The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 4, 1859.

BRITISH POSSESSIONS.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(TRIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET,

LUNATIC PETITION-IN RE WYNN.

This was a petition for the sale of as much of the lunatic's
estate, under agreement, as would realise £37,000, and the
proc *As to be paid into court.

I\M Piccard (first mortgagee) objec:ed, and demanded
immediate payment.

The Committee and Master in Lunacy approved of the
sale.

The Lord Chancellor ordered the sale, and the proceeds
to be paid into court, provision being made for Mr. Piccard's
claim.

APPEAL-PIGGOTT V. STRATTON. •

The further hearing of this appeal, from a decision of
Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood, was resumed
this morning, and was proceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Hill and
Blackburn.)
HARRISON V. KING.

Sergeant Tozer, on the part of the defendant, moved this
morning for a rule for a new trial in this case. The
learned gentleman, in the course of his remarks, said the
plaintiff was an undertaker, and the defendant the executor
of a deceased lady named Phipson. The lady was in the habit
of visiting with her son, who lived at Ipswich, and on her
decease ho gave an order to the plaintiff to conduct the
burial, which was to take place a considerable distance
from the spot where she died. The funeral was performed,
and the defendant, who was her executor, attended ; but
on the bill for the funeral, which amounted to C 5,
being sent in he objected to it as being 100
large, as some of the articles charged for were
totally unnecessary. At the former trial it was held
that as the executor had attended the funeral he
became liable, and gave their verdict accordingly for the full
amount. The defendant said ho ought to have been sued
as executor, and then he could hare paid a sum into court,
and that he was not personally liable as ho did not give the ,
ender.

The Court saw no reason for disturbing the verdict, and
refused the rule.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
CROOKENDEN V. FULLER.

The Judge Ordinary delivered judgment in this import-
ant case this morning. The case came on for trial before
his lordship, without a jury, en the 12th and 14th of July,
and the questions that arose wore, whether the testatrix
had abandoned her right of domicile, which' lwas in
England, and acquired one in France, and ff
much was the case, then was her will duly executed accord-
ing to the law of France, and whether the will was a due
execution of the power of appointment.
His Lordship was of opinion that the lady had not lost
her domicile, and therefore the will was valid.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

IMPORTANT POINTS OF PRACTICE ARISING OUT OP THE

NEW RULES.

Several members of the legal profession have requested
the reporters to make public the fact, that " unless three
clear days' notice off either side is given that either suitor
intends appearing by attorney only, a 7s. 6d. fee would be
allowed the solicitor who was successful." This is in ac-
cordance with the sth of the New Rules circulated by
Mr. Kerr on the Ist of September last. An abstract of
the rules appeared in the morning and evening journals and
the rules in extenso in the Lau Times. In the course of the
week several attorneys would 'cave been taken by surprise
at the question, " Have you given notice to the other side ?"
General ignorance of the existence of such a rule has been
expressed, and this notice will convoy to the profession
news of the greatest importame to them.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--j THIS DAY.)

SELLING NEWSPAPERS IN THE STREETS.—Joseph
Smith, a young man, son of Mr. Joseph Smith, wholesale
newsagent, of High-street, Bloomsbury, was charged be-
fore Mr. Bingham with causing an obstruction at the
Oxford-street end of the Tottenham-court-road, by selling
papers.

Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap-
peared for the accused.
Austin, 318 A, said at five the previous evening he saw
the prisoner selling newspapers at the corner of the Totten-
ham-court-road, Oxford-street end, which he was in the
habit of doing. lie was a sort of superintendent of boys
selling newspapers to the passers-by. The prisoner stood
on the footway, and ran after people very much, annoying
them by tin usting his papers in their faces. lle requested
him to go away, and he called him a" thief." Ho had
had many complaints from passers -by.
By Mr. Lewis—Psisener caused a crowd of people to as-
semble by calling him a" -- thief." Several persons
cried "shame." The prisoner was not in the middle of the
road. Never touched the lather. The father did not
threaten to report him.
Mr. Lewis said he did not think he should have to meet

the charge of improper language, which had evidently
been trumped up by the constable ; and it was only by the
clerk pressing the constable as to the obstruction that he
got from him the words. He would call witnesses, who
would prove the words were never made use of by the ac-
cused. The accused was only charged with obstruction,
and not with using improper words. The father was a
respectable man, and had long dealt in newspapers.
The constable said he had orders that, if they would
push their papers into peoples' faces, to take the biggest
into custody.
Inspector Potters s lid that, owing to the obstruction by
the omnibuses, shoeblacks, &c., they were ordered to keep
the place clear.

Mr. Smith, the father of the accused, said, while speaking
to his son, the constable came up and pushed him off the
pavement, lie told him ho thought he was exceeding his
duty, and had better look after thieves, instead of respect-
able persons. His son was not selling papers, and had at
the time only one old one under his arm.

By Mr. Lewis—He was not offering them to passers-by.
Had told him not to let the boys stand about as the con-
stable was a disagreeable fellow. His son walked across the
road, and a cab got between them, and on the cab passing
he found his son in custody, and on his asking the constable
the charge, he told him to mind his own business or he
would take him too. Ha never heard his son make use of
such an expression as that imputed to him. Ho was only
three yards off at the time, mid must have heard him.
Mr. Augustus Owersham, a proctor, residing at Osna-
burg-terrace, Regent's-park, said he was passing at the
time the boy was taken into custody, and he considered the
whole obstruction was caused by the conduct of the cow
stable, who spoke to the lad's father as if he was addressing
a dog. He did not hoar any one cry out " Shame."
never heard the accused make use of the words, "a
thief," and had only come forward as a duty.
Mr. Bingham said he should only do now what he should
have done had be not heard the witnesses. Every day he
observed that passengers were much importuned by these
boys, even when they get into omnibuses. The accused
might sell his papers—it was quite lawful for him to do so,
but not to inconvenience passengers. A person had no
right to obstruct the pavement in carrying on any business
whatever it was, selling papers or betting. As to the con-
stable's conduct, he had had orders to keep the pave-
ment clear, and perhaps his manners were not altogether
those of the drawing-room, and it was possible his beha+
viour was not so gentle as it might have been. He should
discharge the accused, but he must be careful not to cause
any obstruction.