The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-23 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

STAINES V. TAYLOR.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
to-day, and occupied his Lordship the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
The further arguments in the part-heard case of Terry
v. Wacher occupied his Honour the whole day.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
GEARY v. NORTON.
This was a cause in which the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Geary and Co., shawl manufacturers, in Leeds, sought
for the continuance as well as the costs of an injunction
that had been obtained last year to prevent the defend-
ants, James Norton and James Ford Haneford, selling
an article called the Royal Mecklin Shawl, which had
been registered by the plaintiffs.
It appeared that the defendants, who travelled about
for business, had obtained an order from a person named
Burrell to supply him with a number of the shawls in
question, and that Norton accordingly went to a Mr.
Scott, shawl manufacturer, in Leicestershire, and
got the order executed. This coming to the ears
of the plaintiffs, they had a correspondence with the
defendants, and eventually obtained the injunction. The
infringement of the patent was admitted by the defend-
ants, but they contended that the injunction was an un-
called-for and vexatious proceeding, they having but
four days before it had been obtained, and on the dis-
covery of the fact of the shawl being a patent article,
wrote to the defendants, promising to suspend the sale of
all the shawls of this description in their possession, of
which there was a large number.
At the conclusion of the arguments,
His Horrouß said he would order the defendants to
pay the general costs, and would continue the injunction.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
THE QUEEN V. THE OVERSEERS OF KIRBY LONSDALE.
In this case a mandamus had been obtained in the
Bail Court, at the instance of a person named Tennant,
who had.been a paid assistant-overseer of the parish, but
who had been discharged from that office by the Poor-
law Commissioners for improper conduct, calling upon
the overseers of the parish to produce the authority
under which they held their offices.
Mr. GODSON, Q.C., now applied to the Court to dis-
charge the rule with costs. He read an affidavit from
Alderman Thompson, the largest proprietor in the town-
ship, stating that the value of Tennant's property in the
parish was only 10L 16s. a year, that the overseers were
appointed by the votes of nearly the whole of the parish,
that the conduct of Tennant had been refractory and
litigious, and that his only motive in the proceeding was
to harass and annoy the overseers so appointed. He
was supported in his application by a person named
Grundy, who appeared anxious to become one of the
overseers, but it appeared by the affidavit that he was
not a substantial householder, and not a fit person to
hold such an office. If be felt aggrieved he might ap-
peal to the sessions, or bring the matter by certiorari
into this Court. He had, however, appealed, but un-
successfully, and he now came to this Court in order
that he might annoy the parties, and put them to great
expense.
Mr. RAMSEY, who was with Mr. Godson, argued
that such an application was wholly unprecedented and
untenable. _ _ _ _ _

Mr. PASHLEY argued, on the other hand, that a party
who was interested in the appointments, like Mr. Ten-
nant, had a perfect right to call upon the overseers to
show by what authority they held their offices, espe-
cially as he was prepared to show that they were not
duly appointed. He cited the authority of Lord Camp-
bell, who, when Attorney-General, so argued, and cases
in which the Court had granted writs of mandamus to
inspect the accounts and other documents appertaining
to the affairs of the parish in which they
were rated inhabitants. A ratepayer, quite irrespective
of the amount of which he was rated, had a perfect right
to make such an inspection: it would be most unjust to
refuse him an opportunity of doing so, because, though
his stake might be small, he had to contribute his quota
to the expenses of the parish, and he had a perfect right
to examine the expenditure. He submitted that the rule
should be made absolute. _ .

-
The Counr considered that the opposition was un-
precedented and uncalled for. The rule must, therefore.
be discharged, with costs.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE regretted that ha granted the
rule in the first instance; he should not have acceded to
it if the facts detailed to-day had been before him.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
YATES V. THE COMMIAIONERS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
OF THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER.--CONSTRUCTION

OF THE LANDS' CLAUSFS CONSOLIDATION ACT.
Mr. WORDSWORTH, on behalf of Mr. Yates, applied
for a rule, directed to the Commissioners for the Im-
provement of the City of Westminster, calling on them
to chow cause why they did not deliver up to Mr. Yates
the appointment of an arbitrator, in order that it
might be made a rule of Court to enforce an award.
The question would affect the construction of the
Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act, as passed in the last
session of Parliament, His client was the proprietor
and occupier of some premises in Tothill-street, West-
minster, and he received notice from tiae Commissioners
that his property was required for the purposes of the
Act under which they were appointed. Mr. Yates sent
in his claim, and the matter under certain provisions
was referred to arbitration. The result was that the
sum of 1,7261. Bs. was awarded to Mr. Yates. That award
gave great dissatisfaction to the Commissioners, who
were determined to resist it. By the Act appointing
the Commissioners, the Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act
was incorporated with it. By these joint Acts it was
enacted that, in case any dispute as to the amount of
compensation should arise, the matter might be referred
to arbitration, each side choosing an arbitrator, who in
their turn should choose an umpire. The matter being
once submitted to arbitration, could not be withdrawn un-
less by consent of all parties ; and the party in possession
of the award and the documents submitting the case to
arbitration were compelled to furnish copies, and to allow
inspection and use of the original. The Commissioners
in this case were applied to to give up the award and
submission, in order that they might be made a rule of
Court as it, was expressly provided in the Act, but they
refused to do so, as a copy had been furnished but the
original detained.
Mr. Justice ERLE—The question is whether the
rule is to be to show cause why the original document
should not be delivered up, or why the authenticated
copy should not be made a rule of Court.
Mr. WORDSWORTH said that was the difficulty, but
the rule and alternative could be given. Then a very
important question arose, as to what documents con-
stituted the submission under the 25th section of the
Act. The question must be decided very shortly, as
it would affect the interest of every railway com-
pany, or company for improvement, which . had
been formed since the passino• of the Lands' Clauses Con-
solidation Act. The Learned Counsel then cited several
authorities as to the mode in which the rule should be
given.

Mr. Justice ERLE granted a rule nisi, to show cause
why the original documents should not be delivered up,
or in default, why the copy should not be made a rule of
Court instead,

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

MACEY V. THOMAS.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS moved fora rule nisi for a
new trial in this case, on the grounds that the verdict
was against evidence and surprise. The action was
tried last week at the Guildhall, and the verdict was for
the defendant. It was to recover 100/. on two bills of
exchange, andwere for the purchase of the good-will of
a coffee-house in Bishopsgate-street. The defence was
that the extent of the business had been misrepresented
by the plaintiff, and this defence, which came upon the
plaintiff by surprise, was alleged by plaintiff to be un-
founded. Rule nisi granted.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD )
IN RE BINGLEY.

Charles Binglay, described as of Charles-street, Spital-
fields, trimming-manufacturer, was brought up in cus-
tody to pass his last examination.
He was supported by Mr. Stammers as counsel, and
opposed by Mr. Hudson as solicitor to the assignees.
It appeared that no accounts had been furnished by
the bankrupt to the assignees, but Mr. Stammers con-
tended that under the Act of Parliament the assignees
were bound when the bankrupt was in prison to send in
an accountant, and afford the bankrupt access to his
books. Mr. Hudson, in reply, argued that the Act was
not compulsory on the assignees, but merely permissive,
and that under all the circumstances of the ease they
would not have been justified in doing so.
The Learned COMMISSIONER acquiesced, especially
as it appeared that the bankrupt had engaged some
person to make out his accounts. His Honour said he
must adjourn the examination until the accounts were
furnished.
Mr. HunsoN said this was a very complicated case,
and he had, on behalf of the assignees, to put it forth as
one of gross fraud. It appeared that he had been for a
long time carrying on business in different places, and
latterly was married to a Mrs. Davis, who carried on the
same business. Ile was not only married to her, but it
would, no doubt, be proved that he had several other
wives, and that there bad been a regular conspiracy.
Just previously to the bankruptcy, the bankrupt had
obtained pood3 to a large amount from different persons,
some of which bad found their way to Mrs. Davis's place
of business, but she, after assigning certain property
and debts to a person named Mitchell, who had
married her daughter, absconded with the property