The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-02 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

EXTORTIONATE LOANS.— V ice-Unancellor Stuart has had
oefore him the suit of Wyatt v. Cook. The plaintiff, who
has just attained his majority, borrowed, in 1866, from the
defendant £49 or £5O, upon a security of a reversionary
interest under a will. The plaintiff acknowledged himself
indebted for £lOO, and agreed to pay interest at the rate
of £6O per annum. - In February 1867 plaintiff borrowed
a further sum of £B, with £l5 security, and the
same interest as before. In May last the plain-
tiff was desirous of paying off the debt which he
really owed to the defendant, and applied to him to sur-
render the securities on payment of what was justly owing
to him on the whole transaction ; but the defendant paid
no attention to the plaintiffs request, and the result was
that this suit was instituted to have it declared that the
securities were fraudulently obtained by the defendant
from the plaintiff and were void, and ought to be de-
livered up to him on his paying the defendant what was
properly due for money actually advanced ; and the bill
prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendant from
suing (as he threatened to do) at law on his securities.
The Vice-Chancellor considered that the transactions in
question in this suit were such as this court would clearly
relieve against. It was evident that the plaintiff had not,
in the first instance received the £lOO, but for the whole
of which he was made to pay interest at the rate of £6O
per cent. per annum. He had really only at that time
received £5O, and even that was subject to deductions. The
defendant must deliver up the securities to the plaintiff,
and must pay the costs of this suit, and the plaintiff must
repay him the amount actually advanced, with interest
thereon at the rate of £5 per cent. per annum.
Loss OF CATTLE THROUGH THE FOULING OF A STREAM.
—Mr. Justice Lush has had before him at the Durham
Assizes the case of Cams v. Elliott. It was an action for
fouling and polluting a stream, and pumping into it the
water from an old coal-mine, and thereby causing the
death of the plaintiff's cattle, which grazed in fields abut-
ting on the stream, and which drank of the polluted water.
The defendants were the owners of Sacristan Colliery, and
previous to 1859 the colliery had been idle, and allowed
the water to accumulate. On the working of it being re-
sumed the water was pumped out into a burn or
stream which had been beautifully clear up to
that time, .but afterwards assumed a muddy yellow
appearance, and the cattle in the fields bounded by
the stream began to die. The plaintiff, who had lands
bounded by this stream, thus lost seventeen head of cattle
from 1860 to 1866. Until 1866 it was not suspected that
their deaths arose from drinking this water. In that year
seven cattle died, and a post-mortem examination proved
that they had died from some irritant poison. An analysis
was made of the water, which was found to contain in
solution a very large quantity of iron and other poisonous
ingredients, which, taken daily, in large quantities, were
likely to produce the effect on the cattle which they had
shewn.—The defence was that several other farmers
through whose lands the stream flowed had experienced
no bad results from it.—Verdict for the plaintiff for £57
(the value of the cattle lost in 1866 by the plaintiff).
UNLAWFULLY SIGNING A LUNACY CERTIFICATE.— The
Lunacy Commissioners were complainants in a prosecuticn
against one Joseph Hunter, who, it was alleged, had
signed a certificate in lunacy, he not being a qualified
medical practitioner. A former master of the defendant
was called to prove the signature, but the evidence that it
was the prisoner's handwriting not being conclusive, he
was acquitted.
SLANDER ON A SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.—A CaSe

of slander has been tried at Warwick, in which Mr. Lund,

superintendent of the Leamington Police, was the com-
plainant ; and Mr. Warnsley, a stationer in the same towns
was defendant. The plaintiff had been for nine year,
superintendent of the force ; and the defendant had
repeatedly made use of slanderous observations respecting
him, and charged him with drunkenness. After a long
trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages,
£75.