The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,—(This day.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

(Peers present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford,
Lord Wensleydale, Lord Kingston, and other Peers.)

ROWBOTHAiI AND OTHERS V. WILSON.

This is an appeal by way of writ of error, by
which it is sought to set aside a decision of the
Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirming a judgment
of the Court of Queen's Bench, delivertd on a
special case stated for their opinion in favour of the
defendant. The action was brought by Daniel Row-
'rotham, having a reversion in fee of certain lands situated
in the parish of Bedworth, in the county of Warwick, to
recover from the defendant, William Wilson, damages in
respect of injury done to his houses and lands, by reason of
the defendant having worked his mines underneath his
property without leaving sufficient supports. The
special case stated that the plaintiff was reversioner
in fee of houses erected after an award was made
by the Commissioner enclosing the lands for more than
twenty years before the grievance complained of, and also
of the surface of the land. And that the defendant after-
, wards worked the coal mine underneath without having
supports. The defendant stated that he worked the mine
with skill and care, according to the usage of the country.
The plaintiff stated that his property was destroyed there-
by, that h's houses were rendered uninhabitable, and the
lands unfit for cultivation. That no natural or artificial
pillars were left for support, in terms of the Act 9, Geo. 3.
The defendant contended that the right of the plaintiff to
support of his surface was qualified, and subject to the right
of the defendant to work his mines, and the plaintiff having
derived his title from tke award, was bound by the cove •
nants in it, and that a right to have the surface supported ,
would be destructive of the grant of the mine.

The Lord Chancellor affirmed the decisions of the Exche-
quer Chamber and Court of Queen's Bench, and dismissed
the appeal with costs. The other noble and learned lords
concurred.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie.)

CATTAWAY AND WIFE V. SMITH.-THE PROCTORS OF

CAMBRIDGE AND THEIR POWERS.

This ease was resumed this morning by Mr. O'Malley,
on the part of the defendant.

From the opening speech of Mr. Edwin James, it ap-
apeared that Mrs. Cattaway was the wife of a fireman on
the Eastern Counties Railway, living at Cambridge, and
the defendant was a proctor in the university in that
town. In another case which was now down for trial
before his lordship a very serious question would arise as to
the power of the proctors to imprison women found in the
streets of the town, but in the present case the defendant did
not justify his act, and therefore the only question here
would be whether he had done what was complained of. He
should prove that it was under the defendant's orders that
she was arrested and imprisoned, that she was under his
control whilst in prison, and that it was by his order that
she was discharged. If he proved this the simple question
would be the amount of damages. On the 23th March last,
in the evening, Mrs. Cattaway was speaking to two females
for whom she washed, and they were standing in St.
Andrew-street, when the proctor came up, accompanied
by two persons who were denominated " bull dogs "
(laughter)—and it was not a bad name for them, for their
doings caused constant scenss of violence in the town, and
the whole three were taken to the spinning-house. This
spinning-house was a kind of private prison, containing cells,
and belonging to the University of Cambridge. The proc-
tors claimed the right to go up to any woman in the town
and say, " I suspect you of being an improper character,"
and order her to the spinning-house, where, without any
evidence on oath, the Vice Chancellor sentenced unhappy
women to a fortnight, a month, or even two months' con-
finement. In the present case Mrs. Cattaway was only
detained about half an hour, but this confinement had
seriously affected her character, for a large number of per-
sons were assembled round the spinning-house when she
was discharged, and she remained up to this time with the
stigma upon her of having been imprisoned as a woman of
the town. The hardship of the case, too, was, that when she
was taken up she had done nothing that could give offence
to any human being.

At the conclusion of the evidence for the defendant,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £5O.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(Sittings in Error, before Justices Wightman, Williams,
Crompton, Willes, Byles, Blackburn, and Keating.)
DARELL, BART., V. STURGIS, PROVISIONAL ASSIGNEE.
This case raised a question upon the Statute of Limita-
tions as regarded specialties. A bond was dated in 1821;
payment became duo in 1822. An action was commenced in
1831, which was held over for compromise until 1835, when
the obligor died. In 1852 the obligee became insolvent,
and Sturgis was appointed provisional assignee. In
1857 letters of administration were granted to the defen •
dant below, and in 1851 the present action was brought.
The question was, whether the action was not barred by the
statute of 3 and 4 William IV., c. 32. The case now came
before this Court on error on the judgment of the Ea•
chequer.
Judgment affirmed.