The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-12 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIG ONCE.—Nov. 11.

VICE-CLIANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Stuart.)
TIIE KING OF PORTUGAL V. SCOTT RUSSEL.

This was a demurrer. The bill contained allega-
tions to the followino. effect :—By an agreement
made between the defendant, John Scott Russell,
of the one part, and the Minister of Marine of the
King of Portugal of the other part, the defendant,
Scott Russell, agreed, in consideration of £10,400,
to construct for the plaintiff a steam screw foretop-
sail schooner ship, and at his own cost and risk to
launch the same at Millwall, ready for sea, on or
before April 25, 18.59. £10,400 was to be paid in
five instalments of £2,080 each ; and, it was pro-
vided by the agreement that if the vessel was not
completed and equipped as therein mentioned by
the day named, the defendant, Scott Russell, should
pay to the Portuguese Minister of Marine £5 for
each day thereafter that the ship should not be
completed, as and for liquidated damages, Mr. Scott
Russell proceeded with the ship, and received four of
the instalments of £2,080 each, but the ship was not
completed within the time mentioned in the con-
tract.' Mr. Scott Russell afterwards, under protest,
equipped the vessel as the Portuguese Minister of
Marine contended it should be equipped by the
terms of the agreement, but he refused to deliver
over the vessel unless he was paid £3,076 Bs. 7d. for
extras. It was ultimately agreed that the vessel
should be delivered to Sir George Rose Sartorius
on behalf of the plaintiff, on payment to Mr. Scott
Russell of the further sum of £2,080, and upon the
deposit under an agreement of the sum of £3,076
Bs. 7d. in the Bank of England, in the joint names
of Sir George Rose Sartorius and Mr. Scott Russell,
to abide the result of an action which was to be
brought for the recovery of it by Mr. Scott Russell,
which action he was to " commence forthwith, and
duly and diligently prosecute." The action was
brought by Mr. Scott Russell, and tried at Kingston
Assizes in 1860, when a nominal verdict was re-
turned for the plaintiff in the action, with leave for
the defendant therein to apply to the Court to set it
aside, and enter a verdict for him. A rule for that
purpose was accordingly obtained in Easter Term,
1860, and subsequently in the same term a rule was
obtained ordering a special case to be stated for the
opinion of the court of law. The bill further alleged
that there had been delay in the preparation of the
special case by Mr. Scott Russell, and that the action
had not been duly and diligently prosecuted by him,
and it prayed that Sir George Rose Sartorius and
Mr. Scott Russell might be ordered to pay the sum
of £3,076 Bs. 7d. to the Portuguese Minister of Ma-
rine, on behalf of the King of Portugal. The de-
fendant, Mr. Scott Russell, demurred to the bill for
want of equity.
Mr. Malins and Mr. Kekewich were for the de-
fendant, and Mr. Bacon and Mr. G. Simpson for the
plaintiff.

The Vice-Chancellor—The case stated by the
bill is that of the constitution of a trust, which
attached itself to the fund in question the moment
it was placed in the name of trustees. The fund
is now standing in the name of these trustees with
that trust impressed upon it. According to the
declaration of trust, the events upon which the ul-
timate right to the trust fund may be determined
have not yet occurred. The plaintiff, indeed, avers
that, upon one construction of the trust, an event
has occurred from the neglect and delay of the de-
' fendant which entitles him to the whole fund. But
there is now no question but that the fund is a
trust fund, and that the defendant, who demurs, is
one of the trustees in whose names the trust fund is
standing. Upon the construction of the declaration
of the trust must depend the question whether the
plaintiff or defendant is entitled to the fund in its
entirety, or in certain proportions. The bill is one
as to which the demurrer cannot be maintained,
and the demurrer must be therefore overruled. It
has been said that crowned heads should not con-
descend to ask for costs; but Mr. Simpson has made
this plaintiff come humbly to the Court, and if the
King of Portugal does not think it any disparage-
ment to accept costs the Court would not refuse to
give them to him, The last crowned head (the
Emperor of Austria) who sued in this Court dis-
claimed before this branch of the Court to accept
costs. There will be leave to amend the bill, and
time given to answer the amended bill.

POLICE INIELLMENCE, Nov. 11.

HAMMERSMITH. DISMISSAL OF POLICE
COMPLAINTS. EXTRAORDINARY CASE. Mrs.
Sarah Starbuck, the landlady of the Cannon public-
house, Queen-street, Hammersmith, was summoned
before Mr. Dayman, to answer the complaint of the
police for having her house open on Sunday morn-
ing, the 3rd inst., before one o'clock.
The defendent did not appear, but was represen-
ted by her son, who conducts her business.
The only witness in the case was police-con-
stable Woodbridge, of the T division, a plain
clothes officer of Notting•hill, but on the Sunday
in question he was employed specially in the dis-
trict of Hammersmith to watch the public-homes.
His evidence went to show that he saw 13 men in
the parlour or tap-room and 10 men at the bar.
This was about half-past twelve o'clock. The
door was opened in consequence of a knock from
the outside, and he attempted to pass in, but
was prevented, and though he stated I e was
a constable and showed his card, he was pushed
out. He swore that he succeeded in getting one
one leg and his head inside the door, and that in the
strugge he was able to count the men in the par-
lour and at the bar. He also saw a man drinking
from a pot full of beer. He further stated that he
remained outside till one o'clock, and that he saw
some of the same men come out of a private house
in Ship-lane, a thoroughfare running at the side of
the public-house.
Mr. Martin cross-examined the constable, and he
admitted that Mr. Arnold dismissed a similar com-
plaint against another licensed victualler in Ham-
mersmith on Saturday, end remarked at the time
that he (Mr. Arnold) did not believe his evidence.
Three witnesses were called, and they swore posi-
tively that there NI ere only three persons in the
house, namely, Mr. Starbuck, the potman who was
placing his cans in the bar, and a man who had re-
turned a ladder he had borrowed. They also proved
that there was no outlet at the back, as the yard
was surrounded by the walls of adjoining houses,
and that there were no windows or doors through
which any men could leave.
Mr. Martin called upon Inspector Hard to make
a summons, and he said that he visited the house,
accompanied by a constable. about a quarter of an
hour before, and he found no men there.
It was also denied that the constable showed his
card.
Mr. Dayman said it was an extraordinary case,
and dismissed the summons.

LAMBETH.— MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCE
OF TWENTY SOVEREIGNS.—Ann Coffee, a decent
young woman, who has been in custody for some
days on a charge of stealing £2O belonging to Mr.
Edward Henry Vries. was again placed at the bar
before Mr. Elliott for final examination.
From the evidence of the prosecutor, an East
India gentleman, lodging at No. 9, South-place,
Kennington Park, it appeared that while dressing
on the morning of Tuesday last he took 20. sove-
reigns rolled up in paper from his portmanteau,
and placed them on his bed, intending to put them
into his pocket before leaving, but this he forgot to
do, and left the roll on the bed behind him. This was
about ten o'clock in the morning, and at four he
missed them, and it was sworn that the only per-
sons who had entered the room from the time the
money was placed on the bed until it was missed
were the prisoner, who made the bed, and the two
children of the prosecutor, the one ten and the other
eight years of age, and the suspicion of the prisoner
having taken the money, therefore, amounted to al-
most a positive certainty, and she was remanded to

give the officer engaged in the case an opportunity
of making a thorough search for the missing trea-
sure.

t.sergeant Hull, 32 P, said that since the former
examination he had carefully examined the water-
closet, water-butt, and every part of the house with
the greatest minuteness, and could not find the
slightest trace of the missing sovereigns. He had
also been to the two last places where the prisoner
lived as servant, in the one place for 18 months and
the other three years, and in both places received
an excellent character of her. He had also been to
the baker's shop, where the prisoner had been sent
for bread on the day in question, and the person
who served her did not observe anything more than
ordinary about her on that occasion.

Mr. Ohipperfield, who now attended for the pri-
soner, put a number of questions to Mr. Vries
respecting the money, to which he replied that he
received £45 in gold in exchange for notes, at a
bank in Dublin, and these he wrapped up in paper,
putting £25 in one and £2O in the other. The 20-
sovereign roll he carried about with him on the
Monday, and, as it was his custom, placed it in his
portmanteau on that night. On the following
morning he took it out, intending to place it in his
pocket again, but forgot to do so, as he before
stated.

In reply to a question from the magistrate, he
said he had not been out of the house from the
time he left his bedroom at ten o'clock, until he
missed the money at four, nor were either of his
children.

Mr. Chipperfield said his client assured him in
the most solemn terms, and he believed her, that
she saw nothing of or knew anything of the money
alleged to be lost ; that if anything had been left
on the bed sEe did not see or find it ; and he hoped,
that notwithstanding the appearances against her,
his worship would take into consideration the ex-
cellent character she had received, and the fact
also of her character being without stain up to the
present mysterious case.
Mr. Elliott, without further observation on the
case, said the prisoner must be discharged.
The prisoner, who wept bits erly during a greater
part of the investigation, then left the dock.