The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-11 00:00:00

OBSTRUCTION IN PARRIAMENT-STREET.

On their Lordships taking their seats,
Lord CAMPBELL, who was labouring under o°,ol°l
degree of excitement, said, with very marked eruPbs
that before proceeding with the business of the court',"
thought it absolutely right and necessary to call at,
tion to the serious obstructions which at present 1"0,
peded the access to the court, which could not he 140
proach€d without the greatest possible inconvoulAetle)
and danger. Those obstructions nearly amounts {bo
an obstruction of justice. Neither the judges,old
counsel, the attorneys, nor the suitors, of
get to Westminster-hall without the peri;ighl
their lives. Ile (Lord Campbell) thought it" 00
to say that the Court had the remedy iu irsA
hands, and if those obstructions were not renlov'
should think it the duty of the Court sumraitrilY to
tertere and remove them. • 'OO
The gentlemen of the bar rose and bowed In
quiescence with the Lord Chief Justice's complaint'
THE QUEEN v. SWINBtJRNE AND OTOURSI b 1/00
Mr. WEBSTER said this was an application Whiedoe
before Mr. Justice Patteson at chambers, resP„,ect—
writ of scire facies to repeal certain letters pater lit o'
(Mr. Webster) had to apply to set aside that if
scire facies on the ground of irregularity 613,e4
being a writ which their Lordships would not
exist; and the grounds of irregularity were Ogee f°,3dl/0
first, as to the direction and return of the writ; sec ° hie°
that there was a disclaimer which was enrolledt west'
was not set out, and which therefore was a writ to II de'
tain extent fraudulent, whilst it embarrassed the id
fendants in pleading to it; and thirdly, that the
re of
contained no less than eighteen suggestions, ale o,lf
twelve of which were wholly immaterial, and were 001
intended to embarrass the defendants. This was the `se
time that an application of this kind had been madie.ols
it arose under a recent Act of Parliament, 12th and 00;
Vic , c. 109., which was passed in order that the eyi of
brows machinery of the Petty Bag-office of the Coll'l
The COURT granted a rule. and the
law courts.
thewholeof the?
Chanceryc
eedi n getransferred e atobotihishocedoinm

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY'),
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY V. 73011481 PS
JUDGMENT. ' 001
Mr. Baron PARKE said, in this case, whic
brought by a railway company to recover the sm°l/-ii
certain calls, a rule had been obtained and argue
111
enter the verdict for the defendant. It appeared 0",
defendant was the holder of twenty slls6'cow
201. each, in the company, on which four
toe
were made. After the first call be beic946‘
a bankrupt, viz., on the lath of February, stiollA
As to the first call, therefore, there could be n° qtectej
that the plaintiffs were clearly not entitled to r,
damages. With regard to the subsequent calls, It"
contended on the part of the detendant tbitibarAt°
assignees had taken • r the
possession o 0° so
which were consequently vested in them by et
of bankruptcy, and that the defendant was no I°l)gbie
ter
holder of the shares, and could not be rendered wit jar.i
any calls made uon him by the company. 'ea
were of opinion at the trial, that sufficient e,viden di!).
not been adduced to prove the full assignment' co Ø;
shares to the assignees, and accordingly cams t°,--r to;
elusion to that effect. The question thou
Court to decide was whether this cle,h:it
provable under the fiat. Their Lordships thouguc here'
tiodeof
quite clear the debt was one payable in future,
tore could not be a debt capable of being provie.",bgej
the bankruptcy. When the defendant took up
he agreed to pay such sum or sums as might be re'betllP,
from time to time by the directors, the aniould nuts
regulated by the wants of the company, 1111, '01,;
exceed a certain sum. At the time of bankruPleLlt de
wholly doubtful what sales would be made and 1/1"-ja
would become due. The defendant was therefore "If 11
same position as a lessee who became a bankroPtgber:l,
made a contract to pay rent for a certain ritoble
years, it could not be said the amount of retie nrole,‘
would become payable in future years was to ee'
as a debt under the fiat. Upon these grounds o, rlio o°'
were of opinion the rule to enter the verdict for
fondant ought to be discharged.
Rule discharged accordingly.
NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY v. WHICHAEL-4v-na rrj
This was also an action to recover calls due
way shares, to which the defendant pleaded
udder age when he made the contract. „if Of gP.
Mr. Baron PARKE delivered judgment in fat--
plaintiffs.
SAIL'

BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, AND CHESHIRE -
COMPANY V. PILCHER—JUDGMENT. to
In this case, which also involved a question 14s to ein
liability of the defendant, who pleaded iufsneY!„ orbP.
the calls on shares in the above company, but `"
the pleas were differeatly drawn up,
0 1)"
Mr. throe PARKE said that the Court were °f
„bo
that the rule to cuter a verdict for the defends°'
Le made uhsolute.—Rule absolute.

BUCKLEY V. HARBOUR.
In this gas() tho rule was made absolute.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS
(Sittings in Banco.)
yi„A
SHARPE, CLERK, AND OTHERS, V. THE INHAII'"-- 5
HORDURY.
Mr. H. H. HILL applied to the Court for a rule
cause why a prohibition should not be issued figa:,-
Bishop of Ripon and other persons to prevent 11'7000°,
they proceedings in the Consistory Court of that ult, 4:1
in the case of Sharpe and Others v. the I
Horbury. The present motion was made on beh4 tonif
Mr. J. Francis Curr, a magistrate and deputy-lieu
of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and an inln'bAi i 0
of the village of Horbury.This
gentleman
va
his affidavit that the chapel of liorbury
ancient chapel, and that in the year 1794 it vi6l
nhabittio if 0,