The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-14 00:00:00

POINT OF PRACTICE.-COLLINGWORTII V. GRUNDELL.

Mr. KENvoN PARKER stated that he was under the neces.
sity of applying to his Lordship, in consequence of a discre-
Pancy of judgment between their Honours the Master of the
Rolls and the Vice-Chancellor, upon a question arising under the
late Chancery Act of Parliament and the last new series of
orders. The Vice-Chancellor held that by the Act the juris-
diction was entirely at an end, whereas the Master of the Rolls
Was of opinion it still remained, and that therefore a party pre-
senting a petition to the Rolls could, as a matter of course, ob-
tain an order to amend his bill. The terms of the 13th section of
the Act were—" That the Master in Ordinary of the High
Court of Chancery shall hear and determine all applications for
time to plead, answer, or demur, for leave to answer bills, for
enlarging publications, and for all such other matters relating
to the conduct of suits in the said Court as the Lord Chan-
cellor, with the advice and assistance of the Master of the
Rolls and the Vice-Chancellor or one of them, shall by any
rules, order, or orders direct." The 14th section enacted—
" That no such application as above mentioned shall in future
be heard by any of the Judges of Chancery, except on appeal
1,8 hereinbefore provided." And the 20th new order was—
" That all special applications for leave, &c., &c." shall
be heard and determined by such Master in rotation.
The introduction of the word "special" into the order here,
the Learned Counsel said, had occasioned all the difficulty ;
and he had to submit that the common jurisdiction still re.
Mined in the Court.
The LORD CHANCELLOR submitted that the greater proba.
bnitY undoubtedly was, that it was intended that the special
matter should be reserved to the Court, and the common sent
to the Master; but he should consider it, and then state bis,
opinion.

KING V. HAMLET.
The COURT resumed the hearing of this part heard cause,
Which Is likely to occupy the whole day.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BURY V. PHILPOTT.
In This case the bill was filed for the purpose of having an
account taken of the arrears of an annuity, which, under the
will Of their grandfather, belonged to the plaintiffs after the
death of their mother, Mrs. Ann Pollock, who died in 1830.
The testator in the cause decided by his will that the annuity in
question of 601. per annum should be paid to his daughter Anne,
weekly payments, for her own sole and separate use, and not
subject to the control or engagements of her husband ; after her
decease the testator also directed that the annuity should conti.
flue
to bePaid to her children, who were the plaintiffs to the
present suit, and their claim was now opposed on the alleged
ground of their illegitimacy. From a statement of the facts of
the case, iraPPeared that, in 1794, A.Ph ilpott, the daughter ofthe
testator, who had enjoyed,during her life the annuity in ques-
tion, contracted a marriage with a person named Pollock.
She had been in extremely bad health, quite a cripple, and almost
bed-ridden, and was altogether likely only to attract the regard
of one who was more attached to her money than her person ;
accordingly, having been treated by him with great brutality, she
was Compelled, a few months after th e marriage, to separate from
her husband, and she 'continued to live with her father till
his death. When he died it
another home became necessary for her to seek
another woman , and accordingly she went into partnership with
, and engaged in the business of selling coals,
in the neighbourhoocror Carnaby Market. Soon afterwards
her husband renewed his acquaintance with her, and
took lodgings in the same street, in a house opposite
to that in which she carried on her business. In fact he was
proved to have been in the habit of calling on her and treating
her, on different occasions, with conjugal tenderness, in order
to get money from her. About this tine the plaintiff); were
born and baptised as his daughters. On the other hand, how-
ever, it appeared that at the same period another person of the
name of Hughes was cohabiting with her, and the baptismal entry
which the plaintiffs relied on, and which described themes the
daughters of Alexander Pollock,
the husband, was written on
an erasure, which seemed as if it had originally described them
as the daughters of Hughes. Pollock in his lifetime also
appeared to have repudiated the plaintiffs as his children.
Mr. PEMBERTON appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. BICKER-
BTETH for the defendants, who admitted the facts, but ex-
pressed a hope that the case would be sent to an issue.
His HONOUR said, as the facts were not disputed there was
no occasion to call in the aid of a Jury. The strict rule was,
that if there was such access proved to have taken place be-
tween husband and wife, as that by possibility, and the course
of nature, the husband could be the father of the child, the
Court would declare her to be legitimate. The evidence, in
the present case, went to that extent, and the strict rule could
not be departed ttom. The plaintiffs were accordingly declared
entitled to the annuity.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
______

THOMSON V. MAME&
' This was an action of trespass, the plaintiff having broken
into and entered the defendant's premises. The defendant had
pleaded a justification, viz., that he had been authorised to
enter the premises by the Justices of the Peace, and that he
did so by virtue of his office of a Rate Collector, who was em.
powered to collect a Rate for the purpose of erecting a new
House ofCorrection, in accordance with the Act of Parliament.
The verdict had been found for the defendant, and subse-
quently a rule for disturbing the verdict had been applied for,
and argued by Counsel on both sides.

This morning the Court g;vejudgment and refused to
disturb the verdict, being of opinion that the defendant was
legally authorised to levy for the Rate.

KEEN V. RAISES.

The Court also gave judgment in this case, which had been
argued last term. It was an action of replevin to recover pos.
session of the Bush Inn at Staines, and a rule Nisi had been
obtained for a new trial. The Court now discharged the rule.

DOE DLNI. WETHERALI. V. BIRD. •
Sir JAMES SCARLETT moved for a rule to show cause why
there should not be a new trial in this case. It was an action
of ejectment to recover possession of certain premises and land
at Kensington, on the ground of a breach of the covenant of
the lease by converting the premises into a private mad.house,
which it was charged was a nuisance. The cause was tried at
the sittings after last term, and a verdict returned for the
lessor of the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel submitted
that keeping a private mad-house was not what the covenants
intended by the term " offensive trade." The premises had
previously been used as a boarding-school for boys and girls,
and also an establishment for the receptacle of French emi.
grants, and yet no complaint had been made. It was also in
evidence that the lunatic asylum had been exceedingly well
conducted, therefore it could not be deemed a nuisance. The
defendant had expended a very large sum of money in repair-
ing and improving the premises, and it was an exceedingly
hard case to be now deprived of the benefit which he naturally
contemplated from them. The Learned Counsel also took
several objections respecting the pulling down and rebuilding
walls, and cutting down trees, and submitted that, as upon
several parts of the case the defendant was taken by surprise,
and was consequently unprepared to meet them by evidence, a
clew trial should be granted.
The COURT granted a rule Nisi.

OMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
_ -

m.cw - ---''.------
This was an acti:r"'. v• um-J.l:on.
against
tin,ebdrought by the plaintiff, Dame Geddes
Mackenzie,
compensation in darnagee.fendant. Colonel Macleod, to recover
s for the destruction of a mansion.
house and furniture, let to the latter by the former. The
cause was tried before the (.1 -
~whe-n'aLefJus.tice at the sittings in Guild-
hall after the last term
Mr. Sergeant Wn.ria thivserdict passed for the defendant,
of the plaintiff; for a rule 't.norning moved, on behalf
verdict should not be set a's, show cause why that
t,„
that the
had, on the ground of misdirectit' and a new trial
was against evidence. It was -,i' and that the verdict
%plaintiff by the de_
house and furniture had been let -. trial that the
nand that during the
fendant for one year at a rental of
occupancy of the defendant the houses''
tion of the furniture and plate, was
:roleaest..,::.ce.lira:rkerr>
sioned by a servant girl of the name :Dr eucatbY
,o
fir"
's
Th,e pelaced furze
to make the whose duty it was
. .ut
to cleanse the chimney in the servants' hall"°' in
and straw therein and fired the chimney.
was the total destruction oft he house and premisselEseq"dence
was adduced on the part of the plaintiff to show the svti -ellen',
the law in Scotland in reference to the liabilities of the rnatal
for the acts of his servant, and which went to the extentter
establishing that if the act of the servant, by which a mischieff
or injury was done in the discharge of the ordinary duties for
which such servant was hired, that then the master would be
liable for the injuries done to a third party, consequent upon
such act of misconduct. The Learned Judge at the trial
left it to the Jury to say whether the firing of the chimney was
such an act by the servant as came within the scope of the
ordinary duties for which she was hired and engaged, and the
Jury found for the defendant.

The COURT, after a short deliberation, decided that the di-
rection of the Learned Judge upon the law was correct, and
that the Jury were warranted on the evidence in finding the
verdict they had pronounced.—The rule must therefore be
refused.

SINGULAR CIRCUMSTANCE.—A young
lady was struck in the face (some years since) by a snow
ball, which bruised her face very much, but it soen got
well; yet ever since, in snowy weather, a redness appears,
and clear water runs down her face in large drops, so as
to wet a napkin very soon ; she has had advice for it,
but to
her no purpose;
yet in fine weather it dries up, and
fice appears as if there was nothing the matter with
it..--Bristol Mercury.