The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1835.

without its adoption we arT,ionfident that no good can '
be done ; and, secondly, hebause it contains within it-
self the germs of all other reforms which could be de-
sired in the constitution of the House of Peers, by
Reformers of every grade and every description of
political sentiment ; and if it be thought by some
that we have proposed more than the Crown would
accede to, on the one hand, or the public be able to
carry, on the other, we reply that we detract not in
the slightest degree from the prerogative of the
one, nor propose the doing of that which has not
been already done. We limit not the power of the
Crown to make Peers—let it enjoy the gewgaw
while there are those who ambition it—let it exercise
the privilege to any extent that it may desire without
fear, check, or controul : but let the people have, as
they ought to have, the right of choosing those who
are to make laws for them. This is all that we ask
—all that we desire—and it is that also which, if
not speedily granted, will be wrung .by the people
at no distant period, and under less agreeable cir-
cumstances than at present, from those who, for their
own selfish, corrupt, and unpatriotic objects, with-
hold it from them. With regard to the practica-
bility of our plan (for of the details, however im-
portant, we say nothing at present), we shall simply
observe, that whatever the people will in justice
and in right, they can command in spite of all ob-
struction and in spite of all opposition. They are
not now what they once were—a dull, inert, incapa-
ble, unreasoning, and scattered and disconcerted mass,
without order, without union, without combination,or
capacity of uniform action—but a greatly improved
and improving people, accustomed to political discus-
sion ; not unskilled in political principles, cool in con-
sideration, calm in debate, firm as fearless in their
resolves, and exhibiting an ardour in all their pro-
ceedings, and a perfection of organization in their ac-
tions, of which the world has never seen even the
semblance of an image I And are a people of this
stamp and character to be put down by a handful of
Peers, superior only in wordly rank—inferior in almost
every other attribute that constitutes the man? Have
Englishmen degenerated since the days of Henry the
Fourth and Charles the First ? Proh Pudor !
Morning Advertiser.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.

HUTCHINGS V. SMITH.

Mr. KNIGHT appeared to show cause against dissolving
a common injunction restraining certain actions at law
brought against a woman in humble life, on documents pro-
cured from her by a solicitor. Besides what related
to these documents, the case involved a point on
which there was considerable difference of opinion. The
point was this, whether where there is a chose in action of
a wife not in reversion, an assignment by a husband to a
particular assignee for valuable consideration was or was
not to be considered such a reduction into possession as to
defeat the wife's title by survivorship ? The Learned
Counsel believed the husband could assign nothing but
what he could reduce into possession. If he was right in
his view that such an assignment did not bind the wife
surviving, the documents (which his client in this case
was made to execute without advice in an attorney's
office) assigning her right, could not stand for a mo-
ment. But, even treating the point vof law as very doubt-
ful, lie then maintained the actions could not be allowed to
proceed. The plaintiff, Ann Hutchings, was the widow of
Joseph Hutchings, a baker. Mrs. Hutchings was entitled
to an unascertained share of residue as one of a class of
legatees under the will of the testator, in a cause of Conden
v. Lord, Joseph Hutchings, being indebted to the de-
fendants, Langtons, who were extensive brewers,:in a sum
of 414/. in November, 1830, assigned her share to them
for securing the payment of the debt. The defendant Jo-
seph Smith, a solicitor at Maidenhead, prepared the secu-
rity. Hutchings died insolvent and intestate in November
following, before the amount of his wife's share had been
either ascertained or received : no person had ever admi-
nistered to him. Upon his death Mrs. Hutchings was
treated in the suit as entitled by survivorship. In July,
1834, the Master made his report, and on the 9th of
August, on further directions, one-fifth of the residue was
ordered to be transferred to her. As soon as the cause
was heard it occurred to Smith to make his security avail-
able. Mrs. Hutchings happened to be at a friend's in
Maidenhead. Smith's brother, George Smith, who is also
his town agent, happened to be in Maidenhead on his way
to Bristol. Mrs. Hutchings was sent for, and was pre-
vailed on to execute two formal instruments, with the
necessary words of art, one to secure the debt to the
brewers, and another to secure to Joseph Smith a debt con-
tracted by her husband, and for which she was in no way
liable. Upon these instruments she was afterwards arrested
and held to bail, but there having been some flaw in the
affidavit of debt, she was discharged on filing common bail.
This bill had since been filed to stay the actions, and to
have these instruments cancelled.

Mr. KINDERSLEY appeared for the defendants.
The VICE CHANCELLOR said, that with respect to
Smith's action the injunction must be continued. With
regard to the assignment, he could not but think the Lang-
tons would have had a right to the whole, subject to the
equity for a settlement. His notion at present therefore
was, that the injunction should be continued on terms of
this sort, that Mrs. Hutchings should bring into Court a
moiety of her share, say 3501.
Mr. KNIGHT would recommend his client to adopt that
proposition ; but if he should find that. it was inconvenient
to his client to get a friend to advance the money, he would
reserve his right to reply.
The matter, therefore, stands over.

HAMILTON V. RICHARDSON.

Mr. KNIGHT moved that the defendant, a solicitor at
Leeds, should pay into Court a sum of 2,0001., admitted by
his answer to be in his hands, being the produce of some
Columbian bonds of which he was trustee for the family of
the plaintiff. The case the defendant made was, that some
third person made a claim on them, a case which it was
utterly incompetent for an agent to make against his
principal.
His HONOUR said the order must be made.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, FRIDAY.

was refused on the ground of Mr. Child's having omitted
to sign his petition in due time.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

A young man, attired in the garb of a butcher, was yes-
terday placed at the bar, charged with having embezzled
divers sums of money, the property of his employer, Mrs.
Sarah Forster, a cattle dealer, of St. James's-walk,
Clerkenwell.—The prisoner was fully committed for trial.