The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-20 00:00:00

L 41.79" INTE.

THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPgA.L--ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CHAMBERS AND OTHERS

-ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. REES AND OTHERS.
It will be remembered that the contention in these causes
relates to the claims of the Crown and coterminous land-
owners to the lands of the sea shore where the tide ebbs and
flows at Llanellthelly, Carmarthenshire, South Wales.
The Lord Chancellor said that, on considering the affi-
davits produced in these appeal causes, it was impossible
for him to come to a satisfactory judgment without having
the facts ascertained by the verdict of a jury. His lord-
ship said he would direct an issue to try three facts-
-Ist. What were the proprietary acts, direct or indirect, of
the defendants or any other person or persons on the lands
of the sea shore in question. 2. What was the natural line
of the sea shore in length and breadth from the low to high
water mark, from one boundary to another, up to a certain
extent; and also where the soil gradually or perceptibly
declines at high and low water, and diminishes the sea
water in its progress ; and 3d, whether there is in reality
any part or pertinent by which the natural line may be as-
certained. A fourth issue was proposed to ascertain to
what extent the colliery on the sea shore was worked at
low and high water, in low or spring tides, and whether
they were obliged to abandon the works at high water or
spring tides.

Counsel in the cause agreed to adjust the issues and sub•
mit them to his lordship,

The venue was not fixed, but it is supposed to be Car•
marthen.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
JUDGMENT-BEDDOES V. PUGS.
His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—This is a suit
to carry into effect the trusts declared in the deed of July
19, 1859. The quesition raised was whether the donee of a
power was entitled to execute a mortgage deed for his own
benefit. William Pugh, the father, had a power of appoint-
ment under his marriage settlement, and on his son,
William Bentley Pugh, attaining his
.majority on the
21st of January, 1851, he executed the power of appointment
in his favour, and being desirous to raise money on his
property with consent of his son, William Bentley Pugh, he
mortgaged it for £28,000. His brothers and sisters dis-
puted their father's and brother's right to grant the mort •
gage in question, being eestui qui trustees under the mar-
riage contract, and held the property in trust for their benefit,
and therefore the mortgage-deed was ipso facto null and
void. His Honour considered that the mortgage-deed
was not void, and there was nothing to prevent the Court
acting upon it until a bill was filed and an order obtained
upon it setting aside the mortgage, and ordering it to be
delivered up and cancelled.

Counsel agreed to arrange the minutes upon which a de-
claration would be made within 14 days.

Counsel in the cause, Mr. R. Palmer, Q.C., and Mr
Goldsmid, Q.C.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
STRAKER V. LUCAS.

Plaintiff is a compositor, and defendant is the
registeied proprietor of the Horning star. Mr.
Buchatan appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. W. Shun
for the defendant The action, was brought to recover
£5 10s. 6d..—£l 10s. 6d. wages actually earned, and £4
for wrongful dismissal.

Mr. Shaen took a technical objection to the form of the
action; but Mr. Buchanan said it was a form most common
in this court, and proceeded with the cause.

Plaintiff is a compositor, and lately employed on the
Morning Star. On a certain occasion plaintiff absented
himself from his frame (Wednesday night), and put
no one in his frame; but on Thursday plaintiff again
absented himself, and on this occasion he put a person
named Thompson into his frame. This, it was contended,
debarred defendant from summarily discharging plaintiff.
The, plaintiff was called, and said that on the 16th
of February, Mr. Donaldson, the then overseer at
the Star, gave notice of his intention to resign. A" chapel"
was held, and a deputation waited on Mr. Donaldson urg-
ing him not to resign. Plaintiff took a little too much, and
absented himself from his frame. Nothing was said, and
on Thursday plaintiff put Thompson into his (plaintiff's)
frame. Thompson worked at the frame antl the bill was
sent in, claiming £1 10s. 6d., in Straker's name, leaving
a blank for Thompson's amount. Thompson was paid, but
anything further was refused. It was customary to put a
man into a frame. It was customary to give and take a
fortnight's notice. Plaintiff was paid by thehour.

Cross-examined—Plaintiff had been twice 'discharged
from the Star. He had not been absent several times
through drunkenness. Wheri he was engaged he was told
that he must give and take a fortnight's notice. " Bridg-
ing" a frame is absenting yourself without finding a sub-
stitute. I "bridged" my frame on Wednesday, being
absent, as I was intoxicated. On Thursday witness was
absent from illness, and at seven he put Thompson in
When witness found his bill was not paid he applied t% Mr.
Donaldson, who told him he had lost his frame and his
wages. Witness asked for £1 10s. 6d., and sold nothing
about his notice.

W. Thompson said he was a compositor on the Star. He
was put into a frame on the 17th February by Mr. Straker.
In the course of the night Mr. Donaldson told witness to
keep the frame altogether. It was customary to allow an
absentee to put in a substitute, but that person must be
acknowledged by the overseer.

Cross-examined--Straker put me into the frame about
five o'clock, and Mr. Donaldson first spoke to me about ten
o'clock. Ho said, as nearly as I remember, " Take that

Frame."

Francis Bagge said he had been a compositor on the Star,
and he had many cases similar in his recollection. Mr.
Donaldson has forgiven many a man. It is usual to send
in a "grass," provided he is not green. (Laughter.) It
was in the power of the overseer to dismiss or forgive.
Mr. Shaen said the whole facts were that plaintiff had
absented himself from his work, and that it was for Mr.
Donaldson to forgive or discharge. A witness had said tha
lifting a type condoned the offence of " bridging ;" that might
do for the compositor, but it would not do for the master.
As to the offence being condoned, he (Mr. Shean) would
like to have his Honour's opinion upon the word. In this
case the plaintiff had discharged himself by " bridging"his
frame, and was not entitled to a fortnight, He had absented
himself through getting drunk, and I contend he has been
rightly refused his money.

Mr. Donaldson said it was his custom, when overseer,
and a custom well known, to discharge a man for "bridging"
his frame. There were only two rules—forgiveness, or dis-
missal and non-payment.

Cross-examined—This offence was not condoned. Thomp-
son had no right to go on without my permission, and no
man had a right to send in another man after "bridging"
his frame. Stroke had repeatedly ".bridged" his frame and
had been forgiven.
Mr. Cross said he was now overseer at the Star. It was
the understood custom not to pay for a broken week.
Mr. Buchanan then addressed the Court upon the subject
of condonation. His Honour had intimated that he was
against plaintiff, and he should leave it to the Court.
His Honour was of opinion that condonation was for-
givenness ; and he did not think the fact of Thompson's
going in was a condonation, as it was sworn that he should
be a recognised man. Now he was not recognised for
Straker. As to the wages actually earned, it was like in-
flicting a fine on the compositor. There was no custom
shown upon this point, and he must reserve his judgment
till the.2d of May ; finding for defendant as to the notice.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THE OMNIBUS NUISANCE AT REGENT-CIRCUS.—John
Brown, conductor, in the employ of Mr. Peter Allen, pro-
prietor of the omnibus 6,203, was charged on the complaint
of the Rev. James Brown, of 7, Upper Portland-place,
with obstructing the crossing at the Regent-circus, Oxford-
street.

The Rev. James Brown said that on the night of Friday
week, from five minutes from 11 till 20 minutes past the
omnibus 6,203, of which the defendant was the conductor,
was on the crossing. It was a very wet night, and there
were several persons waiting to go. He asked the driver
to move on, when he became very violent, said he was no
gentleman, and that he could go behind if he liked. He
was in consequence obliged to go behind, and close to the
pole of another omnibus, and as the practice was prevalent,
and it was a great nuisance, he had come forward on public
grounds to try to put a stop to it.

The defendant said he should have summoned the coach-
man. He could not help what he did.
Mr. Beadon said he could. It was his duty to order the
driver to go on. The omnibus was under his control,
and if the driver did not obey his orders he should
have complained to his employer. He should fine him
3s. and costs for not doing his duty.
The defendant said it was very hard that he should
be fined for another, and as ho was leaving the court
told the reverend complainant that he ought to be ashamed
of himself.

Mr. Beadon said if he heard such language again he
would soon put a stop to it.

ROOF STRIPPING.—Joseph Moore, a young man, was
committed for trial for stealing a quantity of lead from
the roof of the house, 27, New Compton-street, the
property of Mr. James Smith, of 14, Greek•street, and
which the prosecutor stated would cost £4 to replace.
The prisoner said at first that he did not steal it, but
be would plead guilty on condition that he was not sent for
trial.