The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-08 00:00:00

THE NEW JUDGE.

Mr. Justice ERLE, this morning, at the sitting of the
Court, was sworn as one of the Justices of her Majesty's
Court of Common Pleas, and took his seat on the bench.

ASPINELL v. ANDERS.
The Court was occupied the whole of the day in
hearing Sir Thomas Wilde and Mr. Sergeant Channel],
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Byles, for the de-
fendant, in a special argument on demurer in this case,
which is an issue remitted from the Vice-Chancellor's
(Shadwell's) Court.
The argument turned on the interpretation of certain
words in a will, which were held, on the part of the de-
fendant, to exclude the daughter of the testator from
inheriting under the will, in consequence of her having
married ; the plaintiff's case being, that, taking the
whole of the will together, it was manifestly the wish
and intention of the father that she should marry, not-
withstanding the apparent incongruity upon which the
defence relied. The argument was merely technical—
a!most merely verbal—and perfectly dry and uninter-
esting.
THE REGISTRATION-APPEALS FROM THE REVISING
BARRISTERS.

The days fixed for hearing the appeals from the de-
cisions of the Revising Barristers, under the new ju-
risdicti.n given to this Court by the Act of the 6th
Vic. c. 18. are Monday, the 18th November inst., and
Thursday, the 21st.
The following is a summary of the list of appeals :
From Westminster City—Pitts, appellant, v. medley,
respondent. Tewkesbury—Whithorn v. Thomas. South
Lancashire—Gadsby v. Warburton ; Gadsby v. Barrow ;
Ecclesly v. Barker. Totnes—Cuning v. Toms. York-
shire—W. R. Baxter v. the Overseers of Doncaster ;
Baxter v. Newman. Northampton—N. D. Davis v.
Waddington ; Simpson v. Wilkinson. Bury St. Ed-
mund's—Nunn v. Denton. Lichfield--Moss v. Overseers
of St. Michael's ; Marshall v. Bonn. Totnes—Toms
v. Cuning. Westminster—Score v. Iluggett. Bristol
—Daniel v. Camplin ; Daniel v Colsting. Northampton
—Jeffrey v. Kitchener ; Staunton v. Jeffrey. Cambridge
—Cooper v. Harris. London—Wansey v. Parkins ;
Bage v. Perkins. Westbury—Dyer v. Gough. Taun-
ton—Allen v. House. Lambeth—Crocker v. the Over-
seers. London—Wansey v. Overseers of St. Peter Le
Poer. Wenlock—Hinton v. Hinton. Wakefield—Net-
tleton v. Burrel. Blackburn—l)ewhurst v. Fielden.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
THE QUEEN V. THE NORWICH AND BRANDON RAILWAY

COMPANY.

Mr. CLEASBY in this case moved for a rule for a man-
damus dire:ted to the defendants, calling upon them to
construct a bridge over the river Ware, so as to leave
the water-way as wide as it was before the passing of
the Act of Parliament. The Company did build a
bridge, but it was raised on piles driven into the bed of
the river, and instead of being driven in one behind the
other, they were placed obliquely, so that 40 feet of the
river course were obstructed. The present application
was made on behalf of the Norwich Life Insurance So-
ciety, who had mills of considerable value on the river.
—Rule granted.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
PRICE AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES OF BRAIN V. BAXTER

AND OTHERS.
In this case, which had not terminated
marriage,whenutcnh :ate
though
Cootdahuos
eebgursehre. Court
rose
rose yesterday, Mr. Justice WIGTMAN summed up the
evidence, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs
to the full amount.
FORD V. LADY EMILY FITZGERALD DE DERNDACHER.
This was an action brought by George Samuel Ford,
who is an attorney, against the defendant, as the acceptor
of a bill of exchange for 4001. The defendant pleaded
that she was a married lady, and which was denied
by the plaintiff, and upon this issue was joined.
In proof of the marriage of the defendant, Christian
Antonio Itigoni, a Professor of Physiology in the Uni-
versity of Pavia, was called, who proved that he was
present when the lady, whose maiden name was
Fitzgerald, was married to the Baron de Dernbaeher,oved
an officer in the Austrian service, in Florence in the
year 1823. The marriage ceremony was solemnised in
the private chapel of the Duke of Tuscany, by the
Duke's chaplain ; and the lady, after her marriage, moved
in the first society. It was also proved, that the Baron de
Dernbacher was alive within seven years, and a letter
tbheearreinwgalstinssoiglneagtaulreevwidaesnrceeceoivfedoweithin the last month.
It was contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that
ought to be some person who: could prove that the mar-
nage,lthe fact of which was proved by the Professor, was
legal according to the law of Tuscany.
it re-
putation
TwMr.houeplaintiff
ldJusticevee rwe well
Ps
luA
ifffiTi n•ret Eihecsenoortnet i
evidencesude geecruieednfeuedre ttohhfae ttr hcpeorho
allowedaobf
marriage,
himselfi
it
natsio

PNTSOLVE N"r COT_T„P T—(TITIS DAY.)
IN RE JOHN alias ISAAC I,ONGRIGQ.
This was an application on the part of the insolvent