The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 1859.

THE LONDON.—The attention of Clergymen,
Officers, and Professional Gentlemen, is especially
drawn to the advantages offered in these elegant and spa-
cious Saloons, which fulfil all the requirements of a West-
end club of the most aristocratic and exclusive character.

F. SAWYER, Proprietor, 191, Fleet-street.

THE LONDON.—S AW YE R'S famous
LONDON DINNER, consisting of two soups, two
fish, two entrees, joints, two sweets, cheese, and salad, at a
fixed charge of 2s. 6d. (attendance, 3d.), is served from Two
till Eight in the spacious Saloon.
In the Coffee-room, Dinners from the joint, with vegetables,
cheese, and salad, Is. 6d. (attendance 3d.), and soup, fish, en-
trees, &c., a la carte, are served from One till Nine o'clock.
Ladies' Private Rooms and Dining Saloons. Spacious and
well-ventilated Wine, Coffee, and Smoking Saloon.
An extensive and carefully selected stock of Rhenish, Mo-
selle, and other Wines, imported expressly for the London
Dinner. Open on Sundays from Four till Nine.
F. SAWYER, Proprietor, 191, Fleet-street.

THE PATRICIAN. This Establishment is
now Open for first-class DINNERS, LUNCHEONS,
dm The PATRICIAN DINNER, in the large Dining-room,
at 2s. 6d. comprising Soup, Fish, Entrées, Joints, Pastry,
Cheese, &c. The Wines with corresponding:economy. In
the Coffee-room, Dinners and Refreshments ala carte. Spe.
cial attention is invited to the numerous Private Apartments
for the Patrician Dinner, at 55. The Smoking and Chess-
room combines comfort and elegance. The laYatories,!yesti-
bales, and spacious entrance, with the general unique arrange-
ments, ensure an acknowledgment that this noble Mansion is
worthy of its title—THE PATRICIAN. Open at Five on
Sundays.

Orders, addressed to J. ITOLMES and CO., The Patrician,
New Coventry-street, will have the best attention.'
N.B.—Wedding Breakfasts and Ball Suppers, with first-
class attendance.

' L7VANS'S MAGNIFICENT MUSIC and
SUPPER ROOMS, COVENT-GARDEN.—Gentlemen
visiting London will find their evening enjoyment largely
i,rovided for at the above establighm.”* THI KT X V OUALI6TS. snortand interesting interludes
between the musical portion of the entertainment, embracing
an amount of singular ability never before presented to the
public.
The performances considerably increased. Books of Words,
&c. Admission, Sixpence, commencing at Eight o'clock pre-
cisely. Suppers after the theatres for gentlemen.
The DRAMATIC GALLERY, now the finest in the world,
alone worth a visit. One hundred and sixty portraits, the
greater number first class in art, and original paintings.

METROPOLITAN, COUNTIES, AND
GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY,
27, Regent-street, Waterloo-place, London, S.W.
Life Assurance, Annuities, and Endowments.
Loans on real and personal security.
F. FERGUSON CAMROUX, Manager.

G',REAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
—ALTERATION OF TRAINS FOR MAY.—The
Northern portion of the 9.30 a.m. train will leave Paddington
at 9.50 cm., and will be accelerated, arriving at Chester at
the same time as at present. The 5.10 p.m. train will leave
Paddington at 6.30 p.m. ; the 5.30 p.m. train at 5.15 p.m, ; the
7.25 a.m. train from Wolverhampton will leave at 6.55 cm.,
running direct through to Paddington ; and there will be a
late train from Paddington to Windsor, at 11 p.m.
There are several other important alterations, for which
see the time bills of the Company.
Paddington, 23d April, 1859.

CERTAIN RELIEF for the AFFLICTED.—
Dr. SCOTT'S BILIOUS and LIVER PILLS, pre-
pared without any mercurial ingredient, from the recipe of Dr.
Scott, of Bromley, Kent, area sure remedy for affections of the
liver, indigestion, bile, sick headache, giddiness, loss of appe-
tite, lowness of spirits, Svc. They can be taken at any time,
without any danger from wet or cold, act mildly on the bowels,
without pain or griping, clear the skin, remove sallowness
and pimples, purify the blood, brace the nerves, and invigo-
rate the whole system. Sold by most druggists, in boxes,
ls. lid. and 2s. 9d. each. Be sure to ask for Dr. Scott's
Bilious and Liver Pills. The genuine are a square green
package, with " W. Lambert, 20, Jermyn-street," engraved
on the Government stamp.

NOMINATIONS FIXED.

FRIDAY,

Abingdon
Andover
Anglesea Boroughs
Arundel
Ashburton
Ashton-under-Lynn
Aylesbury
Banbury
Barnstaple
Bath
Berwick
Bewdley
Blackburn
Bodwin
Bolton
Boston
Bradford
Bridgenorth
Bridport
Brighton
Buckingham
Bury, Lancashire .
Bury St. Edmonds
Caine
Cambridge University
Canterbury
Cardiff
Cardigan
Carmarthen
Carnarvon District
Chatham
Chester
Cheltenham
Chichester
Chippenham
Christchurch
Cirencester
City of London
Clitheroe
Cockermouth
Colchester
Coventry
Cricklade
Dartmouth
Devizes
Devonport
Dorchester
Dover
Dundee
Durham •
Edinburgh (City)
East Retford
Evesham
Exeter
Eye
Finsbury
Flint
Gateshead
Glasgow
Glocester (City)
Grantham
Greenock
Greenwich
Grimsby
Halifax
Hastings

Helstoii,
Hereford
Honitou
Horsham
Huddersfield

Huntingdon
Hythe
Ipswich
Kidderminster
King's Lynn
Kirkcaldy Burghs
Knaresborough
Launceston
Leeds
Lewes

Droitwich.
Great Marlow.
Haddington Burghs.
Harwich
Inverness

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

NEWMARKET CRAVEN MEETING.
WEDNESDAY.
Match, Bst 71b each, 100, h ft. Last half of R.M.
Sir J.'Hawley's Twang
Duke of Bedford's Golden Rule
Betting-5 to 4on Twang, who won by four lengths
The Column Stakes of 50 sous each, h ft, for 3-year. olds;
colts, Bst 71b; fillies, Bst 41b. Certain allowances. R.lll*
(1 mile 17 yards.) 15 subs.
Mr. W. S. S. Crawfurd's Chapelier, Bst 71b (Wells) 1
Mr. J. Merry's Aneurin; Bst 41b (Plumb) 2
The betting, which fluctuated considerably at first, set-
tled down to 6 to 4 on Chapelier, who won by two lengths.
Match, Bst 81b each, 50, h ft. D.M. (7 fur. 201 yards.)
Captain Wright's Harry Bluff., (S.Rogers) 1
Count Batthyany's Schoolfellow . . (Wells) 2
Betting-6 and 7t04 on Harry Bluff, who won by a
length and a half.

Handicap Sweepstakes of 10 sovs each. D.M. (7 far. 210
yards.)
Mr. R. Ten Broeck's Orianda, 5 yrs, 7st 10lb (Fordham) 1
6 yrs, Bst 71b
Mr. J. Shelley's Lord Berkeley, 5 yrs, 7st 7th
, 6st 71b (L. Snowden) 2
(Custance) 3
(Wells) 4
s7cHhiltoodb4gsagobsstliiesuyrgs,
Hobgoblin, 5 to 2 agst Orianda, 4 to
1 agst Lord Berkeley.
Won by six lengths ; bad third.
BMaßrm.eEitttYtißngut—hs'
Plate of £6O, for 2-yr-olds ; colts, Bat 7119; fillies, Bst 31b.
Winner extra. First half of Ab.M. (3 fur. 215 yards.)
Mr. E. R. Clark's Emily, Bst 3119 (French) 1
Mr. T. Parr's Rattlebone, Bst 7lb .. ........ (W. Boyce) 2
Baron RothachiM's Rostra, Sat 71b .......... (Flatman) 3
The following also ran :—Twang, Umpire, Quick March,
Ropedincer, Rosalie filly, Brine, New Forest Deer filly,
Cloak filly, Mary filly, and The Myth.
_ _

The betting opened at sto 2 agst Rattlebone. In a few
minutes afterwards 3 to 1 was taken about Restes, 4 to 1
laid agst Rattlebone, and 7to 1 agst Emily. At the close,
5 to 2 was taken about Emily, 7 to 2 offered agst Restes,
and 4to 1 agst Rattlebone. The only outsider backed was
The Myth, about whom 10 to 1 was taken.

Won by a length; a head between the second and third;
and a length between the third and fourth. The others
were widely scattered.

Match, 100 goys h. ft. Y.C. (2 furlongs 52 yards.)
Duke of Bedford's Harry, by Student, 7st 71b (S. Rogers) 1
Lord Glasgow's filly by Orlando, out of Coalition, Bst 71b
(Aldcroft) 2
Betting.-5 to 2on Harry, who won by five lengths.
Subscription Plate of £5O, for 3-yr-olds and upwards.
T.Y.O (5 furlongs 140 yards.)
7st 21b ...... (Custance) 3
Mr. C. Formby's The Speaker by Filbert, 3 yrs, 7st 21b
(A. Edwards) 1
Mr. T. Parr's Sedbury, Bst 71b
Mr. Alexander's King at Arms,
The following also ran :—Brother to Sidney, Chanoine,
Sir Hercules, and Don Cossack.

Betting.-6 to 4 agst King at Arms ;9to 4 agst Sed-
bury ; 6 to 1 each agst The Speaker and Sir Hercules.
Won by half a length ; two lengths between the second
and third ; and a length between the third and fourth ; bad
fifth. Don Cossack, who was refractory at the post, and
caused some delay, was beaten off a long way.
Sweepstakes of 10 sous each, for 3-yr-olds and upwards.
The winner to be sold for 100 soya if demanded, &c.
T.Y.C. (5 fur. 140 yds.) 5 subs.
Mr. Rogers's Gin, by Orlando, Bst 41b ...... (Pordham) 1
Mr. Blanton's Polly Johnson, 4 yrs, Bst 41b .. (French) 2
The following also ran :—Ochiltreo, Schoolfellow, and La
Frasseuse.

The betting opened at 6 to 4 on Polly Johnson and 5 to
2 agst Gin. It closed at evens agst each of them ;no other
backed. Won by a length.
Match, 100, 20 ft. R.M.
Duke of Bedford's Harry, 7st 111 b received
Lord Coventry's Ghika, Bst 71b;

BETTING AFTER THE RACES.
CHESTER CUP.
9to 1 agst Leamington (taken)
20 to 1 agst Polestar (taken)
2.5 to 1 agst Rosabel (taken)
30 to 1 agst Defender (taken)
30 to 1 agst Muter Bagot (taken)
33 to 1 agst Herne (taken)
33 to 1 agst The Brewer (taken)
50 to 1 agst Jordan (taken)
60 to 1 agst Roman Candle (taken)
TWO THOUSAND.
sto 2 agst Promised Land (taken)
DEED?.
7to lon The Field (offered)
25 to 1 agst Trumpeter (taken)
25 to 1 agst Merryman (taken 30 to 1)
25 to 1 agst Ticket of Leave (taken 30 to 1)
60 to 1 agst Balnamoon (offered)
_ _

The weather was windy and cold ; the heath was very
thinly attended, and the bookmakers had a bad time of it,

CATTERICK BRIDGE RACES—WEDNESDAY.
Craven Handicap.

Meeanee
Trabueo...~
Six ran

Eleventh Triennial Stakes.

Tibb Tacket
Cramond
Five ran.
Borough Handicap.

Miss Stewart -
1
Prince of Denmark
Eight ram..
Ninth Triennial Stakes.
_ _ _

Star of East 1
Trabuco .
Three ran.
Tenth Triennial Stakes.
Qui Viva
••
Clara Webster
Five ran.

LAW INTELLIGENCE-April 27.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
HOPKINS V. PENNELL.

This was an interpleader suit. The plaintiff was
indebted to a bankrupt of -whom the defendants
Pennell and another were assignees. The defen-
dant Williams claimed the debt under an alleged
agreement by which it had been equitably assigned
to him. On a former occasion the plaintiff had paid
the money into court, and an order was made
under which Williams was to be at liberty to take
the necessary steps to establish his title. He there-
fore filed a second bill, but without making the
assignees parties, and the assignees now moved to
have the money paid out of court to them.
Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Collins were for the motion ;
Mr. Palmer and Mr. Higgins for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Steere for the defendant
Williams.

The Master of the Rolls said that the right of
the plaintiff in interpleader was clear, and that
Williams' bill was defective for want of parties, but
he would allow the motion to stand over till next
seal in order to give an opportunity to amend.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.)
CLEMENT V. MADDICK AND OTHERS.
Mr. Malins, Q.C., Mr. I. Hinde Palmer, and Mr.
French, appeared for the plaintiffs in this case, who
are the proprietors of the Bell's Life in London and
Sporting Chronicle newspaper, for an injunction to
restrain the defendants George Maddick, William
Henry Stephens, and Richard Vyvyan Robinson,
from publishing a newspaper called the Penny
Bell's Life and Sporting News, or from in any way
using or applying the name, " Bell's Life," to any
other newspaper or periodical without the consent
of the plaintiffs.
It appeared that on the 24th of March last the
first number of a newspaper called the Penny Bell's
Life was published by the defendant, George Mad-
dick, as sole proprietor. On the 9th of April the
plaintiff filed a bill seeking a declaration by the
court that they were absolutely entitled to the use
and enjoyment of the name of "Bell's Life" in the
publication of their newspaper, and to restrain
the defendant Maddick from publishing the
newspaper called the Penny Bell's Life and
Sporting News, or in any other way using or
applying the name " Bell's Life," to any other news-
paper without their license or consent. It appeared
from the statements in the plaintiffs' bill that in
the year 1824 the plaintiffs' father purchased the
copyright in Bell's Life in London, and that that
paper has been for many years published at 170,
Strand ; that from the long established and well-
known respectability of that paper, it has long
been the practice of persons in the sporting world
on making bets upon sporting subjects, to make
the proprietors the stakeholders, and that a sum of
from £B,OOO to £lO,OOO annually passed through
the proprietors' hands in that way, and that the
proprietors of Bell's Life are in the habit of receiv-
ing a large amount of correspondence from all parts
of the world, addressed to Bell's Life, London.
The plaintiffs alleged by their bill that the assump-
tion of the title Bell's Life by the defendants would
occasion very serious loss and inconvenience to
them by reason of the miscarriage or misdeliveries
which would constantly occur of correspondence
and , remittances which Were intended for the
plaintiffs, and that the public would be deceived
by the defendants' paper,
,and thus the plaintiff's'
paper would be brought into discredit, On the

11th of April the defendant, Maddick, assigned
the Penny Bell's Life to Stephen and Robinson,
and plaintiff subsequently amended his bill, and
made them defendants as well as Maddick, who
still continued to publish the paper.
Mr. Bacon, Q.C., and Mr. Karslake, for the
defendants, contended that the defendants had
used the word " Bell's Life" merely to show that
their paper was a sporting paper; that the de-
fendant's paper, being called the Penny Bell's Life,
could not be mistaken for the plaintiffs' paper,
and that the loss and inconvenience suggested by
the plaintiffs would not be incurred by them.
Mr. Maims, Q.C., was not called upon for a
reply.
The Vice-Chancellor said he did not feel much
difficulty about the case. The defendants had ad-
mitted that they had assumed the title, the Penny
Bell's Lite, for the purpose oflinforming the public
that their paper contained sporting intelligence.
The plaintiffs had used the title " Bell's Life" for
Many years, and the defendants could not be per-
mitted to adopt that title, although with the addi-
tion of the word " Penny" before it. He thought
the mistakes and loss which the plaintiffs appre-
hended would occur ; indeed there had already
been such mistakes. There must, therefore, be an
injunction against the defendants, as asked for by
the plaintiffs.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS.
(Sittings in Error.)
Several ,of the. Judges attended this morning,
according to previous arrangement, to give judg-
ment in the case of " Micklethwait and Mickle-
thwait."
Mr. Baron Martin said he had to give the una-
nimous judgment of the Court in this case, which
was an action of ejectment. A special case had
been stated far the opinion of the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, upon the construction of a clause in a
will made by John Micklethwait in 1822. The
facts of the case were these :—The great-grand-
father of the parties to this suit was John Mickle-
thwait, who will be designated as John of 1797 ; he
left three children—John (who will be designated
as John of 1822), Nathaniel (who will be called
Nathaniel No. 1), and Jonathan George. John of
1822 died without issue. Nathaniel No. 1 had two
children—Nathaniel No. 2 and Sotherton (after-
wards Sir Peckham Micklethwait). Nathaniel
No. 2 married, first, Lady Waldegrave, who died
in giving birth to a son, Colonel Micklethwait.
Nathaniel No. 2 married a second time a daughter
of Lord Rous, by whom he had two children,
Henry and John Nathaniel, and these two are
the parties to this suit, Henry being the plaintiff
and John Nathaniel the defendant in the court
below, but their names being reversed in the Court
of Error; John Nathaniel will, therefore, be plain-
tiff in this court, and Henry will be defendant.
The property in question was very considerable.
In 1782 John of 1797, on the marriage of his second
son, Nathaniel No. 1, settled certain estates, called
Hickling, Beeston, and Tunstal, in the county of
Norfolk, after a life estate to himself, to the use of.
Nathaniel No. I for life, remainder to such son of
the marriage as Nathaniel No. 1 should appoint ' •
in default of appointment to the use of the first and
other sons of that marriage in tail male, with re-
mainder to the settler in fee. John of 1'97 made a
will in that year (1797) which did not affect the pro-
perty settled by him in 1782, but related to other
estates in different counties. By this will he devised
his estates to the use of his eldest son, John of
1822, remainder to the use of his first and other
sons successively in tail male, and in default to suck

one of his two grandsons, Nathaniel No. 2 and
Sotherton, sons of his second son, Nathaniel No. 1,
as his son John of 1822 should appoint for life, re-
mainder to the first aid other sons ofsuch appointee
in tail mail. In default of such appointment by John
of 1822 the testator devised the estates to the eldest
of his two grandsons, Nathaniel No. 2, for life, with
remainder to his first andother sons, with remainder,
on failure of such issue, to his grandson Sotherton
for life, with remainder to his third son, Jonathan
George. On the 26th Feb., 1799, John of 1797
made a codicil to his will, revoking the devise so
far as regarded the estates in Surrey, Middlesex,
and Loudon, and he devised them to his third son,
Jonathan George, in fee; but this codicil was not
duly attested, and therefore was null and void. On
the death of John of 1797, John of 1822 entered into
possession of the estates comprised in the will of
1797. Nathaniel No. 1 died in 1796, and Nathaniel
No. 2 succeeded to the estates named in the settle-
ment of 1782. In 1804, Nathaniel No. 2 being about
to marry, executed a settlement of the 18th of Janu-
ary, 1804, whereby, being a minor, he covenanted
to settle the estates of Hickling, Beeston, and Tun-
stal to the use of himself for life, and after provid-
ing by a term of years for a jointure for his wife, to
the use of himself in fee; and on the 28th of Janu-
ary, 1805, he suffered a recovery to bar the entail

in these estates. His wife died on the 14th of Fe-
bruary, 1805. In October, 1810, Nathaniel No. 2,
being about again to marry, made proposals for a
settlement whereby the Hickling estate was charged
with an annuity to his wife, and John of 1822 made
this proposal in pursuance of the power given him
by the will of 1787 to appoint all the estates
thereby devised to him to Nathaniel No. 2. In
pursuance of these proposals, John of 1822 exe•
cuted an appointment of the 29th of November,
1810, devised by the will of 1797, to Nathaniel
No. 2, according to the terms of the will of 1797,
and Nathaniel No. 2 executed a settlement.
The plaintiff and the defendant were the issue of
that marriage. Such was the state of the family
and of the estates in 1822. In 1822 John of 1822
made the will which gave rise to this litigation.
He had become possessed, through the family of his
mother (Miss Peckham), of real property, called the
Iridge estate, in the county of Sussex. He first
recited the will and ineffective codicil of his father,
John of 1797, and that it was his wish his father's
codicil should be confirmed, and then he proceeded
to devise the Iridge estate to trustees, first, to the
use of his nephew, Sir Peckham, for life, remainder
to the first and other sons of the body of Sir Peck-
ham successively in tail male ; secondly, in default
of such issue, to hie brother, Jonathan George, for
life, remainder to his nephew John, eldest son of his
brother Jonathan George, for life, and to the first
and other sons of John in tail male. Then cacao

two shifting clauses-:--first, that if the testator's
nephew Nathaniel No. 2 and his first or other son
or sons, or his or their- heirs,_ should in the lifetime
of Jonathan George effectually confirm and estab-
lish the codicil of 1799 by effectually conveying the
estates in Surrey, Middlesex, and London to Jona-
than George in fee, then the foregoing devise in
favour of Jonathan George and of his son John and
his first and other sons in tail male was to be void,
and immediately on such event, or in default of
issue of the testator's nephew John (the son of
Jonathan George), the estate was to pass to the
testator's great-nephew John Nathaniel (the plain-
tiff in error) for life,remainder to his first and other
sons in tail male,andin default of issue to Jonathan
George in fee. Then followed the shifting clause
upon which the present contest arose, and which
was in these words :---- _ _

"And, as by possibility it may so happen that from and
after the second, third, fourth, or other younger son of my
said nephew Nathaniel (No. 2), or the heirs male of his or
their respective body or bodies,
.shall under the limitations
aforesaid have come into possession of mysaid hereditaments
and real estate, the eldest or elder son of my said nephew
Nathaniel (No. 2) or the heirs male of his body may
die and become extinct, so that the second or other younger
son of my said nephew Nathaniel (No. 2), or the heirs male
of the body of such second or other younger son, may be-
come entitled to the property settled on the marriage of the
said Nathaniel (No. 2) in the character of then heir male of
the body; now, in order to prevent the union of the two
estates in the same person while there ie in existence a
younger son or an heir male'of the body of a younger son of
my said nephew Nathaniel (No. 2), I do by this my will
direct and declare that, in case the second or other younger
son or the heirs male of the body of such younger son shall
by the death or failure of issue male of the eldest or other
elder son become entitled to the said settled property of my
said nephew Nathaniel (No. 2) as the heir male of his body,
then .the limitations in this my will in favour of such second
or other younger son so becommg entitled shall immediately
after such event cease and become void, and the next
younger son of my said nephew Nathaniel (No. 2) and the
heirs male of his body shall, under the limitations of this
ray will, become entitled to my real estate aforesaid in
such
manner in every respect as if the next elder brother or the
issue male of his body had been dead or become extinct."

-------
John of 1822 died in 1824, and Sir Peckham entered
into possession of the Iridge estate under that will,
and Nathaniel No. 2 took possession of the estates
devised by the will of 1797. In April, 1826, Natha-
niel No. 2 and his eldest son, Col. Micklethwait,
conveyed the property in Surrey, Middlesex, and
London to Jonathan George, the third son of John
of 1797, whereby the devise of the Iridge estate to
Jonathan George became void, and the devise of that
estate to Nathaniel No. 2 and his sons took effect.
Nathaniel No. 2 made a will in 1852, and devised
Hickling and other estates to his eldest son by.
`the first marriage, Col. Micklethwait, for life, with
remainder to his sons in tail male, with remainder
to his second son, John Nathaniel (the _plaintiff in
error), for life, and to his sons, with remainder
to his third son, Henry (the defendant in error.)
Col. Micklethwait died in 1856 without issue. The
plaintiff in error; John Nathaniel, took possession
of the Hickling and Beeston estates and other pro-
perty devised by the will of 1797, Upon this gtato