The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE:
COURT OF CHANCERY, Feb. 14.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR, who has not sat for some dap,
presided in his Court to-day in Lincoln's Inn-hall. His
Lordship took appeals, none of which possessed any points of
the least public interest.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Feb. 14.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY V. DARNEWELL.
The arguments in this case were commenced to-day. Mr.
Bethell and Mr. Heslop Clarke were heard on the part of the
plaintiff, and the further arguments of the case were post-
poned to this day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 14.
(Before Mr. Justice Wioirriu.sx and a Special Jury.)
CHRISTMAS v. TUBBS.
This was an action brought by Mr. Christmas, a hatter
and fur manufacturer, residing in Burlington-arcade, against
Mr. Tubbs, a Magistrate and Deputy-Lieutenant for the
county of Middlesex, to recover the sum of 6/. 1 ls. 6d. for
goods supplied to that gentleman's wife. The goods supplied
were admitted to be of a proper and necessary character for
a lady, and the prices charged for them were not contested.
The point in dispute was the liability of the husband to pay,
he and his wife, having been separated, by mutual
consent, for many Years. The parties, it appeared,
were married in 1822, at which time a sum of
5001. per annum was settled on the lady by her father.
In 1829, by mutual consent, they agreed to live separately,
Mrs. Tubbs, of course, being in the exclusive enjoyment of
her 500/. a year, which, at a subsequent period, was in-
creased to 600/. a year, by a bequest accruing under the will
of a deceased relative. Mr. and Mrs. Tubbs had one child,
a son, who lived sometimes with one, and some-,
times with the other, but in the earlier portion of his life
more frequently with the mother. All three, Mr. Tubbs,
Mrs. Tubbs, and Master Tubbs, dealt with Mr. Christmas,
and their several bills were regularly paid. In the be-
ginning of the year 1840, Mr. Christmas sent in
his previous year's bill to Mrs. Tubbs, and when
he called for payment, found to his astonishment, not only
that Mrs. Tubbs was dead, but also that for years she had
been living separately from her husband. This was the very
first intimation the plaintiff had of this fact. He then applied
to Mr. Tubbs for the payment of his wife's bill, being only
6/. 1 ls. 6d. for the entire year 1839, and was referred by that
gentleman to another party who would probably pay him.
He waited on the other party, who, however, declined to do
so, referring him back to Mr. Tubbs, who not only, as he
said, was legally liable, but was also morally so, being in the
receipt and actual possession of 5781., the dividends accruing
to his wife from the period of her decease, in addition to a
very handsome income of his own. Mr. Christmas then applied
by letter to Mr. Tubbs (the letter being produced in Court) to
pay his debts at once, expressing his surprise that, under all
the circumstances above detailed, he should for one moment
have hesitated to do so. ,This letter the plaintiff sent to the
defendant by his own son; who was now produced in Court,
and who distinctly swore that, in answer to it, Mr. Tubbs
sent this verbal message by him to his father—" Tell your
father I will call and pay him." This was the strong point
in the case, it being contended by Mr. Erle, for the plaintiff,
that even were the defendant discharged from his liability,
by reason of a separation and of ample means on
the part of his wife to maintain herself in ade-
quate respectability, yet, that the promise to pay, now
sworn to, was, according to decisions given by Lords Ellen-
borough and Tenterden, amply sufficient to warrant the jury
in finding for his client. Mr. Whately, on the other hand,
questioned this promise very much, and strongly contended
that after so many years of separation, and such ample
means at the command of the wife, it would be impossible for
the jury to give a verdict for the plaintiff, which would have
the effect of encouraging trial on trial of this description.
The JUDGE having summed up, the jury turned round to
consider their verdict, but not being able to agree, retired
from the Court to consult. After an absence of nearly an
hour and a half, they returned into Court, and gave their
verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

CENTRAL CRI VIINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and Mr. Justice CaEsswELL.)
CHARGE OF MURDER.—Charles Iff'Donald was placed at
the bar, charged with the wilful murder of Thomas Green.
The prisoner was charged in another count with aiding and
abetting another person in committing the murder.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL conducted the prosecution and
stated the case to the jury. The prisoner at the bar was
charged with the crime of murder. He was the captain of
the vessel Cleofrid, and the deceased was one of the crew of
the same vessel. In August last year the prisoner was on
the Coast of Africa, and anchored in a river not far from
Fernando Po. On the 31st of August it was stated by the
prisoner that the deceased had taken a cask of palm oil from
the vessel in a native canoe. The prisoner seeing this
ordered the,boat of the vessel to be got ready and to have
his pistols loaded. He then followed in pursuit of the de-
ceased, accompanied by a person named Boyle. In a short
time. some shots were fired, and there seemed to be
no doubt that the deceased came by his death in con-
sequence of a shot fired from the boat, either by
the prisoner or by Boyle, who died since. Green lived
for four weeks and three days, but he died at last. When the
prisoner returned to the vessel he exclaimed that he had shot
Green. He expressed his regret for what had happened, and
said he would not have done it for 5,000/. He afterwards
denied that he had shot Green. The Learned Gentleman
then explained the law of the case for the jury. If they
were of opinion that he was the cause of the death of Green,
they would consider whether their verdict ought not to be a
verdict of manslaughter, instead of murder.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said the Court had looked over the
depositions, and they were of opinion that it might shorten
the case, if the surgeon who attended the deceased was first
examined.
Mr. Thompson, the surgeon of the vessel Susan, then lying
in the river Cameroon, was called, and examined by Mr.
Adolphus.
It appeared from his testimony, that the deceased was
getting well of the wound, but having a chronic complaint
in the lungs, the treatment for the wound might have ac-
celerated his death. The wound was found to have no con-
nexion with a vital organ.
Under the direction of Mr. Justice COLERIDGE,
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
THE LATE FATAL DUEL—TRIAL OF CAPTAIN
GRANT.

Captain Duncan Trevor Grant was then placed at the bar,
charged with aiding and abetting Alexander Thompson
Munro in the wilful murder of David Lynar Fawcett, who
was killed in a duel which took place in the parish .of St.
Mary, Islington.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case to the jury. The
prisoner at the bar was charged with the serious crime of
murder. The prisoner was charged with aiding and abetting
in the murder of Lieut.-Col. Fawcett, as second in the duel
in which Colonel Fawcett lost his life. The duel took
place on the first of last July in Camden-town, and on the
abetting,
bar lvere
was guilty. It would be
so present, and he
3d of that month Colonel Fawcett died of the wound he re-
ceived in-that duel. The law was, that all who were present
provedat the duel,that tht aidingpr
sanonder at abettt
would be traced from his lodgings to the place where the duel
was fought. and he believed there would be little doubt as
to his identity. If the jury believed he was present with the
criminal intentioalol,uted to him in the indictment, it would be
their duty.to find him guilty. He believed it would appear
,that the prisoner at the bar wore moustacheos when the duel
was fought, though he did not at present; but they would
consider upon the evidence, whether he was the same per-
son. He had a solemn duty to perform, and he would not
go beyond the facts. It would be their duty to decide upon
those facts.
John Holland was then called and examined by Mr.
WADDINGTON—I Nerd; in the employment of Mr. Coates, a
livery-stable-keeper at Chelsea. On the 30th of June
Colonel Fawcett ordered a carriage, and left directions
that it should come to his house at five o'clock next morning.
I went to Col. Fawcett's house and drove him to a house in
Portland-street, No. 27 or 29. Col. Fawcett went in, and
another gentleman came out with him. The gentleman asked
me if I knew the Brecknock Arms. The gentleman at the
bar is like that gentleman. I think the gentleman at the
bar has darker hair ; I will not say positively that that is the
gentleman. Another carriage soon came up. They all drove
to the Brecknock Arms. I saw all the gentlemen coming
out. I cannot say that the gentleman at the bar was one of
them. They went into the field. I lost sight of them. I
heard a report of a 'pistol. I heard but one report. In a
short time two gentlemen came up. They ordered the driver
of one of the carriages to drive them to the barracks. I was
called into a field, and I saw Col. Fawcett lying on the ground.
He was taken to tire Camden Arms.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wiums---I did not know Mr.
Munro before. I did not know Col. Fawcett. I only knew
them from what occurred afterwards,
Charles Longman was next called, and examined by Mr.
CHAMBERS—I was servant to Mr. Munro. On the morning
of the Ist of July my master ordered me to get the carriage
ready, and to drive to the Brecknock Arms. I did so. Mr.
Gulliver was with my master. They breakfasted together
at my master's. When we got to the Brecknock Arms we
waited for some time. A brougham carriage and a street cab
came up in a short time. I did not know any of the three
gentlemen who came in them. I only knew my master and
lUr. Gulliver. I don't think I saw the gentleman at the bar
there. There was a gentleman like him, but his hair was
darker than the hair of the gentleman at the bar.
Mrs. Amand, the person with whom Captain Grant lodged,
was then called and examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
—I know the prisoner at the bar; he lodged with me in Port-
land-street. I don't see any change in his appearance, ex-
cept that he does not now wear hair on his upper lip. He
left my lodgings on the 30th of June. Mr. Munro was with
him on that day. Mr. Munro was in the habit of coming
to see him. He gave ins no notice of leaving. He left
his things at my house for several months.
Sarah Langham gave testimony corroborative of the last
witness.
John Wm. Hankey was called, and proved that on the
30th of June he saw Captain Grant, and a person who was
pointed out as Lieutenant Munro, together.
John Jones, a policeman belonging to the S division, exa-
mined by Mr. CHAMBERS—The witness was not able to iden-
tify the prisoner at the bar as being present at the duel.
Davis, the toll-keeper, was called, but was not able
to identify the prisoner at the bar.
Mr. Gulliver, the surgeon, was then called and examined
by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I know Lieutenant Munro. I
do not remember being with him on the night of Friday, the
30th of June. I was with him on the following morning. I
got up before five o'clock. Mr. Munro applied to me to ac-
company him. I did so. We went from the barracks. We
started about five o'clock. We went to the Brecknock Arms.
A brougham carriage came up after some time. lam
not certain, but I think it was Colonel Fawcett who
was in it. I knew Colonel Fawcett very well.
Colonel Fawcett was there that morning. I knew Lieutenant
Grant. I was acquainted with his person. He wore mus-
tachios at the time we are speaking of. I saw a hackney cab.
I did not see any person get out of it. There were five per-
sons there, including myself, Colonel Fawcett, Lieutenants
Munro, Grant, and a gentleman I understood to be Mr.
Cuddy. They went into a field very near the Brecknock
Arms. I followed them. I stood with my back towards
them. I heard the words "Ready—fire.'» I heard a report
of a pistol. I heard a shout of "Doctor. I then went to
Colonel Fawcett. I found him lying on the ground, wounded
in the right side. Lieutenant Munro was near him, and
Lieutenant Cuddy. I don't recollect seeing Mr. Grant
there. I heard some person Baz " You had been
levelling at him." Colonel Fawcett said I was not coolly
levelling at Lieut. Munro. Lieut. Munro and Colonel Fawcett
shook hands, and Lieutenant Munro said, "God bless you,
Fiwcett." I put Colonel Fawcett in the best position. Lieut.
Munro went away. I saw him leave Colonel Fawcett. I
don't know that I saw Mr. Grant. lam not certain. I can-
not call to my recollection that I did; but it is possible I did.
I saw Mr. Grant going down to the field. That was the last
time I saw him, to the best of my recollection. Colonel
Fawcett was removed to the Brecknock Arms, and after-
wards to the Camden Arms. I understood he died of his
wounds. It was not possible for him to survive such a wound
as he received.
Cross-examined by Mr. WiticiNs—l was distant about
twenty yards from the place when I heard the words,
"Ready, fire." When I went up I heard Colonel Fawcett
say he was not coolly levelling at Lieut. Munro. Lieut.
Munro said he was.
Mr. Liston, the surgeon, examined—He proved the death
of Colonel Fawcett was produced by a bullet wound is his