The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-14 00:00:00

authority of decided cans that Lord Mansfield was exempt.
The Lord Cho.aellor concurred with thy: judgment of
the Court Le'ow, and dismissed the appeal ineofon,
but, upon the application < f Counse 1, allowed the Noble
Elrl to go in again be fore the Master upon a rew state
of fictf,, and paying the costs of such a prom ding.
His Lordship then proceeded to hear appeal p.titions.

CRADOCK V. PIPER.
The further arguments in this part-heard petition of
appeal was then proceeded w ith, and occupied his Lord-
ship the whole mornin'. The case came before his
Lordship upon appeal from an order of the. Vim-Chan-
cellor of England, directing the taxation of the costs ( f
M. Watson, a solicitor, who is also a trustee ( f the estate,
as costs between attorney and diet t. The taxing Master
had construed the order ( f ref rence not as a general
order, but as one in which he was bound to take notice
cf the solicit )r being a trustee, and therefore not entitled
to more than his charges and expenses ; but the Vice-
Chancellor: thought; that, it was the iLt ntion of the
testator, who made him a trusted, that he should have
his cost., and he mode an order accordingly.
Mr. JAMES PARKER and Mr. WRIGHT argued in sup-
port of the appeal, that it had been the practice fit
thirty years to refuse a solicitor, being a trustee, any
costs incurred in the execution ( f the truss', and they
challenged inquiry.
BETHELL :And Mr. SIDEBOTToM . denied the uni-
formity ( f the practic-, and also challenged inquiry. The
order was a general one to tax costs, and the Master had
no discretion but to tux them without reference to the
I.,osition of the solicitor.

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
The Master ( f the Rolls sat to-,-lay in his Court in the
Rolls-yard, Chancery-lam?, and acer disposing of the re-
maining petitions on his paper, and the case of the joint-
stock company Norwich Yarn Company, proceeded to
bear the arguments in Wilson v. Eder, which occupied
his Lordship the remainder f the day.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE •CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
His Honour was occupied the whole morning with
hearing the remaining cause petitions on his paper.
(Eefore the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Causes (f no general interest occupied his Honour the
whole morning.
(Ee'bre the Vice Chancelor WIGRAM.)
BItALNENT V. RANKIN.
The further argumeuts 'in this past-heard case occu-
pied his Honour the whole moning. The question in
the case relates to a right cf lien on a vessel and her
cargo, called the Miracle, cf New Brunswick, but the
points involved possess ao interest except to the parties
concerned.

QUEEN'S BEN C H.-(T HIS DAY.)

BLANCIIA.RD V. RIPLEY
This was an action tried at the la►t sitting here before
Mr. Justice Wiglita.an. It was aii action brought by
the plaintiff, the owner of a barge, against the defendant,
the proprietor of a brig employed in the coal t' ade, to
recover compensation ter the injury whVa his barge had
sustained in consequence of the t egligence of the ser-
vants of the deteneaut,, a collision having, taken place
be tween them at Cuckhold's Poiut, near Woolwich.
The verdict went for the plaintiff—damages, 201.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved for a rule is show eause
why the verdict should not be set aside, on the ground
that the verdict was againt the evideace. The brig, he
said, was proceeding to Whitby in ballast, but owing to
tt.e loweess of the tide %as lying in the sand at the
Vane. The barge was proceeding up the river t t Ham-
mersmith fully loaded with sand. Now, upon the show-
ing of the plaintiff himself, the verdict ought to have
gone for the defendant. According to the rules
which governed the mode of navigating the
river, the barge, instead of proceeding directly on,
ought to have given way, whilst the brig ought t have
proceeded on her course unchecked—the barge being on
the larboard and the,,brig on the starboard. Such was
the strict observance cf the custom, that three barges
about the period in question allowed the brig to pass in
toe way he had r amid. Had the brig altered her course
her head would have been timed to the wind, she
would have been driven ba:k, and a collision would have
been almost inevitable. Besides, hail the brig really
struck the barge, as was alleged, she must bare sunk
her, as the barge was loaded to the water's edge, whereas
the brig was high out of the water. He was instructed,
therefore, to say that the brig was perfectly still at the
time, though the persons in the barge swore that she
was in full sail. He disproved this distinctly at the
trial by eight respectable witnesses who were in the brig
at the time, and Mr. Roland, the harbour-master, who
heard the whole of the case, and who had been sub-
remised by both parties, showed the custom to be as he
t,ai stated it.
Mr. Justice WIGHTEAN said it appeared to him that
the witnesses reterretil to could not lave been mistaken.
Mr. KNOWLES said the Court must not look at toe
small amount of the damages, hut at the fact that eight
respe.taole persons hal really been convict Id of perjury,
and it was most impertar,t to their characters ttat the
verdict should not taati.
The COURT deferred its decision Intl they hal bai
as opportunity of perusing Mr. Justice Wightnaaa's
neCts.

LEGALITY OF THE ARGYLL ROOMS.-THE QUEEN V.

BRIER AND OTHERS.
Mr. M. CuA14111;118 moved fir a rule calling upon the
d. f nclanti to show t ease why a procedendo ehould riot
issue in this (a,Fe, which ha I been removed by certiorari
from Vie Cent al Criminal Court int this Court. This
was a prosecutton aga nst the di fenda t 3 f)r keeping a
disorderly house fJr music a•id ()ageing, entitled the
Argyll Rooms, in Windmill- t•eet ; mad as in-
dictment against them was found at the la t
quarter sessions f Vie county of Middle-
sex. The cha-ge was prcfsrred on the rtrength of
the 25th of Geo. IL, the opening of the rooms in q❑es-
tion being altogether opposed to the letter and spirit of
that Act. The question which he intended to raise war,
whether this Court had the power t issue a certiorari
to remove an indictment of this nature into this Court,
from the Central Criminal Court. The indictment was
fiund at the Quarter Sessions f.r Middlesex, on the 5.h
of December last. After it was fund, the prosecutor
caused the prosecution to be removed to the Central
Criminal Court, to be there tried under the provisions
of the Centrai Criminal Court Act. After it had been
so removed, the defendants went before Mr. Justice
Matteson et Chambers, and without directing his atten-
tion t) the provisions of the 25th of Geo. 11., obtsined
an order from him to bring the indictment into this

Court.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said, if his recollection served ,
him, the pointed was raised bi f ,re him.
Mr. CHAMBERS wa; prepared to contend that this
Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, because the Act
of George 11., which must be read in connexion with
the Cent' al Criminal Court Act, prevented the removal
of a prosecution instituted under that Act into this:Court.
The Central Criminal Court Act stated that sessions under
it should be held twelve times a year, thus providing
fJr the speedy trial of offenders; and he effect of the
removal of the prosecution into this Court would have
the effect of enabling the defendants to keep open their
disorderly house, and reap unlawfjl gains from it, for a
considerable time before the prosecution against them
could be brought to an issue. The case having been re-
moved from the sessions to the Central Criminal Court
this Court could not interfere. lie wish the indictmert
to be sent back to the Central Criminal Court. The
proceedings c f the defendants were altogether illegal.
They bad applied for a licence, which had been re-
filled, showing clearly their intention to open a place
of amusement. The bills they put forward stated tint
" pupils" might become members cf a " dancing aca-
demy," and learn dancing, and might pay either by the
lesson or by the quarter, but any one might pay a shil-
ling at the door, as at a theatre, and either dance or
merely become a spectator of the dancing or a listener
to the music.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Justice PATTESON said, it bad been clearly held
that a dancing master might open a place as an academy
for music and dancing without acting illegally, unless he
admitted persons indiscriminately.
Mr. M. CHAMBERs—Ob, yes; but the pretence of a
dancing academy by these parties is a mere blind; their
purpose is obvioue.
Mr. Justice I'ATTEsoN said, it was not the custom of
the Court to entertain such a question as that raised with
respect to the power of a judge at chambers.
Mr. CHAMBERS saiel,• the Court would not object to
review the order of a judge at chambers if aught had
been kept back. A case of this kind would come under
the term "improvident issue."
Mr. Justice PATTESON said he could not see how the
two acts could be incorporated. The certiorari carrying
the indictment to the Central Criminal Court, was moved_
for by the prosecutor, and it having got to tle Central
Criminal Court, he thought that the defendant ha t a
right—he did not say that the prosecutor had—to hare
the indictment dealt with as one flund at the Central
Criminal Court. Whether he was right or wrong in
what he had done, this at least war perfectly clear
to
him, that the Judges bad the jurisdiction which Mr.
Chambers contended they bad not. There was an end,
in this ca sr, of the clause relied on in the Act of Geo. 11.
The certiorari must, therefore, stand.
Application refused.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
The Court rat in banco this morning, but the pro-
ceedings were wholly devoid of public interest—a sur-
veyor's bill in one case, and a qua:tees rent of a house
in another, being the points on which applications were
made to the Court to set aside adverse verdicts in trials
at Nisi Prius.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
EX PARTE TEATHER.
Mr. WELLS moved the Cow t for a rule nisi, calling
upon the Poor-law Commissioners to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue requiring them to restore
Mr. Luke Alvonley Teather to the situation of relieving-
offioer of the Godstone Union, in the county of Surrey.
Mr. Teather held this office for the last fourteen years,
and on the 2d inst. he was removed by a❑ order of the
Commissioners without any reason being assigned. The
question involved in this case would turn upon the con-
struction of the Poor-law Amendment Acr, which gave
the Commissioners power to direct boards of guardians
to appoint their paid officer. It, however, could hardly
bo supposed that the Act gave them the arbitrary power
of disuaissing those p&id officers without previous in-
quiry, or assigning some reason for doing so, though it
had been held, in the case of the Queen v. the Guardians
of Braintree, the Court had no power to disturb the orders
or decisions( f the Commissioners; butit would seem f um
the terms of the decision in that case that the Court
meant that it had no power to interfere with a resolution
of the Commissioners come to after inquiry. •
Mr. Justice ELME was clearly of opinion that the Act
of Parliament gave the Commissioners power to dis-
charge, but could the Learned Counsel show him any
authority that tha power must be exercised after
inquiry.