The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 19, 1859.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.

(Afore the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)
JUDGMENT.-ALLAWAY V. BRAIN.

The contention in this case arose on the validity of the
sale of several shares of miners' gales in the Forest of
Dean. It appears that in the month of November, 1838,
the deputy-governor of her Majesty's Woods and Forests
made a grant of a mining gale in the Forest of Dean, de-
scribed as Freepipl Gale, to two miners of the name of
James and ElisTa Mullen ; and on the following day
other gales were granted to other miners of the names
of Roberts, Doubleday, James Mullan, and the defen-
dant, Cornelius Brain. Dymock and Brain carried
on business in partnership, which was early dis-
solved. Mullen, Barnet, and Brain formed a new com-
pany. In March, 1846, Roberts and Doubleday, two of the
four miners, entered into partnership with Hawkins. And
on the Bth of June, 1846, it is said that Elisha Mullen
and three of the other miners of the mine No. 124, entered
into an agreement with those in partnership with them, to
sell his share to them for £2O. Subsequently they entered
into an agreement with the defendant to sell them Mullan's
gale for £lso—ao paid down and a bill for £lOO, which
was afterwards paid, but Mullen refused to sign the con-
veyance.

His Honour, after considering the evidence
in this complicated transaction, came to the con-
clusion that he could not decree a sale of the whole benefit
of the shares in the gale, but a portion only. His Honour
allowed the plaintiff's claim to three-fourth shares of the
mine, and excepted Elisha Mullan's one-fourth share in
respect that he refused to convey it, and the plaintiff had
sufficient notice of his claim to it ten years ago, and did not
remove it by filing a bill in chancery in due time for spe •
cific performance of an agreement which he denied he was
a party to, or had any interest therein, and refuses to'convey
his share in the mining gale in question to the plaintiff.
His Honour dismissed the plaintiff's bill without costs,
except so much of the costs as relates to this part of the
suit.

STEPHENS V. BRETON.

This case same on to be mentioned as to costs.

His Honour, the Master of the Rolls, said—ln this case
I said I would speak to my chief clerk on the subject of
costs. I have consulted with him on the subject, and lam
of opinion I should give no costs on either side. The rest
of the matter was settled at the time the case was last
before me.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C'.)
PATENT MEDICINE AND ITS VALUE.-CASSEBAUM V.

HOLECHITZ.

This was an action to recover £2 25., for analyising some
ointment.

Mr. Perry (from Mr. Buchanan's) appeared for the plain-
tiff, and stated that he was an analytical chemist. A short
time ago defendant brought him a box of ointment, desiring
him to analyse it, and give defendant the result. The de-
fendant was told that the fee would be £2 25., and he made
no objection. The analysis was made, and plaintiff in-
formed the defendant that the cost of the ointment would
be 31d. per box, upon which defendant said that was too
much, and refused to pay plaintiff for his trouble.
_

For the defence it was contended that plaintiff had never
been employed by defendant, and that he analysed the oint-
ment for his own benefit.

Mr. Perry—That is not trim Plaintiff knew all about

it, and therefore did not require to do so. He told defen-
dant that whether he received orders or not his fee for ana-
lysing would be £2 2s. If his Honour would adjourn the
ease such evidence would be produced as would quickly
show that plaintiff had .been specially engaged to analyse
the ointment.

His Honour agreed to do so.—Adjourned accordingly.

WHITECHAPEL COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Manning.)
SEAMEN'S ADVANCE NOTES.-FINN V. DAVIES.
This was an action to recover a sum of money due upon a
seaman's advance note cashed by plaintiff. The note was
produced, and Mr. Buchanan, for defendant, argued that
the note had been cashed after the seaman, in whose favour
it was made out, had deserted the ship.
Plaintiff—The note promises to pay after the sailing of
the ship, and I contend that the defendant must pay.
Mr. Buchanan—The note was not presented till some
time after the ship had sailed, and the defendant, receiving
information that the seaman had deserted, considered he
was not bound to pay.

His Honour—You see, Mr. Buchanan, that the note
promises to pay three days after the sailing of the ship, and
you must show that the man did not sail in her at all to
nullify that promise. _

Mr: Buchanan—He deserted some time afterwards.
His Honour—Plaintiff is *entitled to a verdict. (To Mr.
Buchanan)—Your usual succes has not attended you in this
case, sir. We must have the law. (Laughter.)

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CHARGE AGAINST A COFFEE-SHOP KEEPER OF STEAL-
ING A WATCH.—Thomas Spencer, described as a coffee-
house keeper, of 17, Little Tichfield-street, was charged
with stealing a silver watch of the value of £6 from the
person of Mr. Thomas Griffiths, a fencing-master, at the
Crown and Sceptre, Foley-street. _ _

The prosecutor said that that morning between five and
six he was having some stout with the prisoner, who was a
stranger to him, at a public-house in Foley-street, when
the prisoner suddenly snatched his watch from his waistcoat
pocket and handed it to a man, who immediately started off,
he being totally unable to retain him owing to the sudden-
ness of the robbery. Prosecutor charged him with taking
it, when ho denied having done so.
Police-constable 45 G said on taking him into custody he
denied all knowledge of it. •
- _

Mr. Pethors, an inspector of the E division, said the ac-
cused was known as a frequenter of Caunt's and other
fighting houses.

The prisoner said he went into a house to have a glass of
stout when a quarrel took place between some gentlemen.
A person came up to him (prisoner) and asked if he did not
think the prosecutor had got out of the quarrel without a
good hiding? The landlady said she would serve him with
no more drink, and they went to the above house, where
there were some women in front of the bar, and the prose-
cutor shortly after said he had lost his watch, and that his
friend (the man who had spoken to him) had taken it. He
denied he was a friend of his, and prosecutor afterwards
seeing a constable gave him into custody, at the time saying
he saw him take it.

Prosecutor (recalled) said he was certain prisoner took it,
and why he did not seize him was because the other had
got the watch he went after him.
Remanded.