The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-25 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY:-(THIS DAY.

This being the last day of term, the Vice-Chancellor
of England took motions, none of which were of any in
terest.

(Before Sir K. BRUCE.)
LYON V. COLVLLLE.—JUDGMENT.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case this morning.
The circumstances were exceedingly complicated, in-
volving the claims of creditors on the estate of the tes-
tator, the liability of the property of the widow and ad.
ministratrix to part of those claims, the settlement of
the accounts of the executors, and the question whether
certain estates in the island of Jamaica, were, by the
construction of the will and the statute law of the colony
and of England, converted into equitable assets for the
benefit of the creditors. With respect to the first point
his Honour grounded his decision on the case of Eland v.
Eland, and said, though it might seem a hard case, yet
if that decision was rightly given, it would be wrong to
award the plaintiff what he claimed. With respect to
tho question whether the funds of the testator in the
island of Jamaica were equitable assets, he thought,
considering the Acts of the Colonial Legislature, and the
British statute' the 37th of Geo. 111., that those funds
must be treated as personal estate, and there-
fore became legal assets. This principle ap-
peared to him to be clear of doubt. With
_ _ _

regard to the lands in Jamaica—the Prospect, Paradise,
and Retrieve estates—he thought there was not in the
will any devise or disposition by which they were con-
stituted, a real estate for raising a fund for the payment
of equitable assets. Though he had come to this con-
clusion he had not done so without much doubt, as it
was a question of much difficulty. But if any part of
those estates was to bo held to be equitable assets, it
must be by some other authority than his. He directed
the case to be mentioned again on Thursday week, and the
minutes which would require much care, to bo drawn up
in the interim.

(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
FRY V. FRY. JUDGMENT.

In this case Frances Maria Burn by her will dated
the 28th of June, 1832, gave all her leasehold estates at
Newington, to J. J. Taylor, Esq., and T. W. Fry, to
hold as her executors upon trust, and manage them for
the benefit of the purposes of her will. The trusts
were declared to be out of the rents, issues, and
profits to accrue from time to time from her
estates, to pay, first, her debts, funeral and
testamentary expenses, and legacies, afterwards,
given ; secondly, to pay the ground-rents, taxes, &c., of
the property ; thirdly, to pay certain annuities, which
were given principally to near relations of her late hus-
band ; and also other annuities subject to certain special
provisions. Subject to these incumbrances the property
was to go to Mrs. S. C. Fry and her husband, for their
lives, afterwards to their children, with a proviso for
their maintenance in the event of their surviving their
parents ; if there were no children of Mr. and Mrs. Fry
who could take the property, then it was to be disposed
of, according to the joint appointment of both those par-
ties, to the next of kin of Sarah Fry. Subsequently, by
a codicil of the 15th day of September, 1834, the testa-
trix revoked so much of the bequests of her will as re-
lated to the whole of the leasehold estate, and by that
codicil she gave one-half of that estate to Mr. and Mrs.
Fi,k: and the other half to Mr. Charles L. Gee. The
titton then was, according to the construction of the
eat , what was the subject of the revocation, and
w hat. 4 was the subject of the new disposition.
For the children of Mr. and Mrs. Fry it was contended
thaftirthing was revoked but the beneficial interest of
Mr,j111.7, determinable by his death ; also that the "—sub-
revocation and bequest commenced with the
Fry, and that the whole of the estate was sub-
,harges mentioned in the will. For Mr. Gee
,nded that the whole of the disposition of the
In revoked, and that Mr. Gee took one moiety
discharged of all the debts, charges, and
,s, stated in the will. His Honour over-ruled
t contended for by the children, and, with
other two points, he decided that the case
;idered as a bequest of the leasehold estate,
Larges thrown upon it, and that, subject to
s, one moiety should go absolutely to Mr.
other moiety to Mr. and Mrs. Fry and their
__ half of the charges to be borne by each.
With respect to costs, he would hear counsel on a futnre
occasion, if there was any objection to throwing the costs
upon the general residue.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
_ _ TUB QUEEN V. BARNARD GREGORY.

, The defendant in this case was brought up by habeas
corpus in the custody of Mr. Cope, the Governor of
Newgate' in which prison ho was sentenced to be im-
prisoned for twelve months, for the pui,ll`ation of libels'
on the Duke of Brunswick and Mr. H. W. Vaaance, the
term of which imprisonment will expire to-moriV.lv-
The defendant's health seemed to have suffered severely
from his imprisonment, he looked exceedingly pale and
emaciated, and walked with the feeble tottering gait of
an old man.
Mr. WORDSWORTH prayed the judgment of the Court
upon the defendant on au indictment for libel, which
had been found by the grand jury at the Central Cri-
minal Court, had been removed by certiorari into this
Court, and to which the defendant pleaded guilty.?
Mr. PLATT, on the part of the defendant, moved for a
rule calling upon the prosecutor to show cause wby the
indictment should not be quashed, or why the judgment
should not be arrested. This indictment had been pre-
ferred at the Central Criminal Court, a Court which had
been created by the 4th and sth William IV., cap 36.
By the 13th section of that Act it was enacted that no
bill of indictment for any misdemeanour(other than per-
jury or subornation of jury),! which can; or may be
presented to the Grand Jury at any sessions of the peace
for the city of Westminster, the borough of Southwark,
and counties of Middlesex, Essex, Kent, and Surrey,
respectively, in which such misdemeanour was com-
mitted or alleged to have been committed, shall be pre-
sented to the grand jury to be summoned under
the . authority of this Act, unless the prosecutor
or other person presenting such indictment shall
have been bound by recognizance, to prosecute
or give evidence at the Sessions to be held under
the authority of this Act, against the person or
persons accused of such misdemeanor, or unless such
person or persons accused shall have been committed to
or detained in custody, or shall be bound by recognizance
to appear at the said sessions to be held under the
authority of this Act. Now, from the record before
the Court, it would appear, that the prosecutors had
not entered into recognizances to prosecute, until after
they had been before the grand jury. They bad been
before the grand jury on the 14th of November, and
had not entered into the recognizances until the 2d of
December, eighteen days afterwards. He therefore
submitted that the Central Criminal Court had no ju-
risdiction in this case whatever.

Lord DENMAN having read the section referred to,
Mr. PLATT, in continuation, urged that looking at the
matter in a strictly legal point of view, the
Duke of Brunswick, the prosecutor of this
indictment, had never entered into any recognizances
at all, for the recognizances bore upon the face of them
that they were recognizances to prosecute for a libel—
not for libels, whereas the indictment was for eleven

libels. The proper course for the prosecutor to have
pursued would have been to have gone before the grand
jury at the Middlesex Sessions, or at the Westminster
•Sessions, so as to have had the matter investigated by a
jury of the inhabitants of the county in which the al-
leged libels had been published. He therefore moved
for a rule nisi to quash the indictment, or to respite the
judgment.
Lord DENMAN—Brother Talfourd, do you propose to
show cause now?

Mr. Sergeant,TALrouan—l cannot complain of the
course which has been adopted ; but I certainly am not
now prepared to show cause against an application of
which I have had no notice.

Lord DENNAN—(to Mr. Platt)—Then I think you are
entitled to a rule.—Rule granted. .

The defendant was then remo►ed in the custody of
Mr. Cope, to Newgate, from which prison he will be
discharged to-morrow.
Counsel for the prosecution Mr. Sergeant Talfourd
and Mr. Wordsworth ; for the defendant, Mr. Platt.

The Duke of Brunswick was in Court and sat among
the Quoa's Counsel within the bar.
rini-zwom v. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
In this case, in Which an application had been made
to the Court by Mr. Ju;tice Erie,
Lord DENMAN said there would be no rule.
nit QUEEN v. MOON.—QUO WARKANTO.
The SOLICITOR-OENERAL said, that in this case he
had obtained a rule in the Bail Court, calling upon the
defendant to show cause by what authority lie claimed
the right to exercise the office of Alderman for the ward
of Portsoken, in the City of London. It was necessary
that great care should be taken in drawing up the rule,
and it was only to-day that he had fixed the terms of
it. lle therefore prayed that he might now be per-
mitted to hand in his papers, and that the rule might be
drawn up as for to-day, so that it might come on for ar-
gument next term.—Application granted.
LAKE V. TILE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
This was an action brought against the defendant for
goods supplied and work done for an association for the
promotion of emigration to the British North American
colonies, of which the Noble Duke iwas President, and
the proceedings in connexion with which created great

THE QUEEN V. ALDERMAN THOMAS WOOD.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I hope the other party sre
prepared to takeaway the papers ; they are in Court.
What are we to do with them ? They are perfect!!
useless ; some of them are old backs of briefs.
Mr. Justice Wila.u.sis-I.land them to lifi,,Gray.
Lo rd DENMAN—In my time the custom-tilled to be to
change old briefs for new, not new for old.—(A laugh.)
The box containing " the musty records" was then,
solemnly handed over to the attorney for the parish, gnu
taken out of Court.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF YORKSHIRE.
Mr. PASHLEIGH moved for a rule for a mandamus fp
this case directed to the three Justices of Yorkshire,
commanding them to issue a distress warrant to enforce
the payment of, a poor-rate for the township of Bed'
dersfield. The rate had been made and duly
published, and a demand had been made on
the Huddersfield Philosophical Society. They
did not pay and did not appeal to the Quarter Sessions,
but went before the Judges in Petty Sessions, and sub'
milted that they were not liable to be rated under the
statute of the 6th and 7th of Victoria, c. 36, which
exempted all societies for the purposes of science, Mery
Lure, and the fine arts ; but the object of the society ill
question was to instruct all classes of the community 10
every branch of science, literature, and the fine art*
which the Learned Counsel contended did not cow
within the exception of the statute.—Rule granted.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE MARQUIS OF BUTE V. THOMPSON. The Court gave judgment in this case. The question
related to the working of certain coal-mines ; and die
Court were of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to
their judgment.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
At the sitting of the Court this day, being the last ?f
the term, their Lordships proceeded to give judgment 10
several cases which stood over. The following were the
only ones of any interest.

CALDICOTT V. JOHNSON.
This was an action of ejectment, which was brought
to try a right claimed under a will. The verdict wee
taken for the defendant for the purpose of having the
opinion of the full Court upon the point of law, which
was, whether Michael Mason, jun., under whose will the
defendant held possession, had not granted more thea,
he himself derived under the will of his father, Michael
Mason, sen.

Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that the will of tb,
son was not an execution of the father's will, and ruled
the verdict be entered for the plaintiff.

GRINNELL V. WELLS.
It will be recollected that in this case the plaintiff, 5
schoolmaster of respectability, recovered damages, IP
large amount, for the seduction of his daughter, against
the defendant, an opulent farmer, in whose family the
young woman lived as governess. A rule was subset
quently obtained to bar proceedings on the ground tbs,
the father had no action for the expenses of his daughter s
maintenance, and that the action ought to have bed'
brought for loss of services.

Tile COURT decided this day that the father had no
action for maintenance. In a case of seduction his only
claim was for loss of services.—Rule to bar proceedings
made absolute.

THOMAS V. DUNN—THE CHINESE COLLECTION.
The plaintiff, formerly agent to Mr. Dunn, who is pro"
prietor of the Chinese Collection, brought this action
upon a contract, to which the defendant pleaded that the
document was a forgery. The jury found for the defen-
dant, and in the course of this term the plaintiff applied
in person to the Court for a rule to show cause why the
verdict should not be set aside, when their Lordships
took time to consider judgment. On that occasion we
gave an adequate statement of the facts.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, this morning, seeing the
plaintiff in Court, said—Mr. Thomas, we have lookedinto your case, and we are unwilling to say anything
more at present than that the rule nisi will be granteck,
Mr. IVALcomnE, who now appeared for the plaintiut
said that his client wished to put in two affidavits re"
sp,lTting facts which he had stated at the time of his or
oicatio;z. but which had not been supported.
The Coui granted leave to put in those affidavits.

CRIMINAL C 6 VRT.—(THIS DAY.)
The first session of the p;: sent Mayoralty was COl-
menced this morning at the Old 2ailey.
Precisely at ten o'clock, the Right Hon. the Lora
Mayor, attended by his chaplain, MichaJ Gibbs, .A-•". 7
vicar of Christ Church ; Aldermen H. Hitp,.hes, Kelly'
Hooper, Marshall, Sheriff Sidney, and Unde;-Sheriffs
Martin and Ashurst entered, and the Court was oPeileci
in the usual form.
The names of the grand jury were then called Oltir'
and they being sworn,
The RECORDER then proceeded to deliver his charge'
He said that the charges in thepresent calendar, although
not numerous—it containing only 118 names—at the
same time, comprehended several charges of the meat
serious and important character. Many of them ,ver-
„,
charges of violence to the person. No less than ten for
cutting and wounding with intent to do some grievous
bodily harm ; seventeen of larceny from the person, ac
companied, more or less, with violence ; two of noll-
slaughter, and one of murder. All these cases were 0, *
serious character, but the facts connected with them were
in general clear.and sufficiently distinct, and not involvieg
any question of law on which it would be necessary I°r
him to address them. Their attention would be princi"
pally directed to the question of fact, what credibilitY
should be given to the witnesses, and how far the oil-
Meting evidence should be believed. With regard to the
charge of murder, he did not think it convenient, irif
would it answer any useful purpose, to advert to it, ecr
examine its details. They would give it their due 'll
cautious attention. With regard to one of the charges
t;
of manslaughter, which was involved in considerable
scurity—a charge against a husband, a professional rail'
—it behoved them to sift the evidence well, and befell:
they returned a verdict of manslaughter, to feel assured
that there were really good grounds for their so doing'
There were two other charges to which it might be el‘'
petted that he should allude—he meant those which re;
fated to offences of a foul and unnatural character ; bh
he was sure they would spare the Court any reference
to such infamous cases, as the great 1704uTd
bability was, that the facts themselves vl„,b,
be amply sufficient to guide their opinions. -1..1.,
remaining cases in the calendar did not require any Pa
r 0
obfutmiatnwslaasuwghittherr,egtoretwhheicshtahteed
ctlioutitl/.l3,e_or_det
properly refer, as the depositions were trans
just just before the sitting of the Court that re°lit,
ing. The proper officer to have sent them but
might have done so several days before,
the
lie, with a calpz.ble procrastination, had deferred itor.
transmission of them till the last hour allowed by oid
Had they been delayed a little longer, the Court viding
have felt it its duty to imtose a fine upon the effetn, the
party. The Learned Recorder then adverted
general duties of the grand jui-y, and concluded thrthe
With these remarks he would leave the gentlemen _
grand jury to the discharge of their duties, but he
add, that if an thin should arise, in the courseootur`t it
proceedings, to call g _
for the assistance of the re-
would be readily granted them. They
fer to the officer appointed to assist, and With
words he would dismiss them.
The grand jury then retired. 'night
these
few

NEW PUBLIC MART FOR ORIENTAL Slalir—,g
The large sale of India shawls for which London has
Y lit the'
become the grand market, took place yesterd a_ ,
Hall of Commerce, Threadneedle-street, and was
short
PiTn
cipally attended by dealers from the Continent. '-'rr;
wards of 3,000 shawls were sold, and a sum little
of sixty thousand pounds changed hands. Altholfre
the shawls thus disposed of are considered to be of 14_,teir
quality, they are not of the very first class, the 170.
being always secured by opulent dealers, such as Me ~,a
E
verington and Company, Messrs. Graham and 1;q136
other well-known houses, who, having their agts 1 to
Punjaub, are permitted to superintend the looms, anti
t!lect such as they consider of superior qualitt wis to
facilities recently afforded for bringing these B:".tariff,
Bombay, and the alteration of the dy by the bring'
have caused a reduction of at least one-half, th,s of am
ing this elegant enduring fabric within the reacnion has
great body of the people. Indeed, such rechlet'British
had the additional advantage of giving to our
rcoostior
merchants the opportunity of shipping them to
the nier-
tinople and other markets, from whence theip
chants, were formerly glad to get them.

public sensation about twelve months since. The action
was tried at Guildhall, and the jury found for the plain-
tiff. During the present term an application had been
made for a rule nisi to set aside the verdict and for A
new trial, on several grounds, and the Court took time
to consider the matter.

Lord DENMAN this morning announced that the Court
was of opinion that the application must be refused, and
that the verdict must stand.

In this case Mr. Gray had obtained a rule calling
upon the defendant to show cause why an attachment
should not issue against him, on account of his neglect-
ing to comply with a rule of Court, ordering him to de-
liver up certain papers and documents belonging to the
parish of St. Mary, Newington.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL showed cause against the
rule. It appeared that Alderman Wood had for eighteen
or twenty years held the office of solicitor to the parish,
and the last: year a Mr. Gedge had been appointed to
the office—that the Alderman had, on payment of his bill
of costs, handed over to Mr. Gedge all the documents
belonging to the parish necessary for the transaction of
business, and that Mr. Gedge had all the papers re-
lating to parish business for the last six years. There
were various useless, dusty old papers, belonging to the
parish, which Mr. Wood had promised to look out and
deliver to Mr. Geddye, who was not content to wait
until Mr. Wood's clerk had had lime to look them out,
but had applied to the Court for this attachment.
The papers were, however, ready to be deli-
vered over. It was evident that a great deal
of temper had been exhibited in this matter, and it Was
sworn to that the papers had been demanded in a very
insulting manner. They were perfectly useless, and he
trusted, under these circumstances, that the rule won'"
be discharged with costs.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—DO you want their dirty old
papers, Mr. Gray ?
Mr. GRAY—Every one of them, my Lord.—(A laugh.)
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to argue in OR-
port of the rule, the obtaining of which had marvel-
lously quickened the operations of Mr. Wood's clerks je
making the search, and without which he believesl th
papers would not have been produced.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS gave the judgment of the Court,
which was, that the rule should be discharged without
costs.