The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-12 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ExcasAND.)
In consequence of the absence of Mr. Stuart, his
Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England rose before
twelve o'clock, finding it impossible to proceed with the
causes in his paper in the Learned Gentleman's absence.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIORAM.)
TIIE ATT )RNEY-GENERAL V. FLINT.

In this case an information had been filed, the object
of which was to obtain an.account of certain rents from the
defendants to the relators, the feoffees of Strenchatn's
Charity, at St. Dunstan's, in the city of Canterbury.
The defendants, on their part, claim as purchasers, and
the principal point at issue is the validity of that purchase.
Mr. COOPER, on the part of the relators, resumed his
argument in opening the case, which, as he went at great
length into the facts, and the legal points connected with
them, occupied the Court the remainder of the sitting.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir K. BRUCE.)
AIALINS V. PRICE.

His HoNouu, on taking his seat this morning, pro-
ceeded to arrange with Mr. K. Parker, Mr. Temple, and
Mr. Russell, the counsel in the case, the minutes and
terms of the decree, which occupied the greater part of
the morning. After which he took the case of

CU3I,INII V. THROWER.

This is a part-heard case, in which the object of the bill
is to obtain restitution of certain funds, alleged to have
been lost in consequence of a breach of trust, committed
Mr. Bland.

The counsel in the case are Mr. Russell and Mr. Speed,
for the plaintiff; Mr. Wigram, Mr. Wray, and Mr. Cole,
for the defendants.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the special paper to-day, and were en-
gaged the whole morning in listening to arguments re-
lating to mere technical points of pleading.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr: Jastiee PATTESON. )
EICPA RTE BLUNDELL.

Mr. COWLING in this case moved for a rule for a cer-
tiorari to bring up the inquest and depositions taken
before the coroner of Wigan,, with a view to their being
quashed.

It appeared that an inquisition was held on the 7th and
9th of August last, on the body of Michael Ashcroft,
who had been killed in consequence of the bursting of a
steam-boiler belonging to Mr. Blundell, before Mr.
Rogerson, thc. coroner of Wigan, in the county of Lan-
c'ister, and " good and lawful men of the said county,
duly chosen." The first objection to the inquest was,
that it did not appear from those words that the jury
came from the bDrough. A coroner's inquest was in the
nature of an indictment, and ought to comprise equal
certainty, and should therefore show that the jury came
from a place within which the coroner had jurisdiction.
The second objection to the inquest was, that it found a
deodand of 130 i upon a certain boiler, because it killed
M. Ashcroft. Now, it appeared that Ashcroft was only
six years and three months old, and therefore only an
infant. and it was extremely doubtful whether there
could be a deodand where the person killed was under
fourteen years of age. The third objection was,
that it did not state with sufficient certainty
how he came by his death. It was clear
that he came by his death in consequence of the explo-
sion of the boiler, but it did not say whether he was
killed by the steam, or whether he was blown up or
killed by the fragments, or in what way it was he was
killed. For the uncertainty on this ground also he c,n-
tended the inquest was bad. The fourth objection was,
that there was a departure from the ordinary form in
the finding of the jury in this case. They state that
M. Ashcroft came by his death in consequence of the
bursting, exploding, and blowing up of a boiler ; but
they did not state that the boiler moved to the death.
lie would also contend that there-could not be a deodand
in a case of this kind. There could not be a deodand on
a fixture, and the boJer was a fixture. There might be
a deodand on the fragments, but not on the boiler. In
the case of a person killed by a cannon-ball at a consi-
derable distance from the cannon, the deodand should
be levied on the ball, and not on the cannon.
Mr. Justice PATTESON —Suppose the boiler burst, and
the person killed by the steam, you would contend that
the deodand should he levied on the steam.—(Laughter.)
Mr. COWLING —There could in fact he no deodand.
There were other objections, but he thought he had
stated enGugh to entitle him to a rule.—Rule nisi
granted.

IN TUE MATTER OF JOHN HOWARD.
Mr. ConnETT in this case moved for a writ of habeas
corpus to bring up the body of John Howard, now con-
fined in the New Bailey prison, Salford, on the ground
that the warrant of commitment was bad on the face of
it. It appeared that this person was committed under
the 4th Geo. IV., for leaving his service, and the objec-
tion was, that it did not appear there was any complaint
made by the person with whom Howard entered into a
contract, nor did it appear that there was any contract at
all entered into with that person. There were other
objections also, but those were the principal ones.
Application granted.
THE QUEEN V. THREE. OF THE BURGESSES OF TREGONY.

Mr. Smiatcr. in this case moved for a rule for an at-
tachment against three of the capital burgesses of Tre-
gony for not complying with the order of the Court. It
appeared that a mandamus was directed to the burgesses
to elect a mayor, and there were only eight burgesses
altogether, and but four of these assembled in com-
pliance with the order of the Court to elect a mayor; but
this number was not sufficient. The object of the pre-
gent application was to compel the three persons who did
not attend (the fourth being of unsound mind, was not
included in the application) to comply with the order of
The affidavit on which the application was
i wilfull
• . y
absented themselves.—Rule -;ning away, and that the y
the uk.,. - the deponent believed those persons had
mnoadv
ea,lisd cause
L"
seo; remu--

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.—Before Mr. Baron ALnEnsoN.)
His Lordship heard several motions, but none of them
possessed any public interest.
WRITS OF ERROR.

Shortly after ten o'clock Lord Denman, Lord Chief
Justice Tindal, the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Parke,
Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Justice
Coleridge, Mr. Baron Gurney, Mr. Justice Williams,
Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Baron Rolfe, and Mr. Justice
Cresswell, entered the Court to arrange the days for
taking writs of error. The days appointed were—
Queen's Bench, Tuesday (the 26th) and Wednesday (the
271 h) ; and Common Pleas and Exchequer, on the usual
days in Hilary Term.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
METCALF'S V. BUSBY.

The defendant was a tradesmrn at Romford, in Essex,
and having fallen into difficulties, he called a meeting of
his creditors, at which an arrangement was agreed to by
the creditors above the amount of 501. The plaintiff, a
wholesale grocer in London (as we and rstood the case),
was not present, but being subsequently applied to on
the part of the defendant, they said they would do what-
ever Sir Chapman Marshall and the other creditors
would do. A deed was then drawn up and signed by
the defendant and a majority of his creditors, by which
the former gave up his property to satisfy his debts, and
the creditors, in accepting the assignment, consented to
leave him in possession of a portion of the stock and
household furniture, to enable him to continue in busi-
ness. The plaintiff did not sign that deed, but on the
contrary put in an execution upon.the goods retained by
the defendant, and brought this action for the balance of
their claim above the amount produced by the property
seized in execution. The jury found for the defendant,
being of opinion that the plaintiffs had bound themselves
with the other creditors, when they stated that they
would do whatever Sir Chapman Marshall and the other
creditors would do.

Mr. Sergeant SHEA obtained last term a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not lie set aside and a new
trial granted, on the ground that there had not been such
evidence of consent as could bind the plaintiffs with the
other creditors in the agreement and subsequent deed.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD this day showed cause against
the rule, relying upon numerous cases to which he re-
ferred, in which such consent as had been proved at the
trial to have been given by the plaintiffs to the defend-
ant's agent was held to be binding.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA, in support of the rule, contended
that the agreement ultimately come to by the creditors,
who were parties to the deed of assignment, did not
come within the terms of the consent alleged to have
been given by the plaintiffs ; for it was clear that by the
words " the other creditors" they meant all the other
creditors. The agreement. however, was concurred in
only by a majority of creditors of one class, that is, of
those whose debts amounted to more than 501. Besides
it had been shown that the person who called upon the
plaintiffs was not an authorised agent employed by the
defendant, but an accountant who took up the matter
officiously, and the conversation with him appeared not
to be regarded by the plaintiffs as having a definitive or
binding character.
The COURT considered that there were grounds for a
rehearing of the case, and made the rule absolute, upon
payment of the costs of the action, and of their ap-
plication.
The argument, of which we give the only points, occu-
pied the whole morning. The Court rose at half-past
o-ie o'clock, their Lordships presence being required in
tne Court of the Exchequer at the ceremony of "prick-
ing for Sheriffs."