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

GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES.

The arguments in this case occupied the Court the
remainder of the day.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
IN RE BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.

His Horrotnt said he considered with respect to the
petition in this natter, which had been presented yes-
terday, that the trustees had sufficient powers, and con-
sequently that the Court had no right to interfere in
the case.

(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
MORRIS V. MORRIS.

Mr. ROGERS, on the part of the defendant, put in an
answer to the original motion in this matter. The
Learned Counsel stated, that by that answer the defend-
ant threw himself on the mercy of the Court, setting
forth that he was too poor to adopt the necessary
steps before. It appeared further that an
application had been made to the Court in Ireland, and
proceedings understood in that country as writs of eject-
ment had been executed. The application to the Chan-
cery Court in Ireland had been unsuccessful, the Court
refusing to interfere till after the settlement of the ori-
ginal motion which was pending before the Court.
His HONOUR, after hearing the arguments, said—With-
out giving any opinion whatever as to whether the
notice of the defendant in this matter was or was not
correct, or deciding whether he had made sufficient
apology for the delay that he had been guilty of, he
nevertheless considered this motion too late. With
regard to the original motion he thought it more espe-
cially belonged to the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and
would, therefore, order it to stand over for the present.

TAYLOR V. COOPER

The object of the plain tiff in this case was to enforce tho
condition of a will of Wiliam Cooper, who bequeathed
to the plaintiff and to William Cooper, the defendant,
freehold house property in Fleur-de-lis-court, as well as
four leasehold houses in Tichbourne-street, upon trust,
with directions to pay the rents accruing to his widow for
life. After her death the testator devised the freehold
houses to William Cooper absolutely. lie also gave the
leasehold houses to William Cooper, on condition of
his granting a lease of the houses in Tichbourne-street
for the remainder of the testator's interest to George
Taylor, at a rent of 5/. per annum. Taylor died in the
lifetime of the widow, and his executor claimed the
lease, which was refused, this refusal being justified on
the ground that in the will the object of the testator was
purely to confer a benefit on Taylor himself, and not his
estate.

After hearing the arguments, his HONOUR said, be
considered that Mrs. Taylor's executor was fairly en-
titled to the under lease which she claimed. However
he did not think he would be justified in giving costs on
either, as the question at issue was one of that nature
which might be equitably raised.
The Court rose at the usual hour.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
CONSPIRACY—THE QUEEN V. GODIPERTZ AND OTHERS.
Mr. HILL, Q.C., resumed his address this morning.
He first addressed himself to the question of the admis-
sability, in legal cases, of unstamped documents ; and
quoted the case of Buckstone v. Carlisle, 12th Mason and
Wellerby, p. 226, in support of his argument, that the
use of unstamped documents at the trial rendered the
finding of the jury invalid. In the case referred to,
which was an action fez work and labour, the onus of
proof lay in an agreement which was not admitted in
evidence in consequence of its being unstamped, and
therefore the case of the plaintiff fell to the ground. After
briefly glancing at the law relating to stamped docu-
ments, and contending that a document which was pre-
pared without a stamp, but which ought in law to bear a
stamp, was not only invalid but inadmissable in a court of
law; ho proceeded to review the counts of the indictment,
which, he held, were bad, and not proved by the evi-
dence adduced at the trial. The third count divided
itself into two branches—first, that the defendants got
possession of the bills; and, secondly, that their object
was to defraud Captain Rose of the proceeds of them.
Now, Gumpertz brought the stamps to Captain Rose,
who signed them, and they were taken away by Gom•
per .tz They never were in Captain Rose's possession;
they never belonged to him at any time and in any
way, whereas the count set forth that the bills had been
taken improperly from him, they having been in his legal
possession at the time, and that the act was fraudulent,
and therefore Wits untenable. He could not, for in-
stance, maintain an action for trespass. If the
stamps had belonged to
,him, And the whole