The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-17 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

A SEWAGE DIFFICULTY.—The Lord Chancellor bad
before him an application, in the matter of Goldsmid v.
Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commissioners, to sus-
pend an order for sequestration which had been issued
because the defendants had not complied with the decree
of the court, requiring them to abate a sewage nuisance,
whereby the water of an ornamental lake on the Somer.
hill estate, near Tunbridge Wells, was polluted to the in-
jury of the plaintiff. It was now stated that the defend-
ants were doing everything in their power to comply with
the decree, and that the sequestration stood in the way of
the requirements of the order of the court. Ultimately it
was agreed that the case should stand over.

THEBLAKZIA ORDNANCECOMPANT.— Lord Justice Cairns
has decided in the matter of this company (Stockers case)
that the Master of the Rolls was right in his order, that
where shares had been forfeited for non-payment of calls,
though an action could be maintained in respect of those
calls, no interest was payable for the time since they had
been forfeited.

MN. DION BOLTICAULT'S " FLYING SCUD."—Vice-
:Mancellor Wood had before him the case of Boucicault v.
Warde. The defendant was manager of a theatre at
Halifax, and Mr. Dion Boucicault, finding that he was
representing a play which was pirated from his (plaintiff's)
drama called " Flying Scud," filed this bill against the
defendant ; and in April last the court made an interim
order against the defendant to restrain the representation
of the pirated play. Mr. Boucicault, being determined to
repress piracies of his dramas, thought it expedient that
the court should be asked to grant an injunction against
the defendant, extending throughout the remaining period
of Mr. Boucicault's copyright. The defendant did not
appear, and the Vice-Chancellor granted an injunction
accordingly.

THE ARREST OF MIISTANIA FAZIL PASHA.—The case of
Campbell v. Mustapha Pasha, which wa 4 adjourned from
last term, has again been before the Queen's Bench. It
will be remembered that the defendant was arrested by
the plaintiff for a large amount of money, which was
alleged to be owing as con-mission for negotiating an
advance of £BOO,OOO on his Highness's estates in Egypt.
At the time he was arrested he was in the suite of
the Sultan, and a rule was obtained in Michaelmas
term, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why
the order for the arrest should not be set aside, on
the ground that at the time of the arrest Mustapha
Fazil Pasha was engaged in the suite of the Sultan.
Cause was shewn against the rule last term, but the case
was adjourned to ascertain from M. Musurus whether
Fazil Pasha was really a member of the Sultan's suite.
The Ambassador had stated that he was, and the court
discharged the rule. At the same time their lordships
were of opinion that no action should be brought against
the plaintiff for false imprisonment, as Mr. Campbell
appeared to have taken every step in his power to ascer-
tain whether the Pasha was a member of the suite. No
costa would, therefore, be given.
THE MEMBER FOR BARNSTAPLE.—An application was
made in the Court of Exchequer for a new trial in the
case of Hayes v. Cave. It will be remembered that the
plaintiff brought an action for 100 guineas, which he said
Mr. Cave, M.P., had promised him in consideration of his
obtaining for him,the office of Sheriff of London and Mid_
dlesex. At the trial, before the Lord Chief Baron, a
verdict was found for the defendant. The Lord Chief
Baron now expressed himself satisfied with the verdict,
and their lordships refused the application.
SHOEBOTTOM V. EGERTON.—A motion was made to the
same court in the case of Shoebottom v. Egerton. This
was an action by the v. idow of a bargeman against the
trustees of the Bridgewater Canal for the damage she had
sustained by the death of her husband in consequence of
his falling into the canal through a defect in a bridge ; and
at the trial at Manchester, before Mr. Baron Martin, the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages, £4OO.
A motion was now made to enter a nonsuit, or for a new
trial, on the ground of misdirection. The deceased met with
the accident as he was going, about two in the morning, from

a public-house, where he had been drinking, to his barge ;
and the question was whether he had any right to go over the
bridge in question, which it was said formed part of the pri-
vate property of the trustees, and had never been dedicated
to the public. The Lord Chief Baron said, as the defendants
allowed, for hire and reward, barges to be moored along the
banks of the canal, they were legally bound to keep in good
repair all the approaches from the public highway to those
barges. In this case they permitted the barge to be
moored near to an enclosed space, which included a basin,
sheds, and vacant ground, as well as the bridge in ques-
tion, and people had been in the habit of passing through
that space in going to and coming from barges on the
canal. There was, therefore, a legal obligation upon the
defendants to keep the bridge in proper repair, and it mat-
tered not that there were other and better ways which the
' deceased might have taken in returning to his barge. The
other judges being of the same opinion, the application was
ref used.