The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-05 00:00:00

NEWMAN P KING.

This case came before the Court upon two appeal motions,
the object of one being to commit certain parties for the
breach of an injunction, and the other to show cause against
dissolving the injunction. The case occupied his Lordship
the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, June 4.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLA.ND.)
His Honour heard motions to-day.
WOODIN V. FIELL
_

This case came before the Court upon motion, on behalf of
the defendant, for the dissolution of an injunction, restraining
him from manufacturing and selling horse-shoes of the same
construction as those for which the plaintiff had obtained a
patent. _ _ _

His Hoxoutt, at the conclusion of the arguments, gave
judgment dissolving the injunction with costs, but giving
liberty to the plaintiff to bring such action as he might be
advised.

ROLLS' COURT, June 4.
This being the general day for petitions, Lord Langdale
was occupied during the early part of it in hearing the
same, and then proceeded with the motions, none of which
possessed any interest.

LOCKHART V. HARDY.
The arguments in this cause were resumed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 4.
(Sittings in Banco. j
THE QUEEN AT THE PROSECUTION OF THE Hag. EAST INDIA
COMPANY V. CAPTAIN DOUGLAS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose at the siitting of the Court
this morning, and stated that in this case he had complied with
the direction of the Court to inspect the different counts of
the indictment, with a view to ascertain which of them
there were,and how many, upon which a nolle prosequi should
be entered, and after having given the whole of their counts
the best consideration he could, he had come Ito
the determination that there were five of the counts upon
which a mile prosequi might be entered; but, as the indict-
ment contained sixteen counts, there would still remain
eleven upon which he was clearly of opinion that he had a
right to call for the judgment of the Court; and he now
begged leave to say he would call for that judgment on Mon-
day next.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that that would be too
soon to call for judgment, and would not be affording him
sufficient time to ascertain whether he had not a right to
move for a new trial upon some of the other counts.
The COURT concurred with the Learned Gentleman, and
postponed the judgment until next Thursday.

THE QUEEN V. THE HULL DOCK CO3IPANT.
This was a question which came before the Court, upon a
certiorm i, to determine whether the finding of a jury, in a
case of compensation between the Hull Dock Company, on the
one part, and Mr. Jubb, proprietor of the Cannon Brewery, on
the other, could be maintained. Itappeared that the Hull Dock
Company having obtained an Act for the formation of their
docks, required the land on which Mr. Jubb's brewery was
situated, and the jury was empanelled to assess its value.
The jury awarded a sum of 4001. compensation for the value
of the land premises; and a further sum of 3001. for Mr.
Jubb's loss of interest in the premises, supposed to be occa-
sioned by loss of connexion, removal, and finding other premises.
To the finding of 400/. for the land the dock company
took no objection ; but to the finding of 300/. for loss of
interest in business they objected, and the case came now
before the Court on appeal for its opinion. For the finding
of the jury and judgment of the Sheriff,
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., and Mr. HENDERSON were heard ;
the Hull Dock Company was supported by the Solicitor-
General (who was heard) and by Mr. Martin, Q.C., whose
arguments the Court postponed the hearing of to a future
day.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that the finding of the
300/. was excessive, and that the jury was not warranted by
the Act to make such an award.

THE QUEEN V. RUSSELL.
This was a case in which the defendant was charged with
having kept a gaming house, and it was ordered to be tried
at the sessions; but a rule had been obtained to enable the
defendant to show cause why the case should be moved, by
certiorari, to the Queen's Bench, and cause having been
shown why the rule should be made absolute, Counsel for
the prosecution contended at great length that the rule
should be discharged.
The Court decided that the case should be sent back to
the session.

BAIL COURT, June 4.
This Court was occupied for a considerable time in
hearing the arguments in a case of rather a novel char-
acter. It was to this effect, that one party held an
I. 0. U. which the alleged maker contended was a
forgery, as he had no recollection of ever having made
it ; and the application was, that the Court would make
a rule ordering the holder of the document to submit
it to the inspection of the party alleged to have made it.
It appeared that no precedent conld be found for the
Court making such an order, and it therefore declined
to do so, but ordered the document to be proved by the
usual process.

SHERIFFS' COURT, June 4.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCIIELL.)
DOLMAN v. WATERS.
This was an action to recover the sum of 121. 17s. 6d.,
under the following circumstances :—lt appeared that the
defendant had been entitled to an annuity, which he had
made over to the Commercial and General Life Assurance
Company for a debt due to them, but on his being required
to pay up, the plaintiff was engaged as an agent to dispose
of it, and he did so to General Hodgson. It was, however,
agreed between tLe plaintiff, as the agent, and the defendant,
that the latter should allow one quarter's dividend to the
purchaser for costs. On the settlement, however, the plain-
tiff paid off the lien of the Commercial and General Life As-
surance Company and the rest to the defendant, not deduct-
ing the quarter's dividend as agreed, and he now sought to
recover it as money paid in error.
The UNDER-SHIRIFF said that there could not be a doubt
that the money was recoverable, and the jury gave a verdict
for the amount claimed.