The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-( THIS DAY.)

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

APPEAL.-HAVIT.AND V. MORTIBOY.

This is in reality an administration suit, but the question
turns on the validity of the marriage of Mr. and Mrs.
Shepherd, at St. Pancras Church, in 1824. It is alleged
that Mrs. Shepherd was previously married to Mr. Masters,
then living, but now.supposed to be dead. At the sitting
of the Court this morning, the respondent's counsel, Mr.
Rolt, Q.C., resumed the oral examination of several wit-
nesses and read several affidavits in support of his case, but
nothing was elicited of sufficient public interest to require
a detailed report. It is expected that the further proceed-
ings in this cause will extend over several days.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)

BAKER V. MILNER.-JUDGMENT.

His Honour the Irice-Chancellor said—This case is a
very short one. It arises on a point raised in a will that is
extremely obscure and difficult in its language, but the
simple question is, whether the children or grandchildren
are entitled to the residue of the testator's estate, and
whether the grandchildren are entitled to take per stirpes,
and not per capita. It was declared by the will that the
children were entitled to take the shares of their parents on
attaining twenty-one. And the question was, whether the
issue of the children predeceasing, or surviving his life, or
attaining twenty-one, were entitled to take their parents'
share of the residue. His Honour considered the children
were entitled to the residue, and delared what portions they
should take.

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
JOSEPH V. GOULD-PUSHING THE " DUCHESB"--.

SINGULAR CASE.

Plaintiff is principal in the house of Phillip, Son, and
Co., extensive perfume manufacturers of the City, and
deferidant is a dentist and chemist, of Kingston-on-Thames ;
he is also a magistrate, of that place.
The action was brought to recover £lB for one dozen of
a perfume called the "duchess," sold and delivered to de-
fendant.

Plaintiff stated that his house had been established sixty
years, and that this celebrated perfume was widely adver-
tised and commanded an extensive sale. Plaintiff's traveller
called upon defendant and received an order from him for
one &ten of the. " duchess." Defendant refused to payfor
these goods, which had been delivered in September last,
and hence the present summons.

Defendant objected to the jurisdiction of this court, and
contended that he ought to have been summoned in the
County Court at Kingston. The goods were delivered at
Kingston, :and not to any agent of his in London. De-
fendant received the goods and paid the carriage.
His Honmir held that the Court had jurisdiction, upon
which

Defendant said he was rather glad his objection had been
overruled than otherwise, inasmuch as it gave him an op-
portunity of exposing a system that was being carried on
by plaintiff or his agent, that was deserving of the greatest
reprobation. Under a representation that he (defendant)
should 'be appointed sole agent to the plaintiff for the sale
of the " duchess," and that the article itself had a most
extensive sale in Kingston, he was induced to order one
dozen upon sale or return. But instead of his being
appointed sole agent, he found that another person
had been induced to order some of the " duchess "
upon the promise that he should be sole agent.
Added to this, in four months only five bottles of this won-
derful perfume had been sold in Kingston, and two out of the
number had been sold at a reduced price. He, as a man of
influence and position in his town, had taken this matter
up for the protection of his fellow-tradesmen, and he (de-
fendant) would call the conduct of the plaintiff's agent to
the notice of his Honour. It was much to be deplored that
travellers, in their anxiety to get orders, should make any
representation that would not be fully carried out by their I
principals. He refused payment on the ground that gross
misstatements had been made to him, and he came forward
now to protect his fellow-townsmen from such practices.

His Honour had had on a formergaccasion reason to com-
plain of a system pursued by commercial travellers.

Plaintiff trusted that in the absence of his agent he would
not attach any importance to defendant's observations. His
Honour should remember that these charges were all made
ex parte, and in the absence of plaintiff's traveller.
Defendant said he had brought witnesses to prove all his
statements.

His Honour said he must,' in the absence of plaintiff's
agent, nonsuit him, and award defendant costs.

QUESTION OF PRACTICE-LAIRD V. WOODFALL.
This was an action to recover £4 4s. for a gun.
Mr. Perry (from Mr. Buchanan's) applied for an adjourn-
ment to be allowed to plead a set-off.
His Honour could not do so.

Mr. Perry—Defendant could not find his book till a day
or two since. His claim against plaintiff is as far back as
1852.

His Honour—Then it is barred by the Statute of Limi •
tations.

Mr. Perry—lt is just within the time. I will admit
plailatifra claim if. ho will lot me go on with my set-off.
Plaintiff—l will.
His Honour—You cannot do that.

Mr. Perry—Then your' Honour can make an ordor for
one month, and that will give me time to bring my action.
Order accordingly.

LAMBETH COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Pitt Taylor.)
BAKER V. WILCOCREL-ACTION FOR TRESPASS.-

IMPORTANT POINT.
Mr. Henry James (instructed by Mr. Buchanan) ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Jones for defendant.
The action was tried some time since, and the jury
awarded £3O damages.

Mr. Jones now applied to his Honour to enter a verdict
for defendant, or nonsuit plaintiff, on the following
grounds :—First, That a person named Jones being joint-
tenant with Paintiff, he should have been co-plaintiff in the
action for trespass ; and secondly, that Jones had, by a
written authority, empowered defendant to hold possession
of the premises, and that there was a good defence by lease
and licence.

Mr. Jones having been heard against the objections, his
Honour reserved judgment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DA Y.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

BOOT ROBBERY.—Thomas Hurlock, a carman, residing
at 27, Ashford-street, Maiden-lane, was charged with
stealing four pairs of gentlemen's boots from the shop of
Mr. Alfred Spring, bootmaker, of 1, Tottenham-court-road.
John Arnold, a baker, of 23, Stephen-street, Tottenham-
court-road, said that, on the previous afternoon, he saw the
prisoner running at a very rapid rate along the road, having
with him, on his arm, the boots in question. He pursued
him, and while doing so the prisoner dropped two pairs of
the boots, and he then seized him and took the others from
him. Those produced are the same. The only reply the
prisoner made, when he taxed him with stealing them, was,
" It is not me—don't say anything."
George Spring, foreman to the prosecutor, proved that
the boots were safe in the doorway five minutes previously,
and that they were the property of his employer.
Mr. Beadon asked the prisoner whether he wished to say
anything in answer to the charge, and said that if he wished
him to settle it he must plead guilty.
The prisoner, after some hesitation, pleaded guilty, and
was committed for four months, with hard labour.