and when he appoiuted his successors
that he had no further power over the land which con-
stituted that estate • that the trustees had not either,
together or separately, any power to sell the estate, or
to give to the purchaser any right or claim therein;
that Wm. Lord Nelson, as sole feudal possessor, be-
came possessed of the estate under a feudal tenure and
by subsequent changes in the law became absolute
owner of the estate in fee simple. His Lordship, after
recapitulating the allegations on the exceptions, pro-
ceeded—Lord William Nelson took an estate in trust
which was ordered to be sold, and the fundamental dif-
ference between the parties was, whether the trust
was to be executed, or could be executed.
On one side it was contended that the estate was inalien-
able, being a novum tensility. By the Act of Ferdinand,
the estate was constituted a duchy, to be held according
to the law of the Franks. It was then stated to be a
nobile feudum, according to the law of Sicily.
It was, however, also contended that it was
a feudum degenerans. The defendants contended by
the tenure of the estate that it was not held in firma
stricta according to the law of the Franks. This was
to be determined by a reference to the terms of the
grant. It did not appear, therefore, to be a con-
sideration whether it was a feudum degenerans,
or whether the forma stricter was to be departed from.
The Master had come to the conclusion that the estate
was not a novum feudum. By the law of Sicily two
persons could not be appointed successors. Lord Nelson
might have sold the estate himself, and given the same
power to his fiduciary heirs, but it could not be alleged
that he authorised his fiduciary heirs to do all he might
have done himself. If it had been a feudum digenerans,
the witnesses who had been examined stated that plenary
powers were conferred on the person to whom the estate
was granted. It appeared to him that the evidence for
the defendants showed that Lord W. Nelson in default
of issue, became entitled to the property, which
was to be considered neither as a feudum novum or
feudum degeneruns, but as a feudum nobile to
be held in stricta forma. Earl W. Nelson was, therefore,
duly appointed successor, and therefore to claim inves-
titure. If the male issue of Earl W. Nelson failed, the
estate should pass to the plaintiffs. The question then
was, whether the estate could be sold. He did not think
the trustees could sell the estate, or change the succes-
sion. He thought Lord William Nelson had become
heir under the law of Sicily, and he could only
deal with the estate according to that law. No effect
could be given to the succession beyond what the law of
Sicily permitted, as the testator could not subject his
successors to any succession different from what was
legal. He was of opinion, therefore, that the
trustees could not carry out the trusts of the
will, and that they had done all that was
possible for them to do under the circumstances. The
subsequent alterations that had taken place in the laws
of Sicily could not be considered to renew the execu-
tor's trusts. In giving the estate to Lady Bridport,
he had done nothing which he was not perfectly
entitled to do, for whether Lord William Nel-
son, when by the power that the alteration of the
law of Sicily gave him, did or did not do what was
right in not executing the trusts of his brother,
Horatio Lord Nelson, was not then to be consi-
dered. He was of opinion that the Bronte estate
could not be disposed of in the way the original tes-
tator had done. These were the grounds of the Master's
finding, and he (Lord Langdale) thought they were
substantiated. He would, therefore, direct that the ex-
ceptions should be overruled, but that the costs should
be divided by the plaintiff and defendant.

Mr. HERRING then went on to complain at great length
at the regular system of annoyance to which he was sub-
jected by the officers of the prison, who would never
suffer him to see any of his friends or legal adviser„
alone; and who had followed him even into the grand
jury room when he went to give his evidence, and had
insisted on remaining there until they were ordered out
by the grand jury.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—It is not a very usual course
to remove these indictments from the Central Criminal
Court ; but in this case—the more I hear and the more
I see—that this case should be removed. If the keeper
were here, he would say that this prisoner had infringed
the rules, and given him a great deal of trouble. I is
clear that there is ill feeling on one side or the other. I
mutt therefore grant a writ of certiorari to remove it.
The defendants were then admitted to bail in an in-
creased amount, and the case was ordered to be entered
for trial forthwith.

Mr. Herring again complained of the treatment to
which he was subjected, and was eventually escorted
from the Court, surrounded by four or five attendants,
who encircled him whilst speaking to a friend, and so
went with him across Palace-yard, followed by ninny
people from the body of the Court.

LATEST PRICES OF SHARES,
N BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND OTHER COM

PANIES' STOCK.
From tile Offici,ll List,

lIBLISIIED EVERY TUE:AD.:IY AND FRIDAY EVENISG

LONDON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13
JOINT-STOW:Z. BANZES.

Dividend Amount
‘Natre of Company. per of Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
tustralasia .........• 6/. per cent. 40 0 0 40 0 0 -
dritshlrorth American 51. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 -
:ommercial of London 51. per cent. 100 0 0 20 0 0 -
lolonial. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 -
Londn and Westminstr 61. per cent. 100 0 0 20 0 0 28
.ondon Joint-Stock .• • 61. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 -
Metropolitan
Provincial of Ireland- 81. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 -
Ditto, New.•• •• • • 8/. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 -
Kational of Ireland • . Si. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 0 -
Nat. Provncial of Eng. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 35 0 0 36
Ditto, New. •••• • • • • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0
Union of Australia • 61. per cent. 25 0 0 25 0 0 -
Union of London... .. 51. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 -
lIISITA.A.NCE CO.WZPANIES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Prim.
Annum. Share.
X s. d. £ a. 4.
k.bion •• •• •••• •• •• •• 31. 108. 500 0 0 50 0 0 75
Alliance Brit. and For. 6 per cent. 100 0 0 11 0 0 -
Ditto Marine. ••• • • • 6/. per cent, 100 0 0 5 0 0 5%
Atlas .•..••...
British Commercial 78. per share 50 0 0 5 0 0 7%
Gen. Life Si. per cent. 100 0 0 2 10 0 10
county•••••••••••••• 31. 100 0 0 10 0 0
10s. 50 0 0 5 0 0 -
Eagle ••• • • • ...... •• • • 6s. 50 9 0 5 0 0 5%
Eng.& Scot. Law •• •• 51. per cent. 50 0 0 2 0 0 3 _
European Life •••• • • 5% per cent. 20 0 0 All paid. 20°-
Freemasons' .•••• •• • • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 8 0 0
Globe ......• • • 6/. per cent. Stock. 135
Guardian .. •• • 51. per cent. 100 0 0 36 10 0 48%
Imperial Fire •• • • • • 6/. and bonus 500 0 0 50 0 0 230
Imperial Life •••• •• • • 12s. 100 0 0 10 0 0 -
Indemnity Marine. •• • 11. sh. & bs. 100 0 0 513 1 31
Law Life.. ••••• • • • • . 11. ss. 100 0 0 10 0 0 -
Legal and General Life 50 0 0 2 0 0 ' 51,8
London Fire .• •• •• • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 15 %
London Ship •.•• • • •• 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 15%
Marine.. ........... 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 15 0 0 -
Med. Invlid&Gen.Life 4%1. per ct. 50 0 0 2 0 0 -
National Lean Fund•. 51. per cent. 20 0 0 210 0 -
National Life.
Calladium Life 5l. per cent. 50 0 0 2 0 0 2/. Os.
Phoenix - 205
Protector Life.... -
Provident Life........ 1/. 58. 100 0 0 10 0 0 23
Rock Life.. 4s. 5 0 0 010 .0 4%
Royal Exchange ...... 5/. per cent. Stock. ,
Sun Fire.. ••. • • • • . • . 6/. 10s. 210
Ditto Life ..... 11. 6s. 49
Universal Life -

LIST OP SCOTTISH COMPANIES' PHICJIS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
£ S. d. £ a. d
Bank of Scotland
Royal Bank of Scotland 61. per cent. 100 0 159
British Linen Company Si. per cent. 100 0 0 220
Commercial Bank •• • • 61. per cent. 100 0 0 162%
National Bank ...... • • 61. per cent. 10 0 0 141.13 s
Union Bank of Scotland 7%1. pr cent. 50 0 0 92%
Western Bank.... •. • • 6/. per cent. 50 0 0 85
North of Scotland Bank 61. per cent. 5 0 0 71. E
Clydesdale Bank•• •• • • 6/. per cent. 10 0 0 13%
Eastern Bank •••• • • • • 51: per cent. 10 0 0 11%
Caledonian Bank ••.• • 7% I. pr cent. 2 10 0 4/. 4s.
Edinb.& Glasgow Bank 61. per cert. 5 0 0 71. Os
City of Glasgow Bank . Si. per cent. 10 0 0 131. 6s
Scottish Union Ins. Co. 51. per cent., 20 0 0 1 0 0 245. 6d
Hercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 14%
Insur. Co. of Scetlnd• • Si. per cent. 10 0 0 All paid. 10
North British Insur. ••5%1. pr cent. 200 0 0 10 0 0 27%
Caledonian Fire Insur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 24
Edinlturgh Life Incur. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 12 10 0 184
Edin. &lilasg. Railway 1/.los. pert. 50 0 0 50 0 0 72
Ditto, 4 Shares ••• . 7s. 6d. p. s. 12 10 0 All paid. 18
Edin., Leith, & Grantn 20 0 0 20 0 0 18
Glasgw & Ayrshir Rail. 71. per cent. 50 0 0 All paid. 69
Glasgw &Greenckßall. 21. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 16%
Glsgw & Garnkirk Rail. Si. per cent. 15 0 0 All paid. 39%
Dundee& Arbroth Rail. 6/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 37
Standard LifeAssernce.l 51. per cent. 50 0 0 I 2 10 0 9

DOCKS.

Dividend Amount
Name of Company, per of raid,
Annum. Share.

Commacial ........

X s. d.
Stock.

East and West India

Stock.