The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE;—pub. 18.

COURT OF, ERROR.
(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and Barons
Bramwell and Channel!.)
EARL OF SHREWSBURY AND TALBOT V. HOPE SCOTT

AND OTHERS-JUDGMENT.
This morning the Lord Chief Baron delivered
judgment in this important case, which had come
before this court upon appeal from the judgment
of the Court of Common Pleas.

His Lordship said that this was an appeal from
the judgmenti of the Court of Common Pleas on
certain points reserved on the trial of the case
before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. It was an
action of ejectment, brought to recover the man-
sion of Alton Towers and certain lands belonging
thereto, by the Earl of Shrewsbury. At the trial
a verdict was directed for the plaintiff, subject to
certain points of law arising upon the construction
of various documents and Acts of Parliament. In
Hilary Term, last year, a rule was obtained by
Mr. Sergeant Shee to enter the verdict for the de-
fendants. Cause was shown against the rule in
Trinity Term by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, then the
Attorney-Goneral, and other learned gentlemen,
and the rule-was supported by Mr. Sergeant Shee,
Sir R. Bethell, the present Attorney-General, and
other members of the bar. The cause occupied
eight days, and the Court of Common Pleas by a
unanimous judgment, delivered seriatim, discharged
the rule. The present Attorney-General had been
heard by this Court as counsel for the appellant
during a portion of three days upon an appeal
from that judgment. He had argued the points in
favour of his client more elaborately, perhaps, than
they were argued in the Court below, but nothing
new had been elicited nor any points presented to
their attention which were not before the Court of
Common Pleas. While the argument was proceed-
ing their lordships had an opportunity of consider-
ing it from day to day, and at its:close they thought
it unnecessary to hear counsel for the respondent,
and upon the fullest consideration they were still
of the same opinion, and he had now to deliver the
unanimous judgment of that Court in favour of the
plaintiff, agreeing as they did with the Court of
Common Pleas that the rule obtained by the de-
fendant to enter the verdict for him should be dis-
charged. It was unnecessary to set out the facts
at length as they were fully sot out in the recitals
of the two private acts of 6th Geo. I. c. 29, and 6th
and 7th Vict., c. 38.

The learned Chief Baron then gave a brief re-
sume of the facts, which are already well known to
the public, and said that their lordships were of
opinion that the plaintiff below, as the issue male
of the first Earl of Shrewsbury, to whom the title
had descended, was under the express enactment of
those statutes entitled to the property in question
as tenant in tail, unless something could be shown
to disentitle him, and that that had not been done,
and that the disentitling deed of 1850 could not
prevent his right from prevailing. They, therefore,
thought with the Court of Common Pleas, that the
rule should be discharged. His lordship added that
though he had pronounced the unanimous opinion
of the whole Court, who assembled to hear the ar-
gument, he alone was responsible for the manner in
which the reasons for that judgment were pre-
sented. ;;'
Judgment for the Earl of Shrewsbury, and
against the appellants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Lord
Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
LAMING V. GOURLAY.-CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

The plaintiffs in this case are shipbrokers in Corn-
hill, and the defendant is a shipowner at Sunder-
land. The action was to recover commission upon
charters for the Nile and another vessel, which was
formerly called the Sampson.
A good deal of evidence was laid before the jury,
who found for the plaintiffs for £l7B 18s., being
commission at 21 per cent. on £7,150.

NORTH AND OTHERS V. TAYLOR.-BANKRUPTCY.
The plaintiffs are assignees of Messrs. Prior, the
coal merchants, who became bankrnpt some time
ago, and they claimed to recover two cargoes of coal.
Messrs. Prior had supplied coals at the different
stations on the railways in the south of England,
but subsequently the defendant undertook to supply
the coal along the South-Western line. Messrs.
Prior, however, still continued to purchase the coal
of the colliery owners, and re-sold it to defendant
at an advance of 6d. a ton. In some instances, how-
ever, the orders went directly from the defendant
to the colliery owners, and it did so in reference to
the coal now in question. The assignees contended,
however, that the coal was sold to and belonged to
Messrs. Prior.

After some discussion it was arranged that the
facts should be stated in a special case for the opi-
nion of the full Court.

COURT FOR MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MITCHELSON V. MITCLIELSON.
Dr. Phillimore, Dr. Swabey, and Mr. Kelly ap-
peared for the different parties.
This was a petition by the wife against her hus-
band for a separation on account of his cruelty to-
wards her. The respondent, who was a publican,
married the petitioner in 1858, and it was pleaded
that six months afterwards he commenced
a system of ill-usage by twisting her arms behind
her, and striking her on the head ; that he also con-
tinually addressed ter in filthy and abusive language,
until she was forced to leave his house in September,
1558, and had not cohabited with him since.
She alleged many acts of violence, all of which
were, however, emphatically denied by the
respondent, who, in the course of his exa-
mination declared it was his general habit to
address her in terms of endearment, that
he never abused or struck her in his life, and that
the only difference between them took place on the
18th September, when she upset the table in a pas-
sion, and struck him a violent blow in the eye with
a pint pot. A witness confirmed the statement of the
petitioner in every respect. Evidence was after-
wards adduced on the part of the respondent to
show that he had always lived on good terms with
his wife, and they deposed that he seemed to treat
her well, as far as they could see.
The learned Judge said he felt no difficulty in
dealing with this case, although there was a con-
flict of evidence. He would pronounce a sentence
of judicial separation.

ELLIOT V. ELLIOT.

. _
Mr. Beaumont conducted the petitioner's case.
- - -

This was a case for a judicial separation, brought
by the wife on the ground of her husband's deser-
tion. The respondent, who had been a cook in the
establishment of Earl Fitzwilliarn, married the
petitioner in March, 1845, and they cohabited to-
gether until the 3d of May, 1853, when the respon-
dent came up to London, and subsequently went

b 7'o Mr 7. 71liot had receiTT:i 5240 from him n
scurf; time aLer hi withdiawei, but with that ex-
ception she had heard nothing of him since the 3d
of May. The petitioner deposed to the above facts.
After some further evidence a decree was post-
poned until a further application should be made
to the Court.

SEATON V. SEATON.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Russell appeared
for the petitioner.
The respondent had not put in any answer. This
was a case by Mr. Henry Seaton, a surgeon, prac-
tising at Ulverstone, for a judicial separation on
account of his wife's adultery. The parties were
married on the 13th of September, 1849, at St.
Pantras church, and they cohabited in London for
one year, and then went down to Ulverstone, where
they lived in perfect harmony down to 1858. In
the Midsummer of that year a Mr. Gaultier came
to reside at Ulverstune, as master of a proprietary
school, and soon after his arrival Mrs. Seaton
formed an attachment of an improper kind towards
him. In May, 1859, Mr. Seaton was called to
London on professional business, and during his
absence his wife eloped with the schoolmaster, and
after spending the night in the Spread Eagle. in
Manchester, they went to Hull, where they em-
barked for Antwerp. It was alleged the parties
had since been cohabiting together up to the pre-
sent time.

After the examination of witnesses,
Sir Cresswen Cresswell decreed a sentence in.
accordane with the petitioner's prayer.

COUIVTRY MARERTS.

NORTHAMPTON—Fuis. 18.

At this corn-market wheat was in middling supply, with
a steady trade, at about 2s over the rates of this day se's.-
night, prices ranging from 44s to 49s for old, and 43s to
47s for new. There was a slow business passing in barley,
malting 36s to 435, grinding 26s to 29s per qr. Oats in
limited show, with a languid sale, quoted at 255 to 28s
per 24 stone. Beans, old, 47s to 50s ; new, 46s to 475.
nye, —s to —s; malt, 66. to 68s ; flour, 31s to 34s per
sack.