The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-14 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

AN IMPROPER QUESTION IN A LIBEL SUIT. —The Court
of Common Pleas granted a rule nisi to set aside a judge's
order directing the defendant in a libel case to say whether
or not he wrote the letter complained of. The letter
appeared in the Times, and commented severely upon the
loss of the steamship City of Boston, whereupon the
Inman Company commenced an action for libel against a
Mr. Jenkins, to whom they put the interrogatory, through
Mr. Justice Blackburn. The interrogatory was resisted
on the ground that the answer might tend to criminate
the defendant; and the court expressed an opinion that,
in the absence of special circumstances, such questions
ought not to be allowed to be put.
INSURANCE AGAINST ACCIDENTS.—A case arising out of
an Accident Insurance Policy has been heard in the
Court of Exchequer. A client of the Accident Insurance
Company who had effected a policy for £l,OOO died in
consequence of erysipelas supervening from a wound. The
policy contained a clause stating that it did not in-
sure against death or disability arising from
gout, rheumatism, erysipelas, or any secondary disease
arising within the system of the insured. The
Lord Chief Baron held that as the erysipelas was the
natural result of the wound, the company was liable ' • but
Barons Martin, Channell, and Cleasby held that although
the disease was due to the wound, the language of the
contract clearly and precisely exempted the defendants
from liability. Judgment was therefore entered for the
company.
THE PROPOSED LAW REFORMS.—During the progress
of a suit Vice-Chancellor Stuart gave partial ex-
pression to his views on the question which has recently
excited so much public interest—the fusion of law and
equity. The distinctive characteristic of the Court of
Chancery was its administrative powers. What changes
were in contemplation he did not know, but he was ex-
tremely proud of the efficiency which the Court of
Chancery exhibited in its administrative capa
city. Great improvements had been effected,
and they had been the means of unlocking hundreds
of thousand pounds which would not otherwise have been
properly administered. Whatever turn law reform might
assume, he did not believe that the court which was deal-
ing at one moment with perhaps a bill of exchange could
adjudicate in an intricate administration suit with equal
efficiency to one the speciality of which was administra-
tive power.
THEATRICAL MANAGEMENT. —ln the Court of Vice-
Chancellor Stuart an application was , made by Mr
Karslake, Q.C., to restrain an action of ejectment against
the proprietors of the Vaudeville Theatre, Strand It seemed
that Mr. Montague and two other gentlemen, who are
well known as actors, entered into possession of
the theatre, paying-a premium of £5OO and a rental of
£2,100 per annum. One of the conditions of the tenancy
was that the prices for the admission of the public to the
house should not be reduced without the lessor's con-
sent ' • but that having been violated in the case d
the balcony, stalls, and upper circles, the lessor immedi-
ately issued a writ of ejectment. The present application
was made for the purpose of restraining the action, on the
ground that the verbal consent of the lessor had been ob-
tained prior to the alteration. It was stated, however,
that since the commencement of the action the prices had
been raised to their former rates. Principle was the only
thing involved, and the Vice-Chancellor suggested that
the matter should be deferred in order that a compromise
might be effected.
A DOCTOR CHARGED WITH EMBEZZLEMENT AND FORGERY.
—Before the Richmond Bench, Francis Horne Scaife, a
surgeon, has been charged on a warrant with embezzling
£5 13s. 6d. and a cheque for £7 10s. 6d., the moneys of
the firm of William Anderson, M.D., and Richard
Hassell, M.D., of Richmond. The prisoner was recently
in the employment of Drs. Anderson and Hassell as
assistant,_ and he was authorized to receive moneys due
to his employers. According to the evidence of Dr.
Anderson he had received several sums of, including the two
in question, and had not accounted for them. The prisoner
was apprehended at Liverpool, and on him was found (in
addition to a cheque for £7 105..6d., which Dr. Anderson
identified as having been paid to him by Mr. Knight Of
Richmond) two forged cheques on the Burton-on-Trent
Bank—one for £323 75., and the other for £2Bo—both pur-
porting to be signed by Dr. Anderson, and payable to the
prisoner. The prisoner was remanded, and at his next
examination he will be also charged with having the forged
cheques in his possession.

AN AGRICULTURAL CASE.—A case has been tried in
Vice-Chancellor Stuart's court, before a special jury
which has occupied several days. The suit was instituted
byaMr. English, the owner of an estate in WarwiAshire,
wholliad in April 1865 granted the defendant a lease for
twenty-one years of a farm of 260 acres. By the agree-
ment] Mr. English undertook to give Mr. Notting-
ham, the defendant, a lease of a certain tract of
land containing about 140 acres, agreeing also to' " assort
and clear them from timber and underwood, at the rate of
15 acres a-year till the whole were cleared, and then grant
him a lease at the rate of 255. an acre. The suit originated
in a dispute beeween the parties respecting the manner of
the assorting, the defendant declaring that a number of
stumps and roots had been overlooked and left
in the land with barely five inches of soil over
them. The cause came on in March, and a jury was im-
pannelled, five of whom under an order from the Court
went down to view the land. The plough provided by the
plaintiff was a plough of extra strength, manu-
factured for the special purpose of ploughing such
woodlands, which remained uninjured ; but the
defendant's plough, being an iron plough of
ordinary strength, with cast iron shares, two of
the shares were broken, and the plough itself suffered
damage through the stumps and roots. After several days
of hearing this term, the matter has been brought to an
end for the time, by the verdict on the preliminary
issues, though the cause itself will be heard next term.
The jury decided that the land had not been sufficiently
assorted, and awarded £465 to the defendant to pay him
to complete the process,