The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-17 00:00:00

TILE NEW ORDERS.

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR, on coming into Court
this morning, at half-past 10 o'clock, stated that he had been
consulting with the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the
Rolls upon the question raised with respect to the point whe-
ther the Judges of the Court had jurisdiction to order what
were called motions of course, in respect of time. The matter
stood in this way :—By the 13th section of the Act it was
provided, that all applications for time to plead, answer and
demur, amend and enlarge publication, should be made to
the Masters ; then an appeal was given in the case of a total or
partial refusal of the application ; and afterwards it was pro-
vided by the 14th section, that no orders on such appli-
cation should be made by any of the Judges of the Court ex.
cept upon appeal. After consideration, the Lord Chancellor,
the Master of the Rolls, and his Honour, were of
opinion that jurisdiction did remain with the Judges
of this Court, upon applications in the nature
of motions of course for time. In future, therefore, the Court
would entertain as it had formerly applications for time which
were merely of course.

Mr. HINTON begged to call the attention of the Court to
another difficulty that had arisen in the Registrar's Office with
respect to another of the new orders. He had lately obtained
several orders for opening biddings, which the Registrars had
considered as money orders, and charged the fee of 2/. 10s.
which was allowed. The Learned Counsel apprehended that
it was never intended such orders should come under the deno.
mination of money orders.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, he would consider what the
Learned Counsel had stated, and give his opinion upon it.
Sir E. SUCHEN said, that with respect to the orders for time
the only difficulty would be whether the orders could be con-
sidered as valid, except upon a proper application, and then the
question was whether by implication, the 14th section did not
seem to take away the jurisdiction.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that having heard that
the Master of the Rolls had expressed an opinion contrary to
the one entertained by him upon the subject, he had considered
it but just and proper that the thing should be settled ; but
as it turned out that the Master of the Rolls had expressed no
such opinion as had been attributed to him, the point never
having been brought before him, all that had now been done
was merely to determine the point with regard to the current
business. The Judges of the Court entertained the opinion
his Honour had stated ; that opinion, however, did not bind the
gentlemen of the Bar, any member who might think it wrong
being at liberty to argue the point.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said that it was not likely that the
point would be argued until some question came before the
Court with respect to the process, but the moment the process
came to be executed then the parties would come to the Court
and object.
Mr. WILBRAIIAM wished to know, for the information of the
bar, the precise nature of the order of course in which such
application could be made as the Court had alluded to.

..
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said that the bar considered the time
was already limited; there were two periods, and if after that
anything was done a special application would be necessary.
His HONOUR observed, that an application was made to him
the other day for six weeks' time to answer, and it was stated
to him that the party was entitled to a greater time as a matter
of course.

Mr. CUING stated that, in that application, the bill was filed
antecedent to the new orders.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN thought the question was not as to mo.
tions of course, but as to the retrospective operation of the Act,
whether it applied to bills filed previously.

His HoNowt said when the case came before him he would
consider the subject. He would look into the case referred to
by Mr. Hinton, and state his opinion upon the point.
The subject then dropped, and the Court proceeded with
cause petitions, between 200 and 300 of which are set down for
hearing before his Honour. Up to the period of our Reporter
leaving, none of the petitions which had been heard possessed
the slightest public importance.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Justice LIVFLEDALE took his scat alone at ten o'clock,
in order to swear in the two Grand Juries for the two districts
of the county of Middlesex, before whom bills were to be pre-
sented for offences to be tried in this Court.
After the Grand Juries had been sworn in,

His LORDSHIP addressed them as follows :—Gentlemen of
the two Grand Juries, I understand that there is nothing
likely to come before you of such importance as to require
much comment from me. I have no doubt you are sufficiently
acquainted with your duties to know that you should be par-
ticular in examining as to the degree of credit due to the respec-
tive witnesses who may appear before you. There is one class of
offences which of late has very considerably increased. I mesn
indictments for conspiracy. Within my recollection, the number
of those indictments has increased to three or four times as
numerous as they used to be ; whether that fact arises from a
greater increase of that species of offence, or that prosecutors
now brought cases forward that used not to be brought forward
formerly, I cannot say—certainly there is a greater increase.
You will be particularly attentive to see that the charge is suf-
ficiently made out by the evidence. Although the form of the
indictment must charge two or more persons with conspiracy,
it is not necessary to prove the parties being together when any
one act was done, because in many cases that might be not
only difficult but impossible to prove. If it should appear
that each took such part in the illegal act so as to lead to the
fair and proper inference that they all acted in concert, although
they might not be proved to have had any particular meeting,
the charge would be supported. There is another class which
I will mention, I mean cases of perjury. You are probably
aware of the rules of law upon those cases. One person's oath
is in law considered as good as that of another person, how.
ever creditable the one may be, or however little entitled to
credit the other may be ; and though on an investigation one
may consider the credence due to one witness in preference to
another, yet it is aprinciple of law that one person's oath was
as good as another person's ; therefore it is that two witnesses
are necessary to convict another person of perjury. If, however,
there is only one witness and any documentary evidence or other
corroborative circumstance to support his testimony, that would
be sufficient to justify the finding of the bill. With these few
observations I dismiss you to your duties.
After the Grand Juries had left, the LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE,
Mr. Justice TAUNTON, and Mr. Justice PArrEsoN, took thei r
seats.

.....
The Court then proceeded to hear arguments on special cases.
GRAHAM V. BARRAS.

This was an action on a policy of insurance on the ship
Castlereagh. It was tried at the last Spring Sittings in Lon-
don, by Mr. Justice Alderson, and a verdict found for the
plaintiff for 1001., subject to the opinion of the Court upon a point
of law, which was made into a special case. By the terms of the
policy the vessel was subject to the rules of the " Liberal Premium
Club," one rule of which imposed a warranty that no vessel
should sail on any voyage to foreign parts, after the Ist Sept.,
provided that the vessel was ready for sea, the time of sailing
being the time of clearing at the Custom-house. In this caso
tAhuegvuessts,eal
at which
atitintehehCerusctoremw were engaged, but not on-house, Dublin, on the 31st
board. On the Ist of September, she dropped down the Liffey
to a place called the Pigeon House, and she did not leave there
to proceed on her voyage until the 2d of September, after
which she was lost. There were several questions of a minor
odnestchrieptlisotnw, butas a sailing within the terms of the policy and of
the main one was whether the leaving Dublin
the rules of the Liberal Premium Club.
Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the Court on behalf of the plain-
tiff', and Mr. WATSON on behalf of the defendant.
Their Lordships delivered their judgment seriatim, and
were of opinion that the mere dropping down the Liffey on the
Ist of September was not a sailing in the terms by which the

policy bound the parties; and, therefore, they ordered la.
m ent to be entered for the defendant.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BROWNE V. WOODMAN.
Mr. PLATT stated the case. The parties were engravers, !!"
siding at Camden-town, and the presVnt action was for theft i:
sum of 41. 10s., for work performek according to agreetaili
The jury had perhaps heard of a publication called the BaP .
Magazine, which, like other periodicals of the day, was oPto
mented with plates. The defendant employed the plaintiff to
do a portion of a picture of the Rev. Mr. Nibbs, a Jool',
preacher, who had been imprisoned by the authorities o_,
charge of sedition, and had consequently become some°.
celebrated. It is a common practice with engravers to et:
ploy one person to do one portion of a plate, and another to 70
another portion ; and in the present case the plaintiff $Ol,
do the face and the out line of the coat, Mr. Woodman o'of
dertaking to finish the coat himself. There was a balance
the old account due to Mr. Brown, by Mr. Woodet
Pertofonntheed
amounting to 31. 10s. 6d., and when Mr. Brown had comple'"
his portion of the plate, he sent it home to Mr. Woodloan_,'
demanding the amount of his contract, and the old balance
Instead of money, the messenger, who was plaintiff's broker'
received abuse and opprobrious language. The defendant a,,,
aenpdi:dintthiferhpadlate, but the plaintiff refused to deliver it Ul', ii
course, as he had not been paid. It was clearly the law, that,.
n:h
tisfactorily proved
for the amount claimed.
jury,his chonetwraasct,euarnidrledthartu
rwhoeuirldveron,
Mr. John Browne, brother to plaintiff, a harp manufacturer_;
deposed to having demanded the amount of the contract
the old balance. Mr. Woodman said he was a scoundrel, •
would not pay him.
..

. . -
Henry Robinson, an engraver, was examined, to prove tboe
value of the work performed, and its likeness to the orlgol4
picture. On his cross-examination, he stated, that it Wu,'
take about four days to finish the plate, but the work done 1""
well worth 41. 10s.

Charles Wass, a pupil of the defendant, and residing in I'l6
house, deposed, that he had called upon the plaintiff for
plate and picture, but plaintiff would not give it, as it was Ph,
finished. This was before plaintiff's brother called withs
plate. Mr. Woodmm had agreed with Mr. Browne that l 'e4
should finish the drapery and theface, and have it ready by
20th of April. On the evening of the 15th of April witness dee,
vered a notice from Mr. Browne to Mr. Woodman, the purP"tA
which was that if the plate was not ready by the 20th of AP;
Mr. Woodman would leave it upon plaintiff's hands
would be useless to him. When plaintiff's brother came t_7A
following day Mr. Woodman asked to see the plate, and 1!:
he would pay for it if he approved of it. Plaintiff's bror,l
at first refused to show it, but he at length showed the poi
and defendant said it was unfinished, and refused to pay for It,
James Mollison, an engraver—The head of proof she°
him appears unfinished, and not in a fit state for publiC;,
tion. Two or three days could finish it completely, and
head could be finished in a day.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who was for the dgendant• C..;
tended that he was entitled to a nonsuit, the work not ha"'
been completed.
The Court assented, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.