The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Char.celior sat in the Old Hall, Lincoln's
:And heard cause petitions to-day. 'The furtht,r
4rgaroenti in the part-eard case of Plowden v. Hyde,
occupied his Lordship the whole morning.

ItOLLS' COURI'.—(TIIIS DAY.)
, The Nlasa3ter of the Rolls sat in his Court in the Rolls'-
to
-d

The WILSON U. EDEN.
x, d
reee_further arguments io th(i)scepnaprite-ciorar case were
the Court the
ih,reed this morning, and
hee„ d3Y. This case, in (tie shape or other, has
40; before the Court nearly six years, and it came on
. John ePon a petition presented' by Sir William Eden;
et, lent Eden, Esq., of the county et Durham, Maria
withue's of Athlone, and others, being joint defendantsd
,heir bile in a bill filed by Eleanor Wilson, sister and
ee ,;_at-lays of the late Sir Robert Johnson Eden, Bart.,
itm,"ue counties of York and Durham, who, in 1843,
of his will, devising to Sir William Eden the bulk
was Property, situated in both counties. The bill
hioil'ed by Mrs. Wilson, in order to take the °pi-
t.
.18, (if the Master of the Rolls whether, tinder a de-
,,
arid °' all the testat ors estates in the counties of York
soetaatArharn, and all other his real e slates in toe raid
were tesi to William Eden, his leasehold estat-t?, which
at per,,eatisideraale, passed also? The eass a as argued
theajat length before the Mn ter of the R0.1b,. and on
f
the uOth of may,
1848, his Lordship de,:sidel in favour e
bOlubittff's claim to the personal estate of the la, e
th‘u°'t as heir-at-'acv. His Lordship observed tear,
f,itckdkLat of law was so nice a point, that if the de-
It' 181 t' who was al adverse is- ty, desired i., he would
teltu,'" a ease for the de:asion of the judges of a court of
00istat (apri !aws to pronounce their opinion upon. the? sand
11 u- 'l,'' Law. This course toe dt f mdat.t. Sir %,1, illia.n
Deer' had adopted, and it ails refer: e I to the Ma aer,bir
,the'4"ltoe, upon Li tler direct uus as to the di a vin,A up
aiireefi''. Be ore the ;slaster that &lei:dant wished to
Piirr,-,,-uee the estate and the land steward's bi,oks for
01.4.1, unconne,ael wit's t: e inquiry orde et l, which
ba,i drrthe Master of the Rolls hu, t.a ned. F ly, a ca e
Of Ex 41," up, aril submitted t s Vie judges of..at-ie Court
t'IQ ,`'" ellier, but it was fund that a ma-erial word in
teit.e-taiic,bal been omit e', a id these Judges again re-
sett' °1 the (Itie t i tie Ma to , to be by him once more
411514-,' Ell'),e particu'a-ly as to what by.
,the consent
ties„ reetseat, of the parties wr.s to b, taken to le evi-
by -t"1:114 re i I e4,to the devise: flea' and [e•-sohal este, es
r
l‘ta :J.' stator. The prof ei-ty claiae 1 :,:y the photos
1 laratrVeiPally leasehold, from the Dean and Chuct;r
'atkt al; auaehed or lyii:g ns ar to the t ssast or s
ie t'l Windlestone, near Auckla 1(1.
heatar. W4lPote, Mr. Malins, end Mr. D, ume, rgies, were
heard yesterday on behalf of Sir Wm Eden,
Iste.}eaehtsnded that he was entitled to use t so maps, es-
!tttti Re''ik's, and papers, ordered to ho produced by the
eotee- al whose custody they were found, tor The ur-
litto.of establishing his claim to the leas, hold.
.es-
te4treated the whole of those lands comprised in the
Wit,,4,1 description, whether freehold or leasehold, as his
freetestone estate' This comprised 1,182 &sues. of
IN 11„4 ',end, and 7.60 acres of leasehold, both of which
mifferLa 'et to several tenants, their farms consisting in-
estmeeetly of freehold and leasehold lands, parts of the.
itri,,(:).f Windlestone. The struggle here was to obtain
thew "sle evidence in aid of the right understanding of
1,11 eta°,,t,.d.s Used by the testator, Sir Robert Johnson Edo:),
vise.4e— 'e show what particular lands passed under the
,0 the testator,
ill of lauds at sa.r near the Windlestone estate by the
raeee'e,uaNEe. (with whom was Mr. Humphrey) com-
e e: au address in opposition to the petition yesterday
souith'itlelUded it to-,lay, contending that the petitioner
Neet whet the Court ought not to grant. The judg-
ststts (1' the Court had already decided the case upon the
rNtiese facts then submitted to it, and the object of the
Nes et. was now to import into the re-hearing of this
f e the d
is'aes that °cuss:lents B, D, or K, for a purpose different
upon„*;ror Lordfp' Which they were allowed to be produced
th L'ltgdale, and the Muster, Sir George Rose,
tite°B4teb!_tiathtehating on 'furih,r directions. There was no
'.O treaters—e was evidence in the book D that the
hie, .
di toga the these lands as different estates, distin-
fi'teteniLVJand.s near Windlestone from. those at Mid-
, of "aesrington both as to locality and the qua-
-110,, the la
.., -'
decided in the
e.." se of r„ ,nu. The Blundell case,
;ill ne abZrug, bad settled the point that where there
aliZ,tled iiii,eiLgeuit di
th d the devise must be con-
-1,0 decide, 51;innaryesewnosre..s The Master, therefore,
es rendered aightly in refusing to admit the evidence
.r.
14Th, 'lletrabiPllßEy followed on the same side.
t ttraetae at: appears likely to occupy a day or two
1'
elltikaap,,,4 ' the e are no less taan nine or ten
-- Yet to be heard who represent othe: parties.
je t
Thel ; -CLIANCERY.—(TIIIS DAY.)
14 -,;.)trv?.. the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.). .
ttott. eke*, " Proceeded with the hearing of the remain
ea_ t ettions, but no case calling for particular
~_l.let,--Ze btehreorveitils
,Hhonh.urnduring the morning.
tceOes of n_ ~,,, c,-L, ance or [e's:lnter Bence.)
Theete,a„the iotur.tertehs,e ~(..hxoci(epdtat(,), the parties concerned,
~cleEoceVice-Chancellor gram'M d' id not sit in conse-
"tid the' we understood, of
(Liie the seventy of the weather
qUip ate state of his health.
„
tl,t, b Am BLINCH.—(riIIS DAY.)
\t.... 41het-" 41'113 ettApTER OP nocIIESTER v. WIIL3ToN.
tl.til itqfiteltdeaint in this case is the maste,.• of a grammar
el tleStes er:?.te-, of which the Dean and Chapter of
iii_ae kr. ‘,„, tstee trustees and governors. They had
tenifroal
tCnot_coen notice that they inter
to remove
1.,l es th,..., . Ili. he held, to which he demure con-
vill te lati7eceing once appointA, they had nod,g, to 41
zeePt they 4119710ci him to be an uufic per-

r FITZROY liIELLy ep evel this morning t) show
cause agaimt ti.a iu!e t ehalft fti e Dean ani Chapter.
As many gravo and important mattcrs were involved in
the RILI• e, which must I e solemnly argued, be was pre-
pared ro consort, LI) the part (,f his client', to the rule
leing made absolut., f ,r the affi.lay.t,, which were most
important, r,ndered such a course absolutely necessary.
Sir F. TIIESIGER, who appeared for Mr. Whiston,
hoped it at, in the meantime the order which the Dean and
Chapter had issued to the parents of the children edu-
cated in the school to send them to another place, and
nut to the school presided over by Mr. Whiston, would
be rescinded. Perhaps his Learned Friend would un-
dertake on the part of his clients t:.) give this pledge.

. „
Sir F. KELLY was not instructed t) mrke any conces
sion of the kin''.
Consiee:able discussion ensued upon this matter.
The rule was at, length then made absolute.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice WILDE;
Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, and Mr,
Justice WILLIAMS.)
lILACKATER V. GILLOTT.

Mr. PEACOCK said he had to move for a rule calling
upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the judgment in
this case should not be arrested. The action was tried
before the Lord Chief Justice at the last sittings
for Middlesex The declaration contained two counts;
the first stated that the plaintiffs bed an an-
cient ferry across the Thames from the Isle of
Dogs to Greenwich, and that the di fendant carried on
a ferry; and the second count stated that the plaintiffs
were entitled to the ferry, aed that the defendant t arried
persons across the river ni ar the ancient ferry of the
plaintiff,. The verdict was for the defendant on the
general issue so fur al related to the first count, but for
the plaintiffs on the general issue so far as related to the
second count, with It. damages. The question now
merely arose on the second count of the declaration,
which stated that the Flaintiffs, before and at the time
of committing the grievances thereinafter mentioned,
were and still are, in their capacity of trustees of the
Society of Free Watermen of the River Thames, entitled
in fee simple and inheritance to an ancient ferry for car-
rying foot passengers and goods across the River Thames
from the Isle of Dogs to Ureenwich, taking for the con-
veyance of such passenger and goods over and across
such ferry one penny for every person on foot; never-
theless the defendant, on the 7th April, 1849, and on
divers other days injuriously and unlawfully,
and against the will of the plaintiffs, car-
ried in a boat tf hit, the dt feudant's , divers
foot-passengers across the River Thames near the plain-
tiffs' said ferry. The ground on which he (Mr. Pea-
cock) submitted that this count in the declaration was
insufficient afar verdict was, that it merely stated that
the defendant wroegful►y and injuriously carried certain
persons iu boats across the river near to the place where
the plaintiffs had their ferry. He submitted that that
was no cause of action. The charge ought to have been,
either that the defendant set up a new ferry to the in-
jury of the old one, or that he fraudulently carried per-
sons near the old ferry, for the purpose of enabling them
to evade the old ferry.
The COURT refused the rule, leaving the applicants to
have recourse to their writ of error.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BHILLIBEER.
This was a procceiing by the Jrown against the de-
fendant, the proprietor of a funeral and posting estab-
lishment, to recover penalties fur certain offences against
the Excise-laws, whereby the defendant had incurred
certain penalties. The proceedings ve e tedious and
expensive, and ultimately the Crown succeedel in con-
victing the defe -Want in two feaalties ef 50/. and 204
respective'y.
The defendant now appeared in person, and moved
the Court fur a rule to have the costs herein ref •rred to
the. Queen's Remembrancer to be reviewed. In the course
of his statement in support of the application, Mr. Shil-
libeer alluded somewhat severely to the injustice
of his being called upon to pay fees to the Attor-
ney-General for briefs which he did not
,intend to
support.

Mr. Baron PLATT—We have nothing to do with that.
Mr. Shillibeer (indignantly) But somebody
ought to have to do with it ; at any rate 1
don't think I ought to pay it. The other
charges in the bill of costs are also most exorbitant,
and are no doubt made with the intention of leading to
my destruction. The Act under which he was sued was
a very bungling and unintelligible one, and the post-
masters throughout the country, who were generally ig-
rant men, could not understand it, and were every day
being served out by the Excise-Alice. There was no
necessity, he contended, to bring the case into the Ex-
cheqner, and thus incur an endless train of ex-
penso, f;r it might have been decided by a police
magistrate at a very small cost. There was something
at the bottom of the present proceedings unknown to
the Court, but perhaps it would not then t.e advisable f,r
Lim to make their Lordships acquainted with it. He
would say, however, t:•at a degree tf caprice and 12-
teelii.g had been evinced by the Government in conse-
quence of his determined cpp)sition to this one-iidtd and
injurious Act.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON observed that these remarks
were f)reign to the real questior, and suggested that if be
had to compla'n cf the statute, his remedy was with the
Legislature af.er the 31st of January.
Mr. Shillibeer said • that might be so, but he was
robbed first and then sent to Parliament for relief.—
(Laught-3r.) He could hardly trust himself to give ex-
pression to his real feelings on the subject of the scandal-
ous bill f costs; and he could only attribute the way in
which it had beta got up, to a desire on the part
f the Government to ruin, and then to get rid of him,
because he dared to expose the enormities f the law.
Ile paid no less than 2,0001. a year to the Excise, the
duty on each omnibus casting him 2001., and yet railway
people paid nothing.
The CHIEF BARON said he was cf opinion there should
be no rule in the case. With respect to the complaints of
Mr. Shillibeer they had nothing to do. and had simply
to administer the law as they found it. Pei-
sons who were charged with offences against
the revenue lawn, had to pay costs if they turne out
to be guilty ; but if they were found to be innocent they
did not obtain costs; and if the defendant felt any injus-
tice in this, his complaints must be taken by petition to
the Legislature. Ile thought the costs had been reason-
ably and fairly taxed, and saw no groun then. f ire, why
they should be reviewed.

The other Judges concurring, the rule was refused.
Mr. Shillibeer thanked the Court for the indul-
gence shown him, and said, that as he stood there in
support of the first masters in the country, h 3 should
take teivautage o fthe hint thrown out about the 3ht tf
January, and present a petition to Parliament' earnesly
hoping th At the Attorney-General would take the first
opportunity of sating wrong right.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Bef ire Mr. Justice ERLE.)
TEE QUEEN V. JUSTICES OF BATH.

Mr. PrryNN applied to the Court tor a rule nisi call-
ing upon the justices of 13wh to show cause why taey
refused t i issue their warrant against a convicted offer -
der under the L lay Act, p,sseed in the reign r f
Cfarles the First. The Learned Geritlemaa obtained a
similar rule last term, but on its being called on for ar-
gument a t objection wan taken to the jurat of the affi-
davit, upon which the rule was granted, which provtd
fatal to the rule. Tho facts of the cane were simply
these:—One of the porters on the Great West Tn Rah-
way ha I been convicted before the justices of Bath of
following his occupation on the Lord's-day, and fined in
the per arty of 5s The justices, however, entertaining
some doubt that they could legally enforce the penalty,
hal refused t 9 issue their warrant no distra'n upon the
goods of the porter, and hence the present application.
The Learned Counsel contended thst, after the convit-

Lion, the duty of the magistrates was pure!), ministerial,
and they had clearly acted wrong in refusing to issue
their warrant.

Mr. Justice EnLE said, under these circumstances, Ln
action fur damages would lie against the magistrate-,
but probably no parties had suffered damage by a°
refusal.

Mr. PHYNN apprehended that the churchwardens who
protecuttd had Buff, red damage to the extent of thi
fine.

Mr. Jthtice ERLE said as the rule had already been
granted once, and only bailed upon a technical objection,
the Learned 'Counsel minht take a second rule to show
cause. Rule nisi accordingly.

son to be entrusted with the education of thihiren ,to :men sin how far they we -e involved by the other
which was nc,t against him. Much cont-ove sy actions.
h.is Wien pluee, nad Mr. Whiston's name has teen re- Mr. Justice ERLE—You may take a rule to show
pot d!y be:ere f-te lie had cbt.;ained a rule cause why Mr. Wilkinson should not give you an Ile-
upon ;I- e Dean and Chai to • to shew cause count of the se-Coos he has conainencwi,laLd the
a 11,ai7d4enti,, sheuld not dtmanding; their right to if any, he has received iu resp.2et of them.
dismiss hiui f.-oni his office. Rule nisi accordinc!ly.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY
(Btf)re Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE lIAsTINGS.

In the case of the bankrupt, who was a wine-m,
tr-
chant in Lim.-street, City, en application was mado on
behalf (f a lady named Wilt:tins to prove for a debt a
5,9351. fir money lent.
Mr. Parnell, the official assignee, in answer to his
lioNoun, said that there was no doubt that money ha.tl
been advanced to the amount claimed.
The facts were these:—After the advance had been
made, bankrupt, amongst other securities, gava a bit
for 2,0001., and also executed a deed by which he unch !r-
-took, on fdlure in payment of the bond, to pay a firth er
sum rf 3,000/. by way of liquidated (Limoges. The bo td
was not satisfied, and it was then fund that the det'd
had not been stamped; and the solicitor, in order tea
avoid the penalty at the Starr}-,ffice—not being able to,
obtain a rt-?xecution a the deed—took off the f‘ont.
Ain of parchment and affixed another. It was now con -
tended by the Solicitor to the assigned that by this a,.:t
f the solicitor the deed had been cancelled, but they
were content to admit the prey f fir the amount of fAte
bond.

His HoNoun said the debt did not arise on the deed,
but for money lert, and asked whether the deed could
now be stamped. He did not think it could.
The Solicitor said it could, on pre:ienting a memorial
to the Commissioners if Stamps, and payiog a penalty
of 10/.
The Solicitor to the assignee submitted that the
debt had been compromised by giving the bond which
r, as valid.

Hie HONOUR said the failure cf the security, or the
irregularity of the deed, did not release the original debt.
In equity the caimant was entitled to all she had lent,
and she ought not to be the loser by any irregularity.
The proof was then admitted.

MARLBRO'-STREET-(THIS DAY.)
CAUTION TO PLAY-GOERS.-George Skinner ttaci
Alexander Robards were placed Wore Mr. Bingham
charged with bi-ion, drunk and creating a disturbance at
the Queen's Theatre, Tottenham-street.
James Ettershank, the constable employed at the
theatre, stated that la .t night, shortly after the com-
mencement of the performance, the prisoners came into
the gallery in a drunken Atte, and immediately began to
create a disturbance. He cautioned tbem not t, hetet
rupt the audit3ry, and on their still persisting to make a
noise he f)rcibly eject3d them from the theatre, and took
them to the s'aion.
The prisoners, in defence, said they certainly had been
drinking, but were far from being drunk. The noise
they made was in consegeence of not being able to get a
seat.

Mr. BINGItAid said it was not to he tolerated for one
moment that the audience were t ) ice annoyed by two
drunken men, for whom the station-house was more fit
than a theatre. As a warning to others he (Mr.
Bingham) should fine them ss. each, or in default to be
imprison( d for seven days.
POT-STEALING.—Thomas Johnson was charged with
pot-stealing.
Stringer, 193 C, was on duty in Porter-street, about
nine o'clock this morning, ►hen he saw the prisoner,
who appeared to have something bulky under his
coat. lie stopp'd him, and asked what he bad go',
and, on his declining to answer him, he (witness)
searched him and found the two quart pots
produced concealed in his trovvsers. The prisoner then
said, "I'll be d—d if it is not all up now; lam nailed at
last." Witness then took him to the sittior, when ho
was again searched, and a knife used by pot-stealers to
cut up pots was found upon him.
Ilumphrey Prest a water in the employ of Mrs.
Malcolm, landlady a the Two Chairmen, Warwick-
street, idebtified the pots as being the property cf his

_
mistrem
The prisoner was fully committed.

SOUTHWARK.-(THIS DAY.)
Juntes Smith was brought bofire Mr. A'Beckett,
charged with stealing two half-crowns and two shillings
from the person of William Harvey.
Prosecutor deposed that on the previous night he went
with two friends to the Surrey Theatre, and at the con-
clusion of the performance they went to the Surrey
Cod-hole, next the theatre, to past tke rf some refresh-
meats. While kt ending at the bar one of his friends mat
having some words with a man at the door, which cauaed
him to inquire into the circumstances; but as soon as he
got to the door the prisoner came behind him and pi-
nioned his arms with one bane, while with the other Le
picked his waistcoat-pockets of two half-crowns and two
shillings. He instantly called out to his friends, advising
them to get out cf the house and bring in a policeman;
but before they got out an officer came in, and witness
gave the prisoner into custody.
Mr. A'BECKETT —ls the prisoner known? Paine, a
police-constable of the L division', said he was tried and
convicted at the Surrey Sessions, in September Jas.', f_x
a similar robbery at the surrey CJal-hole.
Mr. A' BECKETT —This house serms remarkable fir
robberies of this kind. I should recommend the police
to keep a sharp lot,k-,ut as to the cost milers, and ac-
quaint the landlord that his licence is in peri'. lies the
prisoner anything to say in answer to the charge ?
Prisoner—All I have to Lay is that I am innocent of the
cba-ge.
Mr. A 'BECKETT—I shall commit you f)r trial, when
twelve men will satisfy their minds on that point.
Committed accordingly.