The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-24 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.

THE BURGESSES OF THE CORPORATION OF RUTHIN
V. ADAMS.

This motion was partly heard before the last vacation.
The bill was filed by the burgesses of the corporation of
Ruthin against Mr. Adams, who was alleged to have been
their agent, and to have received the rents of certain lands
belonging to the corporation, for which he bad not fully
accounted. The time for demurring to the bill having
elapsed, and his Honour having refused an application by
Mr. Booth to extend the time, the present motion was
made at his Honour's suggestion in lieu of the demurrer,
to have. the bill taken off the file, on the ground that the
burgesses of Ruthin were not a corporation, so that if the
bill were dismissed at the hearing, there was no party on
the record against whom the defendant could recover his
costs. The supposed charter of incorporation, it was con-
tended, was nothing more than a deed of enfranchisement,
by which Henry VII., himself a Welshman, restored to
the tenants of Ruthin, and of the lordship in which it was
situated, the rights of Englishmen, of which the Welsh
generally had been deprived by Henry IV.
Mr. TEMPLE, in opposition to the motion, submitted
that it was irregular, not having been made before any step
was taken in the suit.

Mr. KNIGHT having replied,
His HONOUR said the case, as it was submitted to him,
was one of considerable difficulty, for it involved not only
the legal construction of the charter itself, but very impor-
tant matters of fact connected with it.

After some discussion, it was agreed that an issue should
be directed, to try whether, in the terms of the bill, there
was any corporation known by the name of the burgesses
of the borough of Ruthin, with liberty to indorse special
circumstances.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

LONGDEN AND ANOTHER V. ALLEN AND SAMUEL TAYLOR.

Mr. BALGUY moved for a rule to show cause why there
should not be a new trial in this case, on the ground of a
misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge. This was
an action of trespass, for taking a stocking-machine as a
distress for rent ; and the question was, whether a stocking
machine was not an implement of trade, and as such pro-
tected from liability to distress. The cause was tried at
Derby, before the Lord Chief Justice Tindal, when it ap-
peared that the frame had been in use for some time be-
fore the distress, that it was used on the Saturday night be-
fore the distress, and again at an early hour on Monday
morning, and when seized as a distress had some unfinished
web in it. The seizure was made when the machine was
at work, and was consequently illegal. The Learned
Judge, however, would not direct the Jury to find a verdict
for the plaintiff, but left it as a question for them whether
the working of the frame at that time was or was not a
colourable working. On the facts of this case such a
question ought not to have been left to their consideration.
Rule to show cause granted.
WANSBOROUGH V. MATON.

Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHFR stated that this was an
action of trover for a barn, and the question was
whether or not such an action was maintainable.
The plaintiff was the executor of a person who had
been the occupier of a farm belonging to the defen-
dant, and on the expiration of the term attempted to
take away the barn, but was prevented by the defendant.
The case was tried at the last Assizes for Salisbury, when
a verdict was found for the plaintiff. That verdict he now
moved to set aside, on the ground, first, that trover would
not lie for a barn ; and, secondly, that the refusal of the
defendant to let the plaintiff go on the premises to remove
the barn was not a conversion so as to enable the plaintiff
to support this action.

The COURT granted the rule on the first point, and re-
fused it on the second.

UITCHCOCK V. COHER.

Mr. ERLE moved an arrest of judgment in this case.
This was an action against the defendant on a contract, by
which be bound himself, in consideration of being at that
time in the employment of the plaintiff; that if at any time
thereafter, directly or indirectly, he should in his own name
or for his own use and benefit, carry on the business of a
chemist or druggist within the town of Taunton, he should
pay the sum of 5001. as liquidated damages. The cause
was tried at the last Somersetshire Assizes before Mr.
Baron Gurney, when a verdict was given for the amount of
500/. The Learned Counsel now contended that the con-
tract was illegal within the principle laid down in the cases
on the subject.—Rule to show cause granted.