The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-22 00:00:00

His Lordship gave judgment in this case.
His LORDSHIP said that when the case carne be-
fore the Vice-Chancellor, and when the case sub-
sequently came before the Court of Chancery, for
the purpose of having the injunction granted by his
Honour continued, he (the Lord Chancellor) eon:
eluded that Viscount Lorton had never been privy
to the transaction which was the subject of the pre-
sent suit. But the case now appeared, from the
evidence adduced, in a totally different light, and
he thought that two positions arose from it which
were inconteatible. The fist was as regarded the_
dealing
with an expectant heir, and the' second
with respect to the distressed condition in which
that expectant heir was at the period of the oat s a
tion, With respect to the first position his Lord-
-,hip alluded to the general doctrine of the Court in
matters affecting expectant heirs, and quoted several
passages from decisions of former Chancellors, all of
which went to show that the Court never interfered
in a case where an heir had dealt with'a -reversionary'
life interest, his father having been privi tosuch deal-
ing. He referred to the second position; which was
with respect to the distressed condition' of the ex-
pectant heir at the period of the transaction. He
said, in the first place, that it was quite clear that,
if an expectant heir threw off the trammels which
necessity had imposed upon him, the Court would
Only deal with him as it did with any other person.
He also said that the Court" would never permit au •
ex' ctant heir after he had obtained the property or
another person to repudiate the transaction bywhich
he had in his distress obtained such property. He .
referred Askthe eireutustances in which the plaintiff
was placed at the period of the transaction in ques-
tion, and he said that it could only be a very st rong-
case that would induce the Court to declare

the plaintiff had a right to sell the goods advanced,
instead of money, after the plaintiff had given Mr.
Hamlet, the defendant, notice to take them Ina.
He said that Mr. Hamlet'e case had certainly ap-
peared suspicious, but that suspicion had been done
away with, as Mr. Hamlet's case had _satisfactorily
bore a severe test. Upon these grounds he decided
that the plaintiff 's bill should be dismissed. He
also added that his Honour the Vice• Chancellor
perfectly concurred in the judgment which he bad
just given.
Sir E. SUGDEN asked his Lordship whether the
injunction originally granted was to be dissolved ?
His LORDSHIP said that if the parties had no ob-
jection he would confer with the Vice-Chancellor
on that point.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 21.

THE SURREY THEATRE.-EIVING V. OSBALDISTONE.

This case came before the Court to day upon a
demurrer Sled to the plaintiff's bill by the de-
fendant, Mr. Osbaldistone. The plaintiff had in-
stituted the suit for the purpose of enforcing the
contents of certain letters which had passed between
the defendant and himself, which he contended
amounted to an agreement to become partners in
the Surrey Theatre. To that bill the defendant had
put in a demurrer, on the ground of a general want
of equity, inasmuch as the business carried on by
him was, according to the statutes, illegal; and
therefore the Court would not give effect to
any agreement entered into for the formation of a
partnership to further the carrying on of suck
illegal business.

Mr. BEANIES (with whom was a gentleman behind
the bar, whose name we could not ascertain) pro-
ceeded to argue at considerable length in favour of
the demurrer and against the legality under the Acts
of Parliament of the business carried on by the
defendant. In support of that proposition the
Learned Counsel cited the Act of the 10th Geo.
IL, chap. 28, the sth Geo. IV., chap. 83, the 28th
Geo. 111., chap. 30, fium which he contended that
the license of the Llrti (.Thamberlain to the defend-
ant was wane paper, that officer only having power
by the Acts of Parliament to grant licenses within
the city and liberty of Westminster.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR inquired how he was to
know judicially that the theatre in question was not
within the city or liberty of 'Westminster, as there
was no such averment in the demurrer ?

Sir E. SUGDEN, from experience, was sure that
there was great difficulty in ascertaining what places
were and what were not within the city and liberty
of Westminster, and how far they extended.
Mr. BEADLES said that it was quite plain they did
not extend across the water; and as to the locality
of a place so well known as the Surrey Theatre, he
should think no person could entertain the most dis-
tant doubt with respect to it.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR--I can assure you I don't
know where it is, and I don't think I ever saw it.

Mr. BEADLES—The plaintiff himself, if that is the
principal difficulty your Honour feels, has put that
point out of all doubt, for he has stated in his bill
that it is situated in the Blackfriars-road.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—SO little do I know of
the place that I was going to ask you if it was the
theatre called the Coburg.
His HONOUR, after hearing further arguments in
the case, would order the demurrer to be overruled,
giving the defendant, Mr. Osbaldistone, six weeks to
put in an answer.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 21.

VENEFRA V. JOHNSON, CLERK.

In this case, which was not concluded yesterday when
we went to press, the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 100/.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 21.

THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF THE WEST RIDING

OF YORK.

Sir GREGORY LEWIN showed cause against a
rule obtained for a mandamus, commanding the Jus-
tices of the West Riding of Yorkshire to enter con-
tinuances and bear an appeal made by John Brigs.
The rule was moved for on the ground that the
Quarter Sessions had refused to hear an appeal
made with a view to set aside the certificates of two
Magistrates respecting the completion of a new road
made from Leeds to a place called Whitehall, near
Halifax.—Rule discharged.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-THE KING V. SILL.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was instructed on be-
half of Captain Pateshall, of the Royal Navy, to
apply for leave to file a criminal information against
Mr. Sill, an attorney at Hereford, for an outrage
committed on the 23d of December last in Hereford
Mr. Sill was agent for Mr. Blackwell at the last
election for Hereford, and a gentleman named Bod-
min was agent for Biddulph, the other candidate.
There was a dinner to celebrate the return of the
successful candidates, and on that occasion Mr. Bod-
min threw out something supposed to be a reflec-
tion on the friend of Mr. Sill. The latter sent a
message to Mr. 8., who consulted his friend Capt.
Pateshall, who advised him not to give a meeting.
The affair took wind, and the parties were bound
over to keep the peace. Mr. Sill and Mr. Bodmin
during twelve months took no notice of each other.
On the day after the recognizances expirtd, namely,
the 22d of December, Mr. Sill went up to Captain
Pateshall, who was walking, in the dusk of the
evening, a few yards from his own house, and re-
quested an answer to one question. He asked whe-
her it was by Captain Pateshall's advice Mr. Bod-
min had declined his challenge ? Captain Pateshall
said he gave that advice. On which Mr. Sill struck
him with a stick, and said, " Y4u must consider
yourself horsewhipped." Captain Pateshall asked
what he meant ? He answered," You will recollect
you are not within the scale of good company." Mr.
Sill again struck him, and said, "Now, Sir, consider
yourself horsewhipped. I believe you are in the
wrong." The Solicitor-General added that Captain
Pateshall belonged to the Royal Navy, and, beyond
the advice given to his friend, had not offered the
lightest provocation for this outrage.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.