The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-23 00:00:00

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. COOPER.

The further arguments in this part-heard case were
resulted this morning, and occupied his Honour the
whole day. Thecase came before the Court upon de-
murrer for want of equity, want of parties, misjoinder,
and multifariousness The object of the information is
to obtain a declaration that a Mr. 11/PRee legally remains
the minister of a Dissenting chapel in New Windsor; an
account of moneys received under a deed of 1833 in
favour of the minister's salary and of the pew rents; the
removal of the present trustees and the appointment of
persons in their place; and an injunction for the pur-
pose of preventing the existing trustees from removing
the present minister of the chapel.
Mr. Wood and Mr. Ellis appear in support of the de-
murrer; the Solicitor-General and Mr. Prior appeared
for the relators, who are the minister and two of the
members of the congregation.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Bdore Lard Chief Justice CAMPBELL and Justices
PATTESON, WIGETMAN, and ERLE.)
DOE DEM. EVANS V. WALKER.

Mr. CROWDER said in this case, which was tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Erie at the last assizes for Eiceter, and
a verdict found far the plaintiff, he had to move for a
rule to show cause why a nonsuit should not be entered.
It was an action of ejectment, in which Evans, the lessor
of the plaintiff, claimed, as being entitled under a will,
to a copyhold tenement in the possession of the de-
fendant Walker. The question was, whether the title of
the lessor of the plaintiff had been established. The will
was put in under the claimant, and it was evidently the
production of a man who had made his own will, and who
was ignorant of the meaning and effect of legal technical
terms. The language of the will was—" I give, devise,
and bequeath unto James Walker, druggist, son of
Josiah and Mary Walker, one close cf land, known by
the name of ' Four Acres,' now in the occupation
of Thomas Salter, as tenant to me, but not
to he sold or mortgaged." Under this clause James
Welker came into possession. The will went on to say,
" I give, devise, and be queath unto Elizabeth Sandare, two
dwelling-houses which I hold for the life of Wm. Palmer.
I also give, devise, and bequeath unto the said Elizabeth
Sandar4 part of my household goads and chattels, tes-
tamentary estate and effects, of whatever name or deno-
mination, except my cluck, bedstead, feather bed and
bedding, which I give and bequeath unto Margaret
Horsey ; and the remainder of my howhold goods,
chattels, testamentary esinte; and effects, I give unto
Margaret Horsey and Elizabeth Sanders, share and shat e
alike." Now, it was contended that this was a residuary
clause, carrying the land of the testator and the close in
question among others. It appeared to him (Mr. Crow-
der) the ::,stator really thought, when he gave the land
to Walker, arid said it was not to he sold or mortgaged,
he have it to him thinking it would descend to him, and
not be sold or wortgeged.

Lord CAMPBELL said the Court was bound to consider
that the testator was aware that he gave only an estate
for life. He (Lord Campbell) thought it was quite
clear that the remainder in the " Four Acres" devised
for life to James Walker passed under the residuary
clause to Elizabeth Sanders. The words in the resi-
duary clause were abundantly sufficient to carry the
realty as well as the personalty.
The rule was refused on that ground.'
On another point, as to whether the property was
properly conveyed to the lessor of the plaintiff in the
Copy hold Court,
The COURT said they would take time to consider
their judgment.

EXCHEQUEB.—(TMS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON, and Barons PARKE,
RoLrE and PLATT.)
THE CHARTIST LAND SCHEME.
&CONNOR. V. BRADSHAW.
_

It will be recollected that this action, which was tried
at the last Nisi Prius sittings in Middlesex, and in which
a verdict was found for the defendant, was brought
against the proprietor cf a Nottinghajm journal for the
publication of a libel, refltcting upon the character of
Mr. Fergus O'Connor, M.P., in connexion with the
" National Land Scheme," of which he was the pro-
jector.

Mr. Sergeant Marines, who applied yesterday for a
rule to show cause why a new trial should not be bad,
on the ground of misdirection on the part of the Learned
Judge who tried the case, mid the rejection of important
evidence, but who had not concluded when the Court
rose, was again heard this morning. He complained
that his Lordship had left to the jury what was ex-
clusively within his own. province. It appeared that in
commenting upon the pica of justification, his Lordship
told the jury that if they believed the evidence, that
portion of the plea bad been proved which alleged that
the depositors in the bank had no security on the land
purchased by the National Land Company, and he
then left it fur them to say whether tha word " dis-
honesty" as applied to the conduct of the plaintiff, had
been sustained, observing that he could give them no
assistance whatever in the decision of the question.
He (Mr. Sergeant Wilkins) now submitted that it was
the duty of his Lordship to have • stated to the jury
the import of the word dishonesty. His Lordship also
told the jury that the' society was illegal, adding, he
had no hesitation in saying so, because it clearly came
within the Lottery Acts. But ho (Mr. Sergeant Wil-
kins) contended that it could not come under the provi-
sions of those statutes, because it only resembled a lot-
tery in haVing a systole of balloting, and that balloting
was not for the property itself, but for a priority of
claim. If such a principle were established, nearly
every building society and benefit society in the kingdom
would become a lottery. The scheme did not hold out
the advantages of a lottery to the subscribers, but pro-
mised to.give them, after a certain length of time, the
value of, the money which they had deposited. A difh
ference of opinion upon this very point existed amongst
some of the most eminent lawyers, and at present a case
was befoie the Court of Queen's Bench which was to decide
whether the society was entitled to complete registration
or not. There was- another part of the summing up to
which he wished to refer. His Lordship said that Mr.
O'Connqr might have treated a subscriber who wished
for a return of his money with defiance, because he had
invested it in nu illegal undertaking, and the law gave
him no protection • and. further, that all the money de-
posited in the bank would go to the assignees of Mr.
O'Connor in the event of his becoming a bankrupt. In
the course of the trial documentary evidence was
produced with the view of showing that the plain-
tiff had only acted in the capacity of a trustee,
but that it had been rejected, and of that re-
jection lie had now to complain. The ruling, however,
of the Learned Judge was incorrect in point of law, be-
cause the 79th of the 6th Geo.IV., c. 16, gave poi er to the
Lord Chancellor to order the return of all property
which was held by the bankrupt as a trustee, but which
had been seized by his assignees. Such an observation,
therefore, on the part of the judge wes greatly calcu-
lated to ;mislead the jury and to excite a prejudice in
their minds against Mr. O'Connor. The verdict of the
jury was one of rather a singular nature. The first issue
on the plea of not guilty was found for the plaintiff, and
the s esond, on the plea orjustification, was found for the de-
fendant, and tie verdict was coupled by a statement that
the jury, were unanimously of opinion that the personal
honour of Mr. O'Connor remained unimpeached
and untouched. He could only account for
this verdict by his Lordship telling the jury over
and over again that they were to take into account the
bona fides which were proved by Bradshaw, the defen-
dant, but which he submitted ought to have been ex-
cluded from their consideration. On those grounds the
Learned Sergeant contended that he was entitled to ask
for a new trial, but said he would have no objection to
withdraw his application if the defendant would agree to
enter the issue on the plea of justification for the plain-
tiff; and the 'plaintiff would have no objection to give
him the issue on the plea of not guilty.
The. CHIEF BARON observed that if there was any
prospect of some arrangement being made the Court
would grant time to the parties.
Mr. Sergeant Wements said his Learned Friend Mr.
Roebuck was aufortunately not instructed.in the case.

TheCuur BARON—Then we will take time to con-
sider our judgment.

HAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
ENLARGED RULE PAPER.

Mr., Justice COLERIDGE intimated that the Court
would take the enlarged rule paper on Thursday and
two following days.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. SMIRK applied to the Court for leave to file a
criminal infoimation against a gentleman whose name
did not transpire, residing in the West of England. The
partyon whose behalf the application was made was
connected with the gentleman by marriage, the applicant
having married the gentleman's sister, and some un-
happy difference' having arisen between them on the
subject .of their pecuniary affsirs the gentleman had
been betrayed into writing the following letter, which
was forwarded to the applicant on the 17th inst.:—
" Sir,—Understanding that last evening you received
my wife and child at your house, contrary to my wishes,
and she having promised me not to visit you, I
consider your conduct, after what has pre-
viously transpired, very paltry and unlike that
of at, gentleman. I therefore send this through
my friend Mr. —, who is fully authorised to act for
me, and I have only to add that unless you give me a
meeting I shall proclaim you to the world as a dastardly
coward." _ _

The,applicant construed this letter into a chal-
lenge; to ' fight a duel with the writer, although he
had never received any intimation that his sister's visits
were; forbidden by her husband; and as he was appre-
hensive that a breach of the peace would be committed
unless the violence of his brother-in-law were restrained,
he was anxious to file a criminal information against
him.

Mr. Justice COLIMIDGE—You may take a rule to
show cause.

Rule nisi accordingly.

ARCHES COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before SIT HERBERT JENNER FUSTY Knight.)
THE GOEUAM CASE.

Mff:BCVDLVR, as proctor for the Rev. C. Gotham,
'applied tb the Court to grant a certificate in extension of
a monition which had been issued out of this court, call-
ing upon the Bishop of Exeter to send in the letters of
iruttutior, in order that the Rev. Charles Gorham might
be inducted to the vicarage of Bamford Speke, in the
diocese of Exeter and county of Devon. On the last
court day an extension of the certificate was prayed, as
the Bishop had not complied with the monition, and had
not 'sent in the institution papers. No return bed yet
been made, and, as the Bishop was not represented, Mr.
Bowdler prayed that it might stand over till next term.
The JUDGE—You wish the certificate to extend to
next term?

Mr. BMVDDER—Yes, Sir.
The JUDGE—Very well, let it stand over.
LORD FRANKFORT IN CONTEMPT.—FRANKFORT V.

FRANKFORT.

'Sir J. DoDsoN, the Queen's Advocate, applied to the
Court to decree Lord Frankfurt in contempt for having
disobeyed a monition ceiling upon him to p4y certain
alimony for the use of Lady Frankfort. The Learned
Advocate said that the Court had ordered the sum of
8001. per annum to be paid for the use of Lady Frank-
fort, which sum had not been paid since the Ist of
January, 1849; the consequence of which was that Lady
Frankfurt was in the greatest distress. She therefore
prayed that Lord Frankfort might be declared in con-
tempt, and that a decree might issue, directed to the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to sequestrate the real pro-
perty and estate of Lord Frankfort.
Dr. lIARDING,i who appeared for Lotd Frankfurt,
urged that his Lordship's income had been so greatly
diminished that ho could not afford to allow Lady
Frankfort the aura fixed by the Court.
The JUDGE.—The Court had no option but to issue
the contempt for not complying with the decree cf the
Court. Against that decree there was no appeal now,
and, theretore, the Court decreed Lord Frankfort in
contempt, and granted the sequestration as prayed.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE BRADING.
This bankrupt was described as of the Albert Saloon,
Shepherd and Shepherdess-fields, Islington, and to-day
was appointed for the choice of assignees, which took
place. The performances will be carried on as usual till
the premises aro disposed of or until other arrangements
are made.

MARLBRO'-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT.-"Charles Saunders was
brought before Mr. Bingham, for re-examination,
charged with having embezzled various sums of money,
belonging to his employer, Robert Richard flignell,
wine-merchant, 7L--, Great Windmill-street.
Mr. Hamilton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Sydney, of Hatton-garden, for the prisoner.
The evidence adduced on the former examination
went to show that the prosecutor had opened a betting-
office, and had engaged the prisoner as clerk, at a sa-
lary of fifteen shillings per week. It was the duty of
the prisoner to pay over to the prosecutor, every
evening, all the money be received during the
day. Complainant discovered that the prisoner
had received several sums of money, and had
neither entered them in the book, nor paid.
over the =omit to him. The prisoner had re-
ceived hi. from a gentleman named Donald. This
sum was entered in the betting book as 24 A
Mr. Jones had also paid two sums of 11. and 10s.,
neither of which appeared in the took. On discovering
this prosecutor gave the prisoner into custody. At the
station-bow e he was searched, and notes and gold to the
amount of G 5/.; were found upon him. The prosecutor

row stated that he had discovered several other defalon!
tions, but at present he was not prepared to go further
into the case.
Mr. Sidney, on behalf of his client, contended that;
under a recent Act of P-Fitment, the money e-uld no
le recovered, as a clause in, that Act stated that betting
via 4
Mr. BINGHAN considered it was a bet upon 0,- Lid
horse-race, and, therefore, was recoverabl". no Su°".
now remand the prisoner for a week, but would accept
bail in two sureties in 801. each for his appearance.