The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-12 00:00:00

LAW IN

Nov. 11.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS

This was a special case for the opinion of the
Court on the will of the late George Wakefield.
The testator, by his will, gave the resiue of his per-
sonal estate, and of the proceeds of his real estate.
to trustees upon trust for investment, and to apply
the interest for the maintenance and support of his
granddaughters, Rebecca Frances Wakefield and
Annie Wakefield, during their respective minori-
ties, and until the youngest should attain the age of
21 years, and, from and after that event, then upon
trust to pay and divide the principal moneys equally
between the said two granddaughters, for their
own use and benefit. Then followed these words :
" And I deClare that each of my said granddaughters
shall have a vested interest on her attaining the age of 21
years, or on the day of marriage which shall first happen;
and if either of my said grandchildren shall happen to de-
part this life before she shall have attained a vested interest,
then I give and bequeath her share unto the survivor."
There was no gift over in the will. Both the grand-
daughters survived the testator, and both of them
died under 21, and unmarried. The question was
whether in the events which had happened the
plaintiff, as the administrator of the deceased grand-
daughters, was entitled to the whole or any part of
the shares in which they were respectively interested
under the before-mentioned will, or whether the de-
fendants, as the testator's next of kin, were entitled
to the whole or any part of the before-mentioned
shares.
Mr. Boyle, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. A. Smith, ap-
peared for the different parties.
The Vice-Chancellor, without calling on the coun-
sel for the defendants, the next of kin, held that,
under the circumstances of the case, neither of the
two granddaughters took a vested interest under
the testator's will, and that in the events which had
happened the shares in question formed part of the
testator's undisposed-of estate.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
WEBB V. SERGEANT.
This case came before the Court in the shape of
two motions—One on behalf of the plaintiff to com-
mit the defendant, Wm. L. Sergeant, for breach of
an.injunction awarded against him in July last, and
for various alleged acts"of interference with theire-
ceiver appointed-by the Court in the cause ; the
othei .a:mcition on behalf- of the same defendant to
diSeha.P.ge-th,2l!ebeiyir and appoint another, and for
other maiCei•sof detail 7 A'great number of affidavits
were mead to the Conrt, and on the conclusion of the

opening of the first motion,
His Honour ordered both motions to stand over
till Wednesday next, with liberty t 9 defendant to
bring forwaid filither evidence and explanation as
to some of thd matters in
.respect of which his con-
duct iv complained of.
The Solicitor-General,. Mr. Rolt, Mr. Cotton, and
Mr. Bedwell appeared in support of the plaintiff's
motion ; Mr. Daniel for. the. defendant Sergeant,
and Mr. W. M. James-and Mr.T. Stevens for other
defendants.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sitting in Banco, before Lord Campbell and Jus-
tices Wightman, Erle, and Hill.)
BETTS T. CLIFFORD.
This was an action in which the plaintiff suedthe
defendant to recover damages for the infringement
of a patent granted to him on the 13th January,
1849, for a new manufacture of capsules, and of a
material to be employed therein, and for other pur-
poses." The defendant was a metal roller and ma-
nufacturer of coffin furniture at Birmingham, and
the particular infringement of which the plaintiff
complained was that he had manufactured what is
commonly called " Betts's metal ;" which consisted
of sheets of lead thinly coated with tin, as described
in theplaintiff's specification. The process by which
this wail effected was by taking ingots of lead of
about 6ree-quarters of an inch in thickness, and
ingo of tin "of the Smile size, but id between one
qua r and 1-16th of an inch thickness, and
p ng them separately b_etweert rollers till the
I was reduced to one.rquarter of an inch in
ckness, and the tin to about 1-20th of the
ickness of the lead. The tin and lead were
then laid on one, another and passed through the
rollers till they became of the required thick-
nie"., this process it was found that the tin
closely adhered to the lead and covered it with a
surfacei which was bright and stiff, and not liable
to be affected by acids &c. At the trial of the ac-
tion, which took place before Lord Campbell at
Warwick at the last Assizes, it was proved
that the defendant had made similar metal, which
the plaintiff contended Was an infringement of the
patent ;- but the defendant gave evidence to show
no
that the manufacture was
novelty, and had been
patented by Dobbs in 1804,
and that it was in actual
beforee the date of the
.plaintiff's patent. During the trial an
te
ed a great
xtraordi-
sensation
nary circumstance ocurred, which created
i n fact,
personath ecause of
as,
namedh
the present rule being granted.
John Henshaw happened accidentally to bei
gallery during the trial, and heard the evidencee
given before the jury. He then came down and
tendered himself to the defendant's attorney as
being able to prove that the supposed invention
had been well known and in use so early as 1830
at the manufactory of a Mr. Charles Humpage. He
said he had seen such metal as the plaintiff's made
there for about a year and a half, and that it was
quite a regular thing, and he described the process
of manufacture, which was exactlythe same as that
described in the plaintiff's specification. This evi-
dence naturally excited some surprise and suspicion,
but in the result the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff on the question of infringement, and for
the defendant on the question of novelty. Some
question arose at the trial as to the plaintiff's speci-
fication, and upon this the defendant obtained leave

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir R. T. Kindersley.)
SHIRTON V. DRIVER.
This bill was filed by a member of a club or
society consisting of 70 persons, called the " Occu-
piers of the Southview Gardens, at Sheffield," on
behalf of himself and all the members, except the
defendants. This club was formed about the year
1849, and the property of which they were tenants
from year to year was
...then called " Abbeydale
Gardens," each party paying his own rent to the
superior landlords, who were trustees of the pro-
perty for the Cecil family. In 1851 application
was made to the trustees to grant a lease to the
members of the club for 21 years, which was ac-
cordingly done, but there being an objettion to
grant a lease to so many as 20 persons 10 were ul-
timately chosen to represent the rest, and the lease
was granted to them for 21 years from the 25th of
March, 1852, at £BO per annum, payable in March
and September. New rules were then prepared by
Charles E. Howard, and a committee of five was
chosen, two from the 10 chosen to represent the
rest, and the remainder from the general body. In
1853 disputes arose in consequence, as the plaintiffs
alleged, of misconduct on the part of Howard, and
the defendants, the 10 lessees, withdrew themselves
from the meetings which had been theretofore held
at the Club Garden Tavern, and met at a different
publichouse. A question then arose as to the pay-
ment of the rent, the plaintffs claiming to pay it at
the usual place of gmeeting—the Club Garden
Tavern, and nowhere else. In consequence of this
the rent fell into arrears, and an action of ejectment
was brought by the defendants against the plain-
tiff (to try the question), and this bill was filed to
restrain such action, upon the ground that accord:
ing to the rules certain forfeits, &c., were imposed
upon parties not paying rent, and that was the
proper course, instead of an action of ejectment.
The case came to be heard and ultimately stood-over,
for the purpose, if possible, of coming to an arrange
ment, and the injunction was meantime in force OR
the terms of the plaintiff paying rent to Howard,
and orders had been made to that effect, making it
a term that on non-payment the injunction should
cease. On two oceasious the rent had been paid, but
the last order not containing the same condition of
cesser of the injunction the rent had not been paid.
• Mr. Freeman appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Glasse and Mr. T. H. Terrell, for the defen-
dants, argued that, although trustees in some sense,
it would be impossible to administer or work it out.
The rules were silent as to the place where the rent
was to be paid; and therefore the plaintiff and those
he represented were clearly in the wrong. There
was no other mode of getting the rent but to pro-
ceed legally.
Mr. Freeman was heard in reply.
The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the de-
fendants had no right to deal with the members of
the club as they pleased by turning out, &c., but
that every member, as long as he performed the
duties imposed upon him, had a right to remain in
undisturbed possession of his holding, and was en-
titled to the intervention of this Court to protect
him from disturbance by the lessees of Cecil's trus-
tees, who were themselves, in some sense, trustees,
although there was no agreement in writing in
strictness within the Statute of Frauds. There was
no provision in the rules as to payment of rent, ex-
cept by inference. What ought to be done was that
the body should hold a meeting to arrange to whom
the rent was to be paid, although there was great
difficulty in this. There must be a declaration that
the defendants were trustees for the whole body.
The two seceding members of the committee were
wrong, and the three others right who held the
meetings at the old pla2e of meeting, and they were
thi committee. The rent must be paid in pursuance
of the last order. There must be a perpetual in-
junction, qualified as to the plaintiff's performance
of his obligations. There must be an account and
inquiry as to the receipt of the rents, under the
orders of the Court.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.)
WAKEFIELD V. DYOTT.

to move to enter a verdict, and accordingly a rule
was subsequently granted for that purpose. A
cross rule was also applied for and obtained by the
plaintiff to set aside the Terdict' and for a new
trial, upon the ground that the plaintiff had been
taken by surprise by the evidence given by Hen-
shaw, and numerous affidavits were filed, with a
view to shake the credit due to his:(Henshaw's) tes-
timony. On the other hand, the defendant filed
numerous affidavits in answer, tending to explain
the circumstances under which Henshaw became a
witness,•and also to corroborate his evidence.
The Court, in the first instance, disposed of the
question of surprise, and for this purpose heard Mr.
Mellor, Q.C., for the defendant, and Mr. Macaulay
Q.C., for the plaintiff. The argument lasted nearly
the whole day, and, as the decision was ultimately
in favour of the defendant on this point, it be came
unnecessary to have the question as to the plaintiff's
specification argued.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., M. r.
Udall, and Mr. Webster appeared for the plaintplaintiff;
Mr. Mellor, Q.C., Mr. Hindmarsh, and Mr. Field
for the defendant.
Lord Campbell said, he was of opinion that the
rule for a new trial ought to be discharged. That
Mr. Betts was an inventor of this process he (Lord
Campbell) most sincerely believed, but if that pro-
cess was previously in public use the patent could
not be supported. There was conflicting evidence,
upon which the jury had to form their opinion, and
no objection was made as to the manner in which
it was submitted to them. Looking at the manner
in which Henshaw had behaved and the account
he gave of himself, there was enough of suspicion
to induce him (Lord Campbell) to concur with the
rest of the Court in granting this rule, in order
that the matter might be more fully examined into;
but, after the affidavits which had been read, he
(Lord Campbell) was satisfied that Henshaw came
into the box without previous concert and without
any fraudulent intent. He was at Warwick for a
lawful purpose, and being in the gallery at the trial,
he recollected the evidence he could give, and com-
municated it to the defendant's attorney. His lord-
ship thought that both Henshaw and the defen-
dant's attorney were relieved from all suspicion of
trick or contrivance, and that Henshaw gave
evidence which, if believed, would support the
verdict. The jury had believed that evidence, and
he (Lord Campbell) could not say that they were
wrong in so doing. Now, instead of being contra-
dicted, Henshaw's evidence materially corroborated
by the subsequent evidence, though the evidence
given at the trial was sufficient to support the
verdict. The only ground on which the rule was
granted was surprise, and the belief that there was
no intention on the part of the defendant to prove
a previous user of the plaintiff's process. His lord-
ship, however, thought that the plaintiff's attorney,
who was no doubt a respectable professional man,
must have been aware that the defen-
dant would set up a previous user as a
defence, for he had witnesses there for the purpose
of answering such a cane. If so, the ground of
surprise was answered. It was a case of conflicting
evidence, upon which the jury had found a verdict
which he (Lord Campbell) thought the Court would
not be justified in disturbing. His Lordship con-
chided by saying, that he would not comment any
further upon the case, for there was the case of
" Betts v. Menzies" which was tp be tried, 4nd he
did not wish to say anything that might affect the
trial of that cause.

Mr. Justice Wightman and Mr. Justice Erle, at
some length and Mr, Justice Hill, briefly, expressed
themselves to the same effect.—Rule for a new trial
discharged.

BAILEY V. CUTTS AND OTHERS.
This was an appeal from the decision of the
judge of the County Court of Nottinghamshire,
held at Worksop. It appeared that the defendants
were in the year 1856 members of the Worksop
Local Board of Health, and acting in their official
capacity, they had passed a resolution, authorising
their solicitor to oppose a Gas Bill proposed by the
Worksop and Radford Gaslight and Coke Company.
This they did in carrying out the wishes of the in•
habitants, expressed at a public meeting. The
effect of the opposition was to get the price which
the inhabitants were to pap for the gas reduced
from 6s. Bd. per 1000 feet, as originally proposed
by the company, to 65., in addition to other advan-
tages. The plaintiff had been employed as engi-
neer to assist in the opposition to the Gas Bill, and
his charge for his services, £2l 14s. 6d. not being
paid, he sued the four defendants, who were the
members of the board who voted in favour of the
opposition to the bill. The judge of the County
Court held that the defendants were personally
responsible, and gave judgment in favour of the
plaintiff for the amount of his claim.
Mr. Sergeant Hayes was now heard in support
of the decision, but

Lord Campbell said he was unable to see any con-
tract by the defendants so as to make them
personally responsible.
Mr. Bristowe, who appeared for the defendants,
was not called upon.
Lord Campbell said, the judgment must be set
aside, but, under the circumstances, without costs.
His lordship added that probably some public-
spirited individuals in the parish would subscribe
and pay the plaintiff's expenses.—Judgment re-
versed without costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(Nov. 11.)

WORSHIP-STREET. Richard Jeffries, a
short, singular-looking person, but of respectable
appearance, was charged with the following extra-
ordinary conduct.
A young woman named Mary Ann Free, the
daughter of a tobacconist in James-street, Old-
street, stated that while seated in the parlour of her
father's shop at 10 o'clock on the preceding night,
she was startled by the abrupt entrance of the pri•
soner, who was an entire stranger to her, and who
suddenly ran into the shop, and so rapidly put out
the gas, first on the counter and then ;in the win-
dow, that the lights were all extinguished before
she could run into the room. When she did get
into the shop both she and the prisoner were in the
dark, all but a small gleam of light, by which she
could just distinguish his hand over the counter
close to the till, though she could not swear he was
trying to get the till out. She screamed, which
brought downstairs her cousin, who pursued the
prisoner into the street and caught him, but the
moment he had done so some person, a stranger in
the crowd, called out to him, " Be careful of that
man ; he is mad, and has just tried to bite me ;" on
which
.the cousin let him go, and the prisoner took
rapidly to his heels. Nothing was stolen, and they
thought themselves lucky in so getting. rid of him,
when the prisoner some time after ran in again in
the same strange manner, and exclaimed to her
mysteriously but vindictively, " You have known
me only as a customer before, but you shall know
me in another character now," and would, there
could be no doubt, have done something to her, had
not her cousin fortunately heard his observation,
and again made his appearance on which the pri-
soner again ran out, but was this time both taken
and given into custody. " I don't know him at all,"
said the witness, " and I'm afraid he will do mo
some serious injury if I am not protected."
A constable of the G division stated that he was
on duty in Old-street at the time mentioned, when
a gentleman ran up to him in great alarm, and told
him there was something very seriously wrong
going on at the tobacconist's in James-street, and
that he had better get there as quickly as
possible. On nearing the house he found
the prisoner engaged in a violent struggle with the
last witness's cousin, who gave the prisoner into
custody, but the prisoner was so outrageous, declar-
ing that he would either kill himself or somebody
else, that he had great difficulty in securing him.
Sergeant Harvey said that he was on duty at the
station when prisoner was brought in. He was ex-
tremely violent, and presently after vet:), nearly
strangled himself with his gold guard chain, which
he had twisted so tightly round his throat that he
was thoroughly speechless. On his being searched
a card was found upon him with the name of the
New London Coal Co. upon it, and from what he
had since learnt he believed that the prisoner was
connected in some capacity with that company.
Mr. D'Eyncourt asked the prisoner what he had
to say to such extraordinary conduct ?
The prisoner, who was now perfectly sobered to
the reality of his position, replied that he was very
sorry for his strange conduct, but he had not the
slightest recollection of anything that had taken
place. He need not say that he was intoxicated at
the time, or such a thing could not have occurred
to him.

The officer remarked that the defendant was cer-
tainly not sober.
The prisoner rejoined that, however that might
be, such behaviour should not be repeated, and with
regard to the fears entertained of him by the young
Woman, he had not, of course, the remotest idea of
injuring her, as he knew nothing of her.
Mr. D'Eyncourt told him that, at any rate, he
seemed to cret very nearly mad when he took a little
drink, and et
had better therefore not take any at
all. lie could not be allowed to act and terrify per-
sons in this Way, and, as some guard against a re-
petition of Way, and,
he should order him to
put in bail to the amount of £lO and his own re-
cognisances in .£2O, for his peaceable behaviour for
the-next three months.
The prisoner provided the required sureties, and
I.lft the court seemingly a totally different man
from that he had before been described to be. •