The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-( THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
APPEAL.-EDWARD WOOD V. MARJORIBANKS.

Mr. Malins, Q.C., resumed and concluded his argument
for the appellant in this part-heard appeal this morning.
Mr. Schomberg followed on the same side.
This is an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor Sir
John Stuart, decreeing specific performance of the contract
of sale of the glebe lands, benefice, and advowson of the
rectory of Heasley, in the parish of Northwarwick, Wales.
The plaintiff purchased the advowson for £2,600, but
wanted an abatement of the price on the ground that there
was a charge of the interest of £6OO paid out of Queen
Anne's bounty for building a house for the inucumbent;
that he was either entitled to an abatement of the price or
to have the contract of sale rescinded.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce and Lord Justice Turner
were decidedly of opinion that there were no grounds what-
ever for rescinding the contract.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce said that every person in
England, from Cumberland to Cornwall, was perfectly well
acquainted with the fact, that when money was borrowed
from Queon Anne's Bounty for the building of a parsonage,
that part of the principal and the whole of the interest was
payable for a term of years out of the benefice.
Their Lordships affirmed the decree of Vice-Chancellor
Sir John Stuart, decreeing specific performance of the con-
tract and dismissing the plaintiff's bill with costs, and their
Lordships also dismissed the appeal with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.)

SMITH V. 'THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

On taking his seat this morning Lord Campbell inquired
whether the jury had agreed to their verdict.
The jury having been called into court were asked
whether they had agreed.

The foreman said they had not, and there was no pro-
bability that they would agree.
Lord Campbell said he regretted that the jury could not
have come to a conclusion upon what he thought a very
obvious matter. He might keep the jury if he liked, and
he was not quite sure whether he ought not to adopt that
course. He should, however, dismiss them.
The jury were then discharged without coming to a ver-
dict—another unsuccessful phase of a case which has often
been before the Courts.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
THE CORPORATION AND BILLINGSGATE MARKET-

lIUGGETT V. GEARING.

Plaintiff is a costermonger, and defendant is the clerk to
the market. A gentleman attended from the City Solici-
tor's office for the defendant. The action was brought to
recover the sum of lls. for one half barrel of herrings,
alleged to have been detained by the defendant. It ap-
pearvd that, upon a certain day, plaintiff bought some
herrings, which he deposited in a certain place. They had
been there for a very short time when a man named Hallam,
employed by the defendant, took the herrings and put them
in the lock-up, and Gearing stood by at the time. Plain-
tiff asked what they were going to do with his herrings,
and he was informed that he had caused an obstruction and
that his herrings would be locked up. Plaintiff saw de-
fendant a few days afterwards, and spoko to him upon the
subject, when he was informed that it was his own fault,
and the law must take its course. Plaintiff then told de-
fendant he should summon him.

For the defence it was urged that the plaintiff had ren-
dered himself liable to a penalty of £5 for creating an
obstruction in a public market. The facts of the case were
that plaintiff had left his barrel of herrings in a part of the
market out of the limits. When Hallam saw the herrings
no one was near them, and they were taken to the usual
place, where every person could find them. There was a
law which empowered the magistrate to inflict a penalty
upon the plaintiff.
His Honour—There is no bye-law authorising you to
lock up these packages. You should have a bye-law. It
is most absurd. You have a law authorising you to fine
offenders, and yet you have not a most simple bye-law
authorising you to lock the goods up.
Solicitor-4t is customary.

His Honour—But you have no law for the purpose.
John Hallam was then called, and said that when he
found the herrings no one was near them. After he had
taken the herrings away, plaintiff came up and said, " What
are you doing with those herrings ?" Hallam replied, " I
am going to lock them up; and if the owner comes for
them, I shall summon him before the Lord Mayor."
Plaintiff then walked away.

Other witnesses deposed that the herrings were on the
pathway, and that Hallam was looking for the owner before
he took them away. Any person knew where to find them.

It was then contended that Hallam was a constable of
the market, and had locked up the herrings upon his own
responsibility. Gearing was not responsible.
His Honour said, upon the evidence before him, he must
find for defendant, but ho recommended the defendant to
get some power by a bye-law to seize these things.

CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.—(This Day.)

(Before Aldermen Copeland and Mechi.)
UNJUST WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.--HEAVY FINES.

John Thorogood, a coal dealer, was summoned for having
an unjust weighing machine.
Wm. Turner was called by the inspector, and stated
that he had had considerable difficulty in catching de-
fendant, who was accustomed to hang a 21b. weight to the
scoop, and thus defrauded the customer of that weight.
Alderman Copeland said defendant defrauded the cus-
tomer of 15 per cent. off 281bs. He must pay a fine of 40s.
C. Haddock, corn dealer, coal dealer, and marine store
dealer, was summoned for an unjust beam, which did not
give much against the customer for 561b5., but gave 21bs.
and upwards against customers for 281bs. and upwards.

Defendant said it was caused by starting the coal into the
scoop.

Alderman—You were summoned in 1857 and fined ss. ;
in July, 1858, and fined 20s. Now you are fined £5. I
don't think I am touching your profits.
Sylvester Murray, a wholesale pork and butter mer-
chant, of Sun-street, was summoned for an unjust beam.
The beam was 4oz. deficient. Defendant had been cautioned
before.

Defendant said the firm only weighed large articles of
five or six hundrod weight, and threw off the pound.
Alderman—You must keep your weights in order, and
also your beam, which can easily be regulated. You must
pay a fine of £l.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.
A SAD CASE.—G. Barnard, late a clerk in the firm of
Morrison, Dillon, and Co., was charged with stealing a
silk dress from his employers. It was intended to have
dealt with the case to-day, and indeed that was a settled
affair, but the prosecutor had received a communication
which induced him to apply for a remand.
Mr. Beard understood it would prove favourable to the
prisoner, and would agree.

Prisoner was then remanded till Friday. He is most
highly connected. His relatives appear to feel the matter
most acutely.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

- -
WHOLESALE ROBBERY DP AN EMPLOYER.—Edward
Streecher, a cabinetmaker , Eppar North-street,
Gray's-inn-road, was charged with stealing a quantity of
brass work, carvings, veneers, &c.,
the property of his em-
ployer, Mr. James Rosberg, of 4,
John-street, Hanway-
street.

The prosecutor said that in consequence of missing a
quantity of property, ho gave information to the police
which led to the prisoner's apprehension.
A quantity of property consisting of pieces of veneers,
brass work, &c., used in marqueteiie work was hero pro-
duced and identified by the prosecutor as his property.
Sergeant Mills, 4 E, said that on the previous night he
stopped the prisoner just as he left his employer's, and found
on him several pieces of mahogany veneers and other arti-
cles. He afterwards went to his lodgings, where he found
a quantity of property of every description used by his em-
ployer—a cab full, and all of which was identified by the
mosecutor. He wished for a remand.
The prisoner said he had nothing to say, and was re-
manded till Friday next.