The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-30 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY)

The MASTER of the Roils and Mr. Justice 130SANQUET sat as
Lords Commissioners to-day. Their Lordships took motions, none
'of which *ere of any public importance.

VICE-CHANCERY-(TAIS DAY.)

His HONOUR took motions to-day.
LEWIS V. LANODON.
Mr. KNIGHT, with whom was Mr. DUCKWORTH, applied in
this case upon notice for an injunction to restrain the defendant
from using the name of Brookman and Langdon, on pencils ma-
nufactured by him. The defendant was the son of Mr. Langdon,
the eminent pencil maker, and the plaintiffs were the personal re-
Zesentatives of the firm. The defendant, lived at No. 27, Great
4ussell=street, Bloomsbury. The defendant was the executor
of Mrs. Langdon' and had been in the .habit of putting the name
of Brookman and Langdon to the pencils he manufactured.
Sir Wm. Hoawx.and Mr. WAKEFIELD opposed the application.
His HoNoun. directed the injunction to issue, but as the case
Was one of great importance, his Honour felt called upon to direct
a ease for the opinion of a court of law, for the purpose of ascer-
taining the defendant's right to use the names of Brookman and
aangdon to the pencils manufactured by him.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE ICING V. THE JUSTICES OF MIDDLESIZE.

The ATTORNET-GENERAL, in this case, shewed cause against a
'~de for a mandamus moved for against the Justices of Middlesex,
!Id commanding them to issue a warrant of distress for enforcing
r payment of certain rates assessed upon David Myers, William
l'rookbank, John Goodlad, I. Bell, and other inhabitants of the
Parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, by a rate and assessment made
tlrt th'e 9th April last; for defraying the expenses of paving, watch-
. ug, cleansing, and lighting that parish. The case had been
Drought before Sir F. Hoe, hnd the other police magistrates of
1101'-street, who had decided that they could not interfere, and an
application was now made for a mandamus, the effect of which
never
be to make them liable to an action of trespass. There
'"er was a case in which there was less ground for such an appli-
A'ation, for the parties had their remedy by civil _action under two
different Acts of Parliament. In this case the Magistrates had
a reasonable doubt of the validity. of the rate, and this was
Mother ground why the Court should not consent to the
tPplication. The Paving Board, by whom the rate had been im-
Posed, had been appointed by the select vestry of the parish, under
" Act passed in the 23d year of the reign of Geo. 111. The
third section of that Act provided for the appointment of twenty-
fo°l' inhabitants, inhabitants, twelve of whom were to be vestrymen. On the
" of February, notice was given of, a meeting of the select vestry
for this u e and on the 15th they assembled for that purpose ;
but purpose '
the.lmmediately afterwards a large number of the inhabitants forced
ir
way into the vestry-room, and insisted upon their right to ap-
point the Paving Committee, they being of opinion that there was
;_Io • legal select 'vestry existing in the parish. Mr. Church-
. warden Holroyd, who was in the chair, immediately, adjourned the
Ziq, and the parishioners proceeded to tielec a Paving Board, but
eg? never acted as such. A notice was ssued by the Vestry
rk, calling a meeting of the select vestry the same evening at 7
I3elock, and they proceeded at that hour to appoint a Paving Board,
:21tio have since that time conducted the business of the parish, and
nosed the rate in question. The Learned Counsel contended
flat if the select vestry was a legal one, the' appointment had
tat been made within the hours of ten and to, as prescribed
the Act--that the Chairman had no- :authowrity to adjourn the
ey,estrY, and that the meeting 'in the evening was a distinct
*f. which notice should have heen gven in tl;e Church.
bePon all these grounds he submitted that thei rile in this case-should
discharged.
at Mr. PLATT-folloWed on the same side. It was evident from the
r,,,.t:oment made by the learned-Attorney-General, that the Paving
4-7mittee by whom the rule had been imposed, were not appointed
"lACcordance with the provisions of the Act, and therefore the ma-
tistrates were fully justified in refusing to issue their warrant. The
question (*whether the Committee appointedby the inhabitants was
good or not, had nothing to do with the case before the Court.
Sir Wu. FOLLETT in support of the rule argued, that if this was
14°t a legal body, there was none in the parish. It was of very
great importance to the parish that the Court should at once dis-
Ire of the case, as the Committee were anxious for their Lord-
Ps's opinion as to whether they had been legally appointed or not.
Until the point was decided the parish must go unlighted and
IMwatched, as a great number of the parishioners had refused to
Pay the rate. It had been urged that the parties could bring their
action' but even if an action could lie, of which he had some
doubts, there was no time, as the funds must be at once raised.
Lord DENMAN said the Court was of opinion that this rule
roust be discharged, and of the small and simple ground that the
Pasties had a speedy remedy, under the Act 57 Geo. 111. sec. 38,
:ailed Michael Angelo Taylor's. Act, which seemed almost framed
for that purpose. Because, most undoubtedly, if the question
!.°llld be tried by action, it was much better the opinion of the
uourt should be thereby obtained, than that a mandamus should
Re to the trustees to compel them to do an act which would expose
Zetmitn an action of trespass. On these grounds alone, and with-
of the asvc'nge the smallest opinion or intimation upon any of the facts
, the Court .felt that it would best discharge its duty by
of
tellK in ing
individual., that where another course was open, the Court
discharged, ged. 's Bench should- not be moved for such a purpose..—Rule

EXCHEQUER COURT -(THIS DAY.)

-ROSS V. HUMHRIES•
This action was tried before Mr.P
Baron Gurney at the sittings
after last Term, when the plaintiff was nonsuited.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT now moved for a rule to show cause why
that nonsuit should not be set aside, and a new trial hid. The ac-
"on was brought by Mr. Ross, a barrister, as a trustee, upon a eon-
tract by which the defendant bound himself to pay to certain trus-
tees a sum of 1001. per annum so long as he was allowed to retain
a situation as commission-agent for the sale of the produce of a
I.,Vest Indian estate. The first ground upon which the Learned
nulge had nonsuited was, that the plaintiff was bound 'to produce
contract in writing, which he did not do. The second ground
41‘ts, that there was a variance between the proof and the declai a-
"°o. With respect to the first, which was the main point, hewould
oidy cite the ease of Barnett v. Glossop in the Common Pleas,
Where it was held that unless the matter was specially pleaded, the
Objection could not be raised, because it then formed no part of the
record,
The-COuirr iefused the Rule.- -
While Mr. Baron BOLLAND was reading the Judges' notes of the
~,41eti g
ce iven on the tr, r. Ross, aintiff in the
was sitting behind ial
SirM W. Follett,the rosepl and said " Thatrause, is
Mr. Baron G oRNEY—Mr. Ross, after I had taken the evidence,
read it over to the witness, and she assented to it.
Mr. Boss—Not that part of it—not that part of it lam certain.
. The other Barons., who had been quite astonished, desired Mr.
Ross to sit down.
Mr. Baron GURNEY-1 took down every word of the evidence
h most carefully, and then read every word of it to the witness as it
Itilow been read, and she assented to it all.
A`r. Ross—My Lord, you haVe taken it down incorrectly.
,IT! Baron ALDERSON—Mr. Ross, you must sit down.
"r• Ross—My Lord; the' Learned Judge -has tak.c.n down the
"Kleoce incorrectly.
All the B.sitoris—You must be quiet, Sir—sit clown.
. ,21r. Ross—l cannot sit here and hear evidence so perverted. I
"L.itreated with great injustice.
elfG • - M R • •conduct now, is it was on
the Baron URNEI —V. Ross, our
``4ll, is most indecent. That is a most indecent observation.
14„..,
the evidence most correctly, and it was assented_ to—every
old, of it—by the witness.,.
de Mr.. Ross--It is not correct—it is a gross perversion of the evi-
. sown,Baron ALDERSON (with much warmth)—You must sit
.
M. Ross (considerably excited)-1 cannot sit here, and hear
perversion of
down.P Baron ALDERSON (with increased warmth)—You must sit
oW, Sir, and behave with more ropriety if you do not, the
t:ucers must removeyou from the Copurt. lam sorry to be under
eecssit v of saying so to any gentleman of the Bar.
the'rhe, Cou'om then proceeded with their judgment, and refused
the ??OS :-+eTted Mr. Baron Gurney, saying, " Mind
m - .•-
,„ anner in which the contract Was you
ed."
vg'"r. Baron ALDERSON—Mr. Ross, you really must not do so.
3.
is ,4 are personally concerned in the case, and such an exhibition
Indecent. Had it been professional warmth or feeling, it would
,c ac been more excusable.
Ross--My Lord, I have no pecuniary interest in the matter,
..:!11 a mere trustee.
tp
r• Baron ALDEON—II is a personal feeling; you are brother-
law to the witness.RS
Ibis' extraordinary scene here terminated, and the Court pro•
-",u with the new trial paper.