The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-10 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.

(Peers present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth,
Lord Wensleydale, Lord Kingsdown, and other peers.)
APPEAL-GEMMEL ET AL V. HER MAJESTY'S COMMISSION-
ERS OF WOODS, &C., AND THE LORD ADVOCATE FOR

SCOTLAND.-FURTHER REARING ON THE RE-REARING

This was an appeal from a decision of the Court of Ses-
sion in Scotland, holding that the appellant was *not
entitled to fish in the open sea opposite his lands
of Portlethen, in the county of Kincardine, and in
respect that the charter to his lands did not contain a grant
of salmon fishing which belongs to the Crown, jus regalia.
Mr. Anderson, Q.C., resumed his argument in reply for
the appellant this morning. The learned counsel contended
that the appellant had a right to fish in the sea in virtue of
his territorial grant.

The Lord Chancellor observed there was a difference be-
tween the right of white fishing and salmon fishing in
rivers, estuaries, and in the sea. Salmon fishings require
a grant from the Crown. It did pass by a grant of
lands. • Fishings might be feudalised in rivers and estu-
aries, and he could not see the difference in not feudalising
salmon fishings in the sea.

Mr. Anderson said it had not yet been done, and where
it was not done the proprietors were entitled to fish in the
sea ex adverse of their lands ; that fishing was a patrimo-
nial right and not a hereditary revenue jus regalia; and,
in conclusion, asked their lordships to reverse the decision
of the court below.
At the conclusion of the arguments,

The Lord Chancellor, after consulting with their lord-
ships, adjourned the further consideration of the case sine
die.

Judgment reserved.

• COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
A FAILURE THROUGH A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT.-IN RE

COLLINS.

This bankrupt was described as of Ryder-terrace, City-
road, draper, and to-day was appointed for consideration of
his certificate.

The accounts, by Messrs. Hart Brothers shows Dr. to
creditors, £6,106 ; assets, good debts, £250 ; property
£2,980; losses, £2,228.

The case was one of a peculiar character. The bankrupt
married a lady of some property and settled it upon her, but
subsequently, in 1843, borrowed of the trustees a sum of
£5OO for the purpose of business, which ho had carried on
successfully for many years, until a bridge over the.canal
from the Eagle Tavern, in the City-road, to the Angel, at
Islington, was pulled down, and was for months stopped to
traffic, when the takings had been at the rate of from £3O
to £4O a week.

For the bankrupt it was urged that the failure was un-
avoidable, and that the realised assets would pay a dividend
of 10s. in the pound to the creditors, and that the bank-
ruptcy was in truth brought on by the surviving trustee
under the marriage settlement calling in the advance and
interest for years. _ _ _

His Honour said that was no more than the duty of the
trustee to protect the interest of a wife, and not allow a
fraud to be perpetrated by the husband on the wife, by
giving a bond which would deprive her of both capital and
interest.

Bankrupt's solicitor said that the wife never intended to
ask for the money.

His Honour said that was no justification for the bank-
rupt's conduct in obtaining money expressly devoted to the
use of the wife ; it was a fraud on her, and there had been
laches on the part of the trustees in lending the money, but
as no one appeared to oppose, he would grant a certificate
of the second class, but it was a bad case, and he strongly
reprehended such conduct.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)

RAILWAY OMNIBUSES AND COLLISIONS.-WILLIAMSON

V. BRASS.

This was an action to recover L 5 for a damaged panel.
The plaintiff is proprietor of a South-Western Railway
'bus, and his driver stated that at four o'clock on the 4th
February last he was proceeding down Ludgate-hill at a
walking pace, and the defendant's driver (in charge of a
timber-cart) ran into him and broke his panel.
Mr. Beard, for defendant, said that plainttff's driver was
in a hurry to catch the four o'clock train, and by his own
eagerness caused the damage. He contended that no negli-
gence was shown to have been displayed by defendant's
servant, and that he was entitled to a verdict.

His Honour said that he was not satisfied with the evi-
dence, and found for defendant with costs.

THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK AGAIN.-EXTRAORDINARY

CASE.-TILE LONDON AND PROVINCIAL PROVIDENT

SOCIETY V. HOWELL.

This was an action to recover £26 13s. 2d., fife balance
of a loan of £3O advanced, as alleged, to the defendant by
the plaintiffs, through one Dr. Beck.
Defendant, a young maiden lady, pleaded never indebted.
It appeared, according to the statement of various wit-
nesses called by plaintiff, that in the year 1856 Dr. Beck
applied to the society, of which he was medical officer and
a director, for a loan of £3O fur one Maria Howell. A pro-
missory note was handed in, and a cheque for £3O given
by the secretary drawn in favour of Miss Howell. A short
time afterwards it was discovered that the promissory note
was drawn on a wrong stamp, and it was handed back to
the doctor, who promised to get another, but never did.
The evidence produced t. prove the drawing of the cheque
was the counterfoil, and this being objected to, and the ori-
ginal cheque called for, plaintiff's solicitor said the
society bad banked with the Royal British Bank, and
through the bankruptcy had been unable to obtain the
cheques.

His Honour did not think there would be any difficulty—
a cheque cashed, and cancelled by the banker, became the
property of the drawer.
Plaintiff's Solicitor—We have applied to Messrs. Link-
later on the subject, but they cannot help us.
His Honour—Why should they ? Upon applying to
the proper persons you will have the cheque.
It was then stated that Dr. Beck bad paid to the society
three instalments for Miss Howell.
For the defence it was insisted that there was no evidence
against the defendant, and Dr. Beck said he never applied
to the society for a loan and never received one, neither
had he paid any instalments. He had opened two loans for
the defendant from another society, but not from this.
Defendant's solicitor said the fact was, that two societies
carried on business in the same building, and the officers
had got into inextricable confusion.
His Honour said there was no evidence against the de-
fendant, who must have a verdict with costs.
Upon the question of railway expenses for defendant, it
was said she lived in London, and the summons was re-
turned as served personally at Vere-street, Oxford-street,
but some evidence taken proved that a person living at that
place represented defendant, who was not in London at the
time of service, and the costswere allowed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

BOW-STREET.

VIOLENT ASSAULT.—A man named Bulbeck was placed
inthe dock, charged with assault.
Mr. Hall, of Long •acre, said—Last evening the prisoner,
in a state of drunkenness, entered his premises without the
slightest right, and proceeded to the carriage-smiths' shop
and commenced disturbing and quarrelling with the work-
men. They endeavoured peaceably to prevail upon him to
quit the place, but he resolutely refused, and said it would
i,rkke a good man to put him out. On being sent for, he
(Mr. Hall) proceeded to the workshop, and ordered the
prisoner to quit the place. He again refused, and again
began to disturb the workmen to such an. extent that
he {was compelled to send-for the police to remove him.
Immediately the police constable attempted to remove the
prisoner he commenced a violent attack upon him, throw-
ing him down, and kicking him severely. Assistance was
procured, but before the prisoner was lodged iii the station-
house it took the united exertions of five cons tables to con-
vey him thither.
The police constable gave similar evidence. Ho said, in
addition, that the prisoner had severely inju red him and
another constable, so much so that they we re prevented
from performing their duty.
The magistrate asked the inspector whether, if he sent
the case to the sessions, the commissioners would pro-
secute ?
The inspector said he thought not. The constable was
not so severely injured as to keep his bed, and he thought
after two or three days' rest he would be' able to resume
duty.
The magistrate said the conduct of the prisoner was dis-
graceful and brutal. In the first place, he in a state of
drunkenness entered a place where he had no business, and
then, on being requested to leave, he assaulted every per-
son who came near him. It was very fortunate that the
constable had not been more seriously injured, for if such
had been the case he would have sentenced him to a much
longer imprisonment. In the present instance he should
send him to prison for a month, without the option of a fine.