The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-21 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL JUDGMENT.-BOWSER V. M4I.V.A.N.

This is an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Stuart dismissing the plaintiff's bill on demurrer. The
plaintiff filed his bill for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from carrying his tramway into the plaintiff's mine,
and using his tramway for the carriage of coal from his
mine through the plaintiff's mine, and for loss sustained
thereby.

Tho Lord Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said

-1" am of opinion that, in this case, the demurrer
ought to have been over-ruled. The objection to the
bill which was allowed in the Court below was that the
plaintiff had not got a title to the estate which belonged to
the vendor, and alleged that he only obtained possession of
the subsoil—the ground over which the tramway was used
by the defendant; but the bill alleges that the plaintiff is
trustee, and the property is described as copyhold or free-
hold under this estate, and the soil is given to the purchaser
from year to year. Prima facie the soil under the surface
belongs to the plaintiff, and the possession of the coal except
the surface remains in the plaintiff. This is a copyhold
property, and the minerals that belong to the lord of
the manor have been let to the defendant, and
for the working of his mines he makes a tramway
through the subsoil to carry along the coal from his mines,
but the defendant has no right to use the tramway for any
other purpose. The bill avers that he drives carriages
loaded with coals beyond the manorial bounds let to him.
He bas a right to go within the manor, but there is nothing
to justify the defendant to go beyond it.

The Lord Chancellor reversed the decision of the 'rice-
Chancellor with costs. His lordship overruled the de-
murrer to the plaintiff's bill.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before Sir John Romilly.)
JIMGMENT.-HOLMES V. WOODWARD.

The plaintiff filed his bill for a declaration that, accord-
ing to a true construction of the will of the late Francis
Holmes, the sum of £16,000 legacy, in the events which
happened, formed part of the residue of the testator's pro-
perty.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls, in delivering judg-
ment, said—This is a will, certainly, of very difficult con-
struction; but after attending to it carefully, and consider-
ing events which have happened, and the contents of the
will, I am incliied to adopt the construction that has been
suggested to me by Mr. Lloyd (Q.C.), which makes it per-
fectly rational, without introducing or displacing any
words at all. It is certain, from the mode in which it
was originally drawn, that it is a remarkably ill-drawn
will; but according to his Honour's reading of the testa-
tors's will, which gave £16,000 as a legacy to his niece and
her husband for life, and to their children after their de-
cease (an event which has happened), it gave a right in
the children to the legacy, although they had not attained
the age of 21 years.

His Honour dismissed the plaintiff's bill, with costs.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Jury.)

WRIT or INQUIRY-DAMAGES £II2—BABA-Eli v. CLOUGH

AND OTHERS.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess damages, laid at
£2OO, sustained in consequence of the non-employment by
the defendants of the plaintiff. Defendants had suffered
judgment to go by default.
Mr. Jones, for the plaintiff, said his client was a master
mariner, residing at South Shields, and defendants were
shipowners, of the same place. Defendants had engaged
plaintiff as captain of their ship, the Isabella, to go from
the Tyne to Sardinia, thence to Constantinople, on the 11th
July last. Plaintiff was to have £lO per month. A day or
two before the ship sailed a conversation took place on board,
and plaintiff was summarily dismissed. The primary loss
would be a sum of £9O, the voyage taking nine
months. In addition to this the plaintiff had
been unable to obtain any other employment, and
up to this time had been without a ship in consequence of
its becoming known that he had been summarily dismissed
from the Isabella.

Plantiff was called and deposed that a day or two before
the sailing of the ship the owners came en board and
went into the cabin. Plaintiff went down, and one of the
owners asked him if he had not been pending a law suit
with his late owners. Witness said he had ; and that
questions of wages, freight, and stores, were involved. The
owner observed that he had been 20 years a captain and
had never had a law suit with any of his owners, and that
he could not have a man captain of his vessel who had a
law suit with his owners. Plaintiff was then dismissed,
and left the ship. Had been unable to get a ship since.
Cross-examined by Mr. Digby Seymour, for defendant
—Plaintiff admitted that complaints had been made, and
described the nature of his case with his late owners. The
average voyage was eight or nine months. Plaintiff had
been offered £5 by defendants, but had returned the money
to defendants.

Mr. Seymour then addressed the jury for the defendants,
and called William Clough, who was a shipowner of
Shields, and had 32 years' experience. The voyage from
Shields, including a port to land coals, to Constantinople,
was four months. He had a ♦essel which had made seven
voyages in four years. Fifty days is an average Voyage
from Constantinople to Shields. Mr. Seymour then said
plaintiff had netted a great deal too much, and had made
the voyages much longer than they should be.

Mr. Jones having replied, the learned Secondary summed
up, and the jury gave plaintiff £ll2 damages.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAL)

MARLBOROUGH STREET.

STEALING DIAMOND BROOCHES.—Louisa Stevens,
housekeeper, at chambers 4, Beak-street, was charged
before Mr. Beadon with stealing two diamond cross-
brooches, of the value of £36, the property of Mr. Henry
Charman, jeweller, of 4, Beak-street, Regent-street.
Mr. Herring appeared for the prisoner.
From the evidence of Mr. Prosser, assistant to Mr.
Charman, jeweller, of 4, Beak-street, it appeared that
he received two diamond star brooches from a customer of
his employer, and last saw them safe in his coat pocket on
the 20th Oct., his coat being then hung up in his apartments
at 4, Beak-street, of which the prisoner and her husband
had the charge, but that on going to his pocket on the Mon-
day morning following he missed them. He spoke to the
prisoner in the presence of a constable, but she denied all
knowledge of them. He afterwards told her that he had
traced them to the possession of her sister, and that she
had employed a person to pledge them. She said her sister
could not say so, as it was not true. At that time one only
was traced, but he afterwards succeeded in tracing the
other, and on again speaking to the prisoner she said she
had picked them up in the street. He then gave the pri-
soner into custody.

Mr. Prosser having been cross-examined by Mr. Herring
Bentley, 55 C, said ho found one of the brooches pledged
at Mr. Bassett's Great Queen-street, Drury-lane. He
asked the prisoner if she knew anything of the brooches,
and she denied all knowledge of them, but subsequently
said she picked them up at the corner of Regent-street.
Charles Stephens, assistant to Mr. Basset, pawnbroker,
of 32, Great Queen-street, proved receiving in pledge one of
the brooches, and lending a 10s. on it. He received it of
a female, but did not think he could identify her. The
person gave the name of Frail.
[Witness was ordered to look round the court, but could
net identify the person.]
Elisabeth Crouch, of 4, Oxford-place, proved pledging
the brooch for Mrs. Frail, who, she believed, was the pri-
soner's sister. The sister was very ill.
Remanded for a week.