The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-04 00:00:00

LONDON, TUES9AY EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHAACERY, Nov. 3.
ZULUETA V, VINENT.

This appeal motion was partly opened in the be-
ginning of August, and stood open by consent. The
bill was filed to restrain an action at law, com-
menced by the defendant Vinent for the recovery of
the proceeds of a cargo of copper ore consign-d by
him to the plaintiff. The Master of the Rolls refused
the injunction, and the motion was now renewed be-
fore his Lordship.
Mr. LLOYD, on the part of the plaintiff, continued
his argument until half-past two o'clock, when his
Lordship rose to attend a Cabinet Council.
The Court sits to-morrow at Lincoln's-inn, and
will continue to do so until after the meeting of Par-
liament.

COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY, Nov. 3.
The Lord Justices, Sir J. K. Bruce and Lord
Cranworth sat to-day in the court formerly occupied
by the Vice-Chancellor of England, and heard appeal
motions.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF

NORWICH.
This was an information against the corporation
filed for an injunction to restrain them from applying
the funds of the borough to defray the expenses of an
Act of Parliament, which the corporation propose to
obtain, in order that they may deepen, widen, and
improve that part of their river which flows between
Norwich and Yarmouth. The relators allege that the
corporation have have no power to devote the borough
funds to such a purpose unless there is a surplus, and
the corporation contend, in answer, that the improve-
ment they contemplate is within the scope and meaning
of the 92d section of the Municipal Corporation Act,
and for the benefit of the ratepayers, and the ultimate
diminution of the rates. The Vice-Chancellor Shad-
well, before whom the matter was heard, granted the
injunction, and the corporation now moved to dis-
charge the order, which, as they contend, is an im-
pediment to a great public improvement.
Mr. Stuart, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Brooksbank are for
the appeal ; Mr. Walker and Mr. Rogers contra.
Mr. STUART was heard until half-past three.
The Lord Justice K. BRUCE, at that hour, thought
the Court had better adjourn, unless Mr. Stuart felt
an anxiety to conclude his argument.
Mr. STUART readily accepted his Lordship's pro-
posal to adjourn, but suggested that the adjournment
should be until some time a little later than ordinary.
Their Lordships were, it was understood, to sit in the
new hall of Lincoln's-inn, but the notice had been so
short that it was feared the arrangements could not be
completed by ten o'clock on Tuesday morning.
The Lord Justice BRUCE observed that the judges
must look on Mr. Stuart, from his connexion with
the inn, as being in some measure their host, and
therefore under his directions.
Mr. STUART so far accepted the honour as to sug-
gest that it would be convenient if their Lordships
sat at eleven o'clock to-morrow (Tuesday) morning,
instead of ten.
The LORD JUSTICE had the assent of his brother
Lord Cran worth in saying that there could be no
objection to that arrangement. his Lordship added,
that it must be also understood that the court would
not sit for the present after three o'clock.
Mr. STUART hoped the appeal motion would take
precedence of other business tomorrow.
Lord Justice Baum after consulting with Lord
Cranworth, said their Lordships conceived it better to
hear the motion to a conclusion, but they were of
opinion that the Court ought then to proceed with the
business set down on the paper of the day.
Their Lordships then rose.
The eleven Queen's Counsel named in our report
elsewhere took their places within the bar at the sit-
ting of the Court.
The separate sittings of the Lords Justices took the
profession somewhat by surprise, as there was a very
general impression that the Legislature intended to
form one effective court of appeal, composed of the
Lord Chancellor and his two subordinates. The
reason given for the separate sittings is, that the Lord
Chancellor wishes to reduce the very heavy arrear of
appeals as much as possible before his time is de-
manded for the hearing of appeals in the House of
Lords. The object, whatever might be its effect, is
no doubt most desirable, and within the powers given
him by the Act of Parliament.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 3.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. PARKER.)
The newly-appointed Vice- Chancellor took his
seat in a court temporarily fitted up in one of the
committee-rooms opposite Henry Vll.'s Chapel. A
large concourse of spectators, professional and others,
ware assembled to witness the ceremony. His Honour
was attended by Mister Blunt, who, after shaking
hands with the new Vice-Chancellor and bowing, re-
tired from the bench.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CROFT.—THE PARISH CHURCH
OP FRA.MPTON•ON..SEVERN, GLOUCESTERSIIIRE.
Mr. HALLETT applied that this case might be ap-
pointed for some day next week, to be spoken to on
further directions, the minutes having been agreed to
in June last. The scheme had been prepared and ap-
proved of, by which legacies had been appropriated to
the purchase of communion plate, of a damask
cloth for the communion-table, and for railing in the
church.

His HONOUR ordered the case to be mentioned
again on Wednesday next.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KINDERSLEY.)
His Honour Vice-Chancellor Kinderaley took his
seat in the court of the late Vice Chancellor Lord
Cranworth.

His HONOUR disposed of several unopposed mo-
tions ; but owing to the lateness of the hour at which
the court was opened, no case of any importance was
mentioned.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE EARL OF
LONSDALE V. STEILL.
Sir P. THESIGER moved for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed
against the defendant, the sole proprietor, printer, and
publisher of the Carlisle Journal, for a libel pub-
lished by him in that paper upon the Earl of Lons-
dale. The libel appeared on the 15th of August last,
and when the facts came to be detailed he thought it
would be difficult to say which was most to be won-
dered at—the utter perversion of fact, the excessive
daring, or the scandalous malignity displayed in the
article. Lord Lonsdale had been at various thrive in
offices of the highest importance in the State, and
had therefore been exposed, as all public men in this
country necessarily were, to very severe animad.ver-
sions in the newspapers. He felt, however, that he
had only been so exposed, and that it was very im-
portant that their conduct should be strictly can-
vassed, and that the observations on it shiluld
be made with the utmost liberty by the public
press. He, therefore, never attempted to re-
strain that liberty by any appeal to the
protection of the law, nor would he on
the present occasion have acted otherwise, or have
done anything but disregard the low scurrilous abuse
which ran through this article, if it had not li'Kewise
contained a most daring attack on his integrity as
lord-lieutenant of the county in which he resided, and
charged him with an abuse of the trust wW,ch had
been delegated to him by his Sovereign, at d with
corrupting the source of the administration of justice.
The occasion which had given rise to this libelt hardly
seemed equal to the serious consequences wit ich had
resulted from it. The libel arose from circuns stances
connected with the Whitehaven workhouse The
guardians of that parish rented that workhouse , which
was situated in what was called the Preston Quarter,
from Lord Lonsdale. The property in questi on had
been converted to the purposes of a workhouse (luring
the time of the late Lord Lonsdale, for which pur-
poses many alterations had been made in the ori‘Tinal
building, and a rent of 851. was reserved and paid, a
sum which did not amount to more than 5 per cent.
on the original and the additional outlay. The ques-
tion of enlarging or rebuilding the workhouse had
been under the consideration of the guardians since
1842, and in the beginning of 1850 there was a meet-
ing of the guardians, and a committee was appointed
to take these different matters into consideration.
That committee was instructed to negotiate with the
lord-lieutenant for the purchase of the house. Lord
Lonsdale's interest in the house was but trifling, for
the property in the house was vested in trustees, and
he himself had but a life interest in it. His pecuniary
interest, therefore was but small. When the propose/
for the purchase was made, Lord Lonsdale, on the
advice of his agent, asked for a sum equivalent to
thirty years purchase on the rent of 851., and he asked
a sum of 4001. for an additional piece of land. It was
perfectly immaterial far the present purpose whether
the price so demanded was exorbitant or moderate ;
but upon this point it might be mentioned that in the

January preceding, LordLonsdale, acting on the ad
vice of the same agent, had purchased property im

mra
Thete ed thanitueal
rY d heiaadni
s°l3
aan
tdi naim t thusehee
ting sdpeomtainnd demanded efsotri °a a
his pr o6piegrht y‘a r.
held in November, 1850,
unanimously resolved that Lord Lonsdale's propwal
should not be accepted, so that his Lordship believed
that the whole affair of the purchase was at an end,
and he thought nothing more of the matter until
the 14th of March, 1851, when he received a letter
from a person named Fax, who represented himself
as acting for the board of guardians, requesting to
known what sum he would take for the workhouse
and the additional land. Lord Lonsdale, desiring
thaathsoi
se
tt msoh2mre7eyetaphtlorl
iefotcrbfet e.hi‘esiuwal
case,
nrni
acs
shheoe:rtsdhli
eatsron:Tt:i
btgthehicelfteoo
complete
guardians
Isaetmratrdheyeioa,ntaitilisiddos i r ebcet edastkheadt
enteredn partementioned
thoaft
intot oh ne
a negotiation for the purchase of another piece of
land at Woodend, and the two negotiations were going
on together. On th" lst of May, 1851, it wasro-
posed in the vestry that the propertp
y at Woodend
should be purchased; but au guitudcuent was carried

1 to the effect that negotiations should be entered into
I with Lord Lonsdale, to ascertain how, and on what
terms, the possession of the property at Preston
Quarter csuld be obzained. It was now necss,ary to
turn to other matters which were impor:ant, as laser-
iog on the libel of which Lord Lonsdale complained.
Lord Lonsdale received from the Rev. Mr. Senhouse
a letter, on the 12th of December, 1850, in which
that gentleman re presented that since the Rev. Mr.
Featherstone had quitted Maryport, no petty sessions
could be held, in consequence of there being no two
magistrates in that neighbourhood, and the present
incumbent having declined to become a magistrate,
the writer was induced to mention Mr. Lawson, the
eldest son of Sir Wilfred Lawson, as a gentleman in
every way qualified to be put in the commission. Oa
the 15th December Lord Lonsdale wrote an answer
to this letter, in which he observed that it was not
usual to ask for the commission for a county to be
opened in order that one name might be inserted in
it, and that in truth there was a necessity for creating
several more magistrates, and he therefore asked Mr.
Senhouse, as he had asked several other gentlemen, to
mention to him the names of different persons whom
he believed to be properly qualified to act as justices
of the peace for the county. Lord Lonsdale now
stated that, acting on the advice of others, as well
as upon his own knowledge, he had been induced to
recommend twenty-nine gentlemen to the Lord
Chancellor ae persons to be added to the commission.
The recommendation was instantly adopted by the
Lord Chancellor, who informed him that a commis-
sion would be prepared accordingly ; but before it
was prepared the inhabitants petitioned that the
name of the Rev. Octavius James might be added to
the rest, and his name was sent up to the Lori
Chancellor, and was inserted in the commission. Of
all these thirty gentlemen there was but one who
had applied to be put into the commission, and
that was a gentleman who had complained of the
omission of his name when the former commis-
sion had been issued. The Learned Counsel added
that he had the affidavit of a magistrate of many
years' standing, who set forth the absolute
necessity that there had been for this addition to
the magistracy; for that the population of the
place was larger ; it was opposite the coast of Ireland ;
it was liable to immigrations of Irish paupers ; and in
1850 about 12,000 of them had come within magis-
terial and police jurisdiction. The letter also showed
that the number of magistrates had been 33, but that
it had been reduced by deaths and changes of resi-
dence to 22, of which 22 the attendance was very
indifferent; so that though there were five meetings
of petty sessions every week, only two out of the 22
performed the duty; and it frequently happened that
the business was obliged to be suspended or adjoarned
for want of magistrates to conduct it. For the rea-
sons thus set forth, and for no other, Lord Lonsdale
inserted in his letter of recommendation the names of
12 persons within the district of Whitehaven. Only
six of these qualified at the following April sessions,
and of these six two had been elected guardians of the
poor. At that time Lord Lonsdale did not know that
the qualifying magistrates became ex officio guardians
of the poor of the parish or union in which they
acted as magistrates; and although he held one-sixth
of the rateable property of the place, he was not
then a guardian. He had since, however, become a
magistrate and a guardian. The libel of which he
now complained attributed to him that he selected
these gentlemen to be magistrates because he knew
that they would thereby become ex- officio guardians,
that they were creatures of his own, and were chosen
with the understanding that they would do his bid-
ding, and would vote tor the purchase of the work-
house from him. It was this of which he complained,
for he disregarded the rest of the article ; but when
he was accused of thus corruptly misusing the trust
which his Sovereign had placed in him, he felt that
he was bound to apply to the Court for its interfe-
rence; and in doing so he negatived, in the most ex-
press terms, the imputations which it conveyed. The
Learned Counsel was proceeding to read and corn
ment on the libel, when

Lord CAMPBELL said that the article imputed a
grave offence to a high officer in the discharge of his
duty, he had distinctly, denied the imputation, and
the rule must be granted.

Rule to show cause granted.
TUCKER V. THE PROPRIETORS OP THE BRISTOL AND

EXETER RAILWAY.

Mr. A. J. STEPHENS moved for a rule to show
cause why the defendants in this case should not be
ordered to take up an award which had been made in
a reference where they were parties. The Learned
Counsel stated that the facts of the dispute and the
reference, and the making of the award, and then ob-
served that the Act under which the arbitration took
place was so worded that the plaintiff was not autho-
rised to take up the award; but the right to do so
was vested in the defendants alone, who, by refusing
to take it up, prevented the plaintiff from obtaining
what was justly due to him.
The COUNT granted the rule to show cause.

BAIL COURT, Nov 3.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice Erma.)
His Lordship did not enter the court until a few
minutes before two o'clock. The business disposed
of was of no interest or importance.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nt.v. 3.
(Sittings in Banco.)
This being the first day of term, their Lordships
breakfasted with the Lord Chancellor. The Court
sat at about half-past one. The Court consisted of
the Lord Chief Baron, Barons Parke, Alderson, and
Platt.
Mr. Willis having been appointed to the office of
" Tubman” to the Court, to which the privilege of
moving before Queen's counsel is attached, made the
first motion on the sitting of the Court.
In the course of the afternoon the several gentle-
men who hare recently been appointed Queen's coun-
sel presented themselves to the Court, and were called
within the bar by the Lord Chief Baron.
BURT V. KELLY.
This was a case specially appointed to be taken on
the first day of term.
Mr. WATsort and Mr. MANISTY, for the defendant,
now showed cause against a rule for a new trial,
which had been obtained by Mr. Humfrey on the
ground of misdirection on the part of the Lord Chief
Baron, before whom the case was tried.
The action was brought on an agreement, bearing
date the 31st of May, 1849, by which the defendant
agreedurrina.
rdt plaintiff a piece of ground at the
intended street, leading into the Vic-
toria-road, for the purpose of build-
ing two houses on it; and in consideration of the
to build the two houses, to be
te ocorner
ontafo an to o n
tt h
m ak completedplaintiff's
a
before .Tune, 1850, the defendant agreed to
temporaryeegfoa road from the Victoria-road along
the intended street by the 31st of September, 1849.
The breach assigned was that the defendant had never
made
co the
court, temporaryroad. The defendant paid 51.
and
the jury found that no further damage
was sustained by the plaintiff. The misdirection
intou
ot have sustained any damage up to
complained of was that his Lordship said that the
the houses were to be built; and that
made the road himself, and then sued
the plaintiff
time
whencould
he might have
the defendant for the sum which it might cost.
Mr. WATSON and Mr. MANISTY, in support of the
ruling on the first point, contended that until the
houses were completed and fit to receive tenants the
road could be of no advantage, and therefore that
its absence
could cause no damage; and, as to the
second point, that if
erroneous, it had no effect on the
verdict.

Mr. HumraEy and Mr. M. SMITH, in support of
the rule, contended that one of the uses of the road
was to enable the plaintiff to cart materials for the
building of the houses, and that in this respect he had
been damnified by the defendant's failing to perform
his contract.
Tne COURT took time to consider whether the rule
should be granted.
STURGESS V. LORD CURZON.
Mr. D. KEANE applied for a rule to show cause why
this action should not be stayed, on the ground that
the subject matter of it had been referred to arbitra-
tion, which was now pending. The facts were as
follow :—A Mr. Gell, an attorney, sued Lord Curzon,
as director of a railway company, for his bill of
costs. That action, upo❑ coming on for trial, was
referreo to arbitration. Mr. Gall afterwards became

insolvent, and upon the arbitration being proceeded
with, L. )rd Cranworth, then Mr. Baron Rolfe,
stayed it until security for the costs should be
given by the attorney on whose account it wa;
alleged th tt the proceedings were continued. The
pre sent ac ',ion was then commenced by the plaintiff,
wh ois the assignee of Gell, for the same cause. Mr.
Bat. on Mai 'tin at chambers stayed the ,action until
the first da: r of term. Mr. Keane now moved for
its Far Cur stay on the ground that it was in fact the
same nn ‘tte r as that of " Gell v Curzon," and was
brought by the attornay for his own purposes, and to
frustrate the order of Mr. Baron Rolfe.

The et lutt-r intimated an opinion that the assignee
could nut be prejudiced by the proceedings in the
action hr )light by the insolvent, but they would con-
sult Mr. Baron Martin before giving a final decision.

ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 3.
-Bdfore Sir H. JENNER Fun.)
This wa s the first day of term, and the usual for-
mula was G b ierved.

BOWEN U. BowEN.

This was a 1 application for a divorce, promoted by
c
the wife tqa inst the husband on the grounds of
cruelty and of luitery.
Dr. JENNE, t, on the part of Mts. Bowen, said he
would ask fr,-c , a divorce on account of adultery only,
as there Tapp& red to him an insufficiency of proof in
the chalwe or
ruelty.
Dr. HAGG, ca, 9, for Mr. Bowen, said that, under
these circumst an ces, he considered there could be no
advantage in h, va? ~ 'fig the facts gone into.
The COURT 2; iid having read all the papers, it was
of opluion the chili ge of adultery was established,