The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-25 00:00:00

1101.111E9 V. BADDELEY.

His LORDSHIP also gave judgment in this case which
was an appeal from the Master of the Rolls. The Court
ordered the judgment below to be affirmed.

)lARQC•IS OF HERTFORD V. LORD LOWTIIER.

The remainder of the day was occupied with the fur-
thering this appeal, in which a question was raised
whether certain money and bank notes in the testator's
possession at the time of his death passed by his will
devising real estates.
Sir James Graham was present a greater portion of
the morning, and sat on the bench.
This was the last day of term, and it is generally un-
derstood that his Lordship will not sit again till this day
week.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
This being the last day of term, the Vice-Chancellor
of England took motions, none of which were of any in
terest.

(Before Sir K. BRucz.)
LYON V. COLVLLLE.-JUDGMENT.

• His Hobrona gave judgment in this case this morning.
The circumstances were exceedingly complicated, in-
volving the claims of creditors on the estate of the tes-
tator, the liability of the property of the widow and ad-
ministratrix to part of tlicee claims, the settlement of
the accounts of the executors, and the question whether
certain estates in the island of Jamaica, were, by the
construction of the will and the statute law of the colony
and of England, converted into equitable assets for the
benefit of the creditors. With respect to the first point
his Honour grounded his decision on the case of Eland v.
Eland, and said, though it might seem a hard case, yet
if that decision was rightly given, it would be wrong to
award the plaintiff' what he claimed. With respect to
the question whether the funds of the testator in the
island of Jamaica were equitable assets, he thought,
considering the Acts of the Colonial Legislature, and the
British statute' the 37th of Geo. In, that those funds
must be treated as personal estate, and there-
fore became legal assets. This principle ap-
peared to him to be clear of doubt. With
regard to the lands iu Jamaica—the Prospect, Paradise,
and Retrieve estates—he thought there was not in the
will any devise or disposition by which they were con-
stituted, a real estate for raising a fund for the payment
of equitable assets. Though he had come to this con-
clusion he had not done so without much doubt, as it
was a question of much difficulty. But if any part of
those estates was to be held to be equitable assets, it

must be by some other authority than his. He directed
the case to be mentioned again on Thursday week, and the
minutes which would require much care, to be drawn up
in the interim.

(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
?FLY V. FRY. JUDGMENT.

In this case Frances Maria Burn by her will dated
the 28th of June, 1832, gave all her leasehold estates at
, Newington, to J. J. Taylor, Esq. and T. W. Fry, to

hold as her executors upon trust, and manage them for
the benefit of the purposes of her will. The trusts
were declared to be out of the rents, issues, and
profits to accrue from time to time from her
estates, to pay, first, her debts, funeral and
testamentary expenses, and legacies, afterwards,
given ; secondly, to pay the ground-rents, taxes, &c. of
the property ; thirdly, to pay certain annuities, which
were given principally to near relations of her late hus-
band ; and also other annuities subject to certain special
provisions. Subject to these incumbrances the property
was to go to Mrs. S. C. Fry and her husband, for their
lives, afterwards to their children, with a proviso for
their maintenance in the event of their surviving their
parents ; if there were no children of Mr. and Mrs. Fry
who could take the property, then it was to be disposed
of, according to the joint appointment of both those par-
ties, to the next of kin of Sarah Fry. Subsequently, by
a codicil of the 15th day of September, 1834, the testa-
trix revoked so muck of the bequests of her will as re-
lated to the whole of the leasehold estate, and by that
codicil she gave one-half of that estate to Mr. and Mrs.
Fry, and the other half to Mr. Charles L. Gee. The
question then was, according to the construction of the
codicil, what was the subject of the revocation, and
what was the subject of the new disposition.
For the children of Mr. and Mrs. Fry it was contended
that nothing was revoked but the beneficial interest of
Mr. Fry, determinable by his death ; also that the sub-
ject of the revocation and bequest commenced with the
gift of Mr. Fry, and that the whole of the estate was sub-
ject to the charges mentioned in the will. For Mr. Gee
it was contended that the whole of the disposition of the
will bad been revoked, and that Mr. Gee took one moiety
of the estate, discharged of all the debts, charges, and
incumbrances, stated in the will. His Honour over-ruled
the first point contended for by the children, and, with
regard to the other two points, he decided that the case
must be considered as a bequest of the leasehold estate,
after the charges thrown upon it, and that, subject to
those charges, one moiety should go absolutely to Mr.
Gee, and the other moiety to Mr. and Mrs. Fry and their
children, one half of the charges to be borne by each.
With respect to costs, he would hear counsel on a futnre
occasion, if there was any objection to throwing the costs
upon the general residue.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THB QUEEN V. BARNARD GREGORY.
The defendant in this case was brought up by habeas
corpus in the custody of Mr. Cope, the Governor of
Newgate, in which prison he was sentenced to be im-
prisoned for twelve months, for the publication ofhbels
on the Duke of Brunswick and Mr. H. W. Valiance, the
term of which imprisonment will expire to-morrow.
The defendant's health seemed to have suffered severely
from his imprisonment, he looked exceedingly pale and
emaciated, and walked with the feeble tottering gait of
an old man.
Mr. WORDSWORTH prayed the judgment of the Court
upon the defendant on an indictment for libel, which
had been found by the grand jury at the Central Cri-
minal Court, had been removed by certiorari into this
Court, and to which the defendant pleaded guilty.l
Mr. PLATT, on the part of the defendant, moved for a
rule calling upon the prosecutor to show cause why the
indictment should not be quashed, or why the judgment
should not be arrested. This indictment had been pre-
ferred at the Central Criminal Court, a Court which had
been created by the 4th and sth William IV., cap 36.
By the 13th section of that Act it was enacted that no
bill of indictment for any misdemeanour (other than per-
jury or subornation of jury),l which can: or may be
presented to the Grand Jury at any sessions of the peace
for the city of Westminster, the borough of Southwark,
and counties of Middlesex, Essex, Kent, and Surrey,
respectively, in which such misdemeanour was com-
mitted or alleged to have been committed, shall be pre-
sented to the grand jury to be summoned under
the authority of this Act, unless the prosecutor
or other person presenting such indictment shall
have been bound by recognizance, to prosecute
or give evidence at the Sessions to be held under
the authority of this Act, against the person or
persons accused of such misdemeanor, or unless such
person or persons accused shall have been committed to
or detained in custody, or shall be bound by recognizance
to appear at the said sessions to be held under the
authority of this Act. Now, from the record before
the Court, it would appear, that the prosecutors had
not entered into recognizances to prosecute, until after
they had been before the grand jury. They had been
before the grand jury on the 14th of November, and
had not entered into the recognizances until the 2d of
December, eighteen days afterwards. He therefore
submitted that the Central Criminal Court had no ju-
risdiction in this case whatever.
Lord DENMAN having read the section referred to,
Mr. PLATT, in continuation, urged that looking at the
matter in a strictly legal point of view, the
Duke of Brunswick, the prosecutor of this
indictment, had never entered into any recognizances
at all, for the recognizances bore upon the face of them
that they were recognizances to prosecute for a libel—
not for libels, whereas theindictment was for eleven
libels. The proper course for the prosecutor to have
pursued would have been to have gone before tho grand
jury at the Middlesex Sessions, or at the Westminster
Sessions, so as to have had the matter investigated by a
jury of the inhabitants of the county in which the al-
leged libels had been published. He therefore moved
for a rule nisi to quash the indictment, or to respite the
judgment.
Lord DENMAN—Brother Talfourd, do you propose to
show cause now?
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—I cannot complain of the
course which has been adopted ; but I certainly am not
now prepared to show cause against an application of
which I have had no notice.
Lord DENMAN—(to Mr. Platt)—Then I think you are
entitled to a rule.—Rule granted.
The defendant was then removed in the custody of
Mr. Cope, to Newgate, from which prison he will be
discharged to-morrow.
Counsel for the prosecution Mr. Sergeant Talfourd
and Mr. Wordsworth ; fur the defendant, Mr. Platt.
The Duke of Brunswick was in Court and sat among
the Queen's Counsel within the bar.
PARTRIDGE V. THE BANE OF ENGLAND.
In this case, in which an application had been made
to the Court by Mr. Justice Erle,
Lord DENMAN said there would be no rule.
THE QUEEN V. MOON.—QUO WARRANTO.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that in this case he
had obtained a rule in the Bail Court, calling upon the
defendant to show cause by what authority he claimed
the right to exercise the office of Alderman for the ward
of Portsoken, in the City of London. It was necessary
that great care should be taken in drawing up the rule,
and it was only to-day that he had fixed the terms of
it. He therefore prayed that he might now be per-
mitted to hand in his papers, and that the rule might be
drawn up as for to-day, so thatit might come on for ar-
gument next term.- Application granted.
• LAKE V. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
This was an action brought against the defendant for
goods supplied and work done for an association for the
promotion 9f emigration to the British North American
colonies, of which the Noble Duke ,was President, and
the proceedings in connexion with which created great

public sensation about twelve months since. The gill:
was tried at Guildhall, and the jury found for the
tiff. During the present term an application had De",
made for a rule nisi to set aside the verdict and foL,
new trial, on several grounds, and the Court took tU
to consider the matter.
Lord DENMAN this morning announced that the CO
_Art
was of opinion that the application must be refused, &P'
that the verdict must stand.

THE QUEEN V. ALDERMAN THOMAS WOOD.
In this case Mr. Gray had obtained a rule 0141
upon the defendant to show cause why an attachat
should not issue against him, on account of his fleee':
ing to comply with a rule of Court, ordering him to 0,1,
liver up certain papers and documents belonging to 10
parish of St. Mary, Newington. •
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL showed cause against 01
rule. It appeared that Alderman Wood had for eightcea,
or twenty years held the office of solicitor to the parish'
and the last: year a Mr. Gedge had been appointed
the office—that the Alderman had, on payment of hisblo
of costs, handed over to Mr. Gedge ull the docile:lel
belonging to the parish necessary for the transaction
business, and that Mr. Gedge had all the papers re:
listing to parish business for the last six years. Thera
were various useless, dusty old papers, belonging to d,
olt!
parish, which Mr. Wood had promised to look out a .1
deliver to Mr. Geddye, who was not content to
until Mr. Wood's clerk had had time to look them 01111
but had applied to the Court for this attacha3"
The papers were, however, ready to be dell.'
ve red over. It was evident that a great de,
of temper had been exhibited in this matter, and it W.
morn to that the papers bad been demanded in a I'M
insulting manner. They were perfectly useless, and le,
trusted, under these circumstances, that the rule woof'
be discharged with costs.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—Do you want their dirty old
papers, Mr. Gray ?
Mr. GRAY—Every one of them, my Lord.—(A
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to argue in or
port of the rule, the obtaining of which had marl's°
lously quickened the operations of Mr. Wood's clerks !!
making the search, and without which he believed P
papers would not bare been produced.
Mr. Justice WlLLlsias gave the judgment of the Coarit
which was, that the rule should be discharged withal
costs.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I hope the other party sr°
prepared to take away the papers ; they are in Court.
What are we to do with them ? They are perfectli
useless ; some of them are old backs of briefs.

Mr. Justice Wl',Lusts—Hand them to Mr. Gray.
Lo rd DENMAN—In my time the custom used to be 0,
change old briefs for new, not new for old.—(A laugh.)
The box containing " the musty records" was the!
solemnly handed over to the attorney for the parish, and
taken out of Court.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OP YORKSHIRE.
Mr. Pesnusion moved for a rule for a mandamus 113
this case directed to the three Justices of Yorkshire,
commanding them to issue a distress warrant to enforce
the payment of_ a poor-rate for the township of Bud-
dersfield. Tho rate had been made and dull
published, and a demand had been made OP
the II uddersfield Philosophical Society. They
did not pay and did not appeal to the Quarter Session"
but went before the Judges in Petty Sessions, and sub"
mitted that they were not liable to be rated under the
statute of the Gth and 7th of Victoria, c. 36, which
exempted all societies for the purposes of science, liter!'
ture, and the fine arts ; but the object of the society '
question was to instruct all classes of the community in
every branch of science, literature, and the fine art*
which the Learned Counsel contended did not COoe
within the exception of the statute.—Rule granted.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE MARQUIS OF BUTE V. THOMPSON. Tho Court gave judgment in this case. The question
related to the working of certain coal-mines ; and the
Court were of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to
their judgment.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS D►AY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
At the sitting of the Court this day, being the last °f
the term, their Lordships proceeded to give judgment 10
several cases which stood over. The following wore th°
only ones of any interest.

CALDICOI7 V. JOHNSON.
This was an action of ejectment, which was brought
to try a right claimed under a will. The verdict wos
taken for the defendant for the purpose of having the
opinion of the full Court upon the point of law, which
was, whether Michael Mason, jun., under whose will the
defendant held possession, had not granted more than
he himself derived under the will of his father, Michael
Mason, sen.

Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that the will of the
son was not an execution of the father's will, and ruled
the verdict be entered for the plaintiff.

GRINNELL v. WELLS.
It will be recollected that in this case the plaintiff. s
schoolmaster of respectability, recovered damages, in 0,
large amount, for the seduction of his daughter, against
the defendant, an opulent farmer, in whose family the
young woman lived as governess. A rule was subse-
quently obtained to bar proceedings on the ground that
the father had no action for the expenses of his daughter's
maintenance, and that the action ought to have been
brought for loss of services.

The COURT decided this day that the father had no
action for maintenance. In a case of seduction his only
claim was for loss of services.—Rule to bar proceedings
made absolute.

THOMAS V. DUNN—THE CHINESE COLLECTION.
The plaintiff, formerly agent to Mr. Dunn, who is pro-
prietor of the Chinese Collection, brought this action
upon a contract, to which the defendant pleaded that the
document was a forgery. The jury found for the defen-
dant, and in the course of this term the plaintiff applied
in person to the Court for a rule to show cause why the
verdict should not be Set aside, when their Lordships
took time to consider judgment. On that occasion W
gave an adequate statement of the facts.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, this morning, seeing the
plaintiff in Court, said—Mr. Thomas, we have looked
into your case, and we are unwilling to say anything
more at present than that the rule nisi will be granted.
Mr. WALCOMBE, who now appeared for the plaintiff,
said that his client wished to put in two affidavits re-
specting facts which he had stated at the time of his ap-
plication, but which had not been supported.
The Court granted leave to put in those affidavits.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS BAY.)
The first session of the present Mayoralty was corn"
roomed this morning at the Old Bailey..
Precisely at tea o'clock, the Right Hrln. the Lord
Mayor attended by his chaplain, Mich:m:l Gibbs, A.M., ~
vicar of Christ Church ; Aldermen H. Hughes, Kelly,
Hooper, Marshall, Sheriff Sidney, and Under-Sheriffs
Martin and Ashurst entered, and the Court was opened
in the usual form.

lhe names of the grand jury were then called over,
and they being sworn,
The RECORDER then proceeded to deliver his charge.
lie said that the charges in thepresent calendar, although
nut numerous—it containing only 118 names—at the
same time, comprehended several charges of the most
serious and important character. Many of them were
charges of violence to the person. No less than ten for
cutting and wounding with intent to do some grievous
bodily harm ; seventeen of larceny from the person, ee"
companied, more or less, with 'violence ; two of ruin'
slaughter, and one of murder. All these cases were of
serious character, but the facts connected with them were
in general clear and sufficiently distinct, and not involving
any question of law on which it would be necessary le!
him to address them. Their attention would be princi-
pally directed to the question of fact, what credibility
should be given to the witnesses, and how far the cow
Meting evidence should be believed. With regard to the
charge of murder, he did not think it convenient, nor
would it answer any useful purpose, to advert to it, or
examine its details. They would give it their due and
cautious attention. With regard to one of the charges
of manslaughter, which was involved in considerable ob-
scurity—a charge against a husband, a professional man
—it behoved them to sift the evidence well, and before
they returned a verdict of manslaughter, to feel assured
that there were really good grounds for their so doing.
There were two other charges to which it might be ex-
pected that be should allude—he meant those which re-
lated to offences of a foul and unnatural character ; but
he was sure they would spare the Court any reference
to such infamous cases, as the great pro-
bability was, that the facts themselves would
be amply sufficient to guide their opinions. The
remaining cases in the calendar did not require any pa'
ticuita notice, but it was with regret he stated that there
was one case of manslaughter, to which he could not
properly refer, as the depositions were transmitted
just before the sitting of the Court that morn-
ing. The proper officer to have sent them In
might have done so several days before, but
he, with a culpable procrastination, had deferred the
transmission of them till the last hour allowed by Jew:
Had they been delayed a little longer, the Court would
have felt it its duty to impose a fine upon the offending
party. The Learned Recorder then adverted to the
general duties of the grand jury, and concluded thus--
With these remarks he would leave the gentlemen of the
grand jury to the discharge of their duties, but he would
add, that if anything should arise, in the course of their
proceedings, to call for the assistance of the Court, it
would be readily granted them. They might always re-
fer to the officer appointed to assist, and with these few
words he would dismiss them.
The grand jury then retired.

NEW PUBLIC MART FOR ORIENTAL SitrAWLS.
Tilt; large sale of India shawls, for which London has II"'
become the grand market, took place yesterday, at ,the
Hall of Commerce, Threadneedle-street, and was PRI'
eiPally attended by dealers from the Continent. Up'
wards of 3,000 shawls wero sold, and a sum little short
h
of sixty thousand pounds changed hands. Ala"
the shawls thus disposed of are considered to be of a flue
quality, they are not of the very first class, the latter
being always secured by opulent dealers, such es AleBS%
Everington and Company, Messrs. Graham: and Co., the
other well-known houses, who, having their agents ill tue:
Punjaub, are permitted to superintend the looms, and„,:e
z;eleet such as they consider of superior quality.
facilities recently afforded for bringing these shawls to
Bombay, and the alteration of the duty by the new tarty"
have caused a reduction of at least one-half, thus bring-
ing this elegant enduring fabric within the reach of Ya°
great body of the people. Indeed, such reduction has
had the additional advantage of giving to our British
merchants the opportunity of shipping them to Consts:
-
tinople and other markets, from whence they, the mar
chants, were formerly glad to get them,