The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-12 00:00:00

THIS DAY'S NEWS.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
♦ERNON V. THELLUSON—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which was argued some time since before his Lord-
ship, upon an application to discharge an order pro-
nounced by his Honour the Vice. Chancellor of England.
The following are the short facts upon which the case
came before the Court :—On the death of the late Sir
Bethell Codrington, a judgment creditor for the sum of
4,0001. brought an action of scire facias against his ex-
ecutors. To that action the executors pleaded plena
administravit, and then filed their bill in this Court for
the purpose of obtaining an injunction to restrain the
proceedings in the action. A motion was made for that
purpose, and an injunction was granted by the
Vice-Chancellor. Upon this the defendant applied to
this branch of the Court to discharge that order. His
Lordship was clearly of opinion that there had been no
lathes or delay on the part of the executors, and such
being the case, he felt bound to dismiss the motion for
the discharge of the Vice-Chancellor's order, with costs.
His LORDSHIP then proceeded to hear appeals ; but
nothing of any importance came before the Court during
the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ElvalliNn.)
In consequence of the absence of Mr. Stuart, his
Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England rose before
twelve o'clock, finding it impossible to proceed with the
causes in his paper in the Learned Gentleman's absence.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WPGRAII.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. FLINT.
In this case an information bad been filed, the object
of which was to obtain an;account of certain rents from the
defendants to the relators, the feoffees of Strencham's
Charity, at St. Dunstan's, in the city of Canterbury.
The defendants, on their part, claim as purchasers, and
the principal point at issue is the validity of that purchase.
Mr. COOPER, on the part of the relators, resumed his
argument in opening the case, which, as he went at great
length into the facts, and the legal points connected with
them, occupied the Court the remainder of the sitting.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir K. BRUCE.)
HALMS V. PRICE.
His HONOUR, on taking his seat this morning, pro-
ceeded to arrange with Mr. K. Parker, Mr. Temple, and
Mr. Russell, the counsel in the case, the minutes and
terms of the decree, which occupied the greater part of
the morning. After which he took the case of

CIMINO V. THROWER.
This is a part-heard case, in which the object of the bill
is to obtain restitution of certain funds, alleged to have
been lost in consequence of a breach of trust, committed
by a Mr. Bland.

- The counsel in the case are Mr. Russell and Mr. Speed,
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Wigram, Mr. Wray, and Mr. Cole,
for the defendants.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the special paper to-day, and were en.
gaged the whole morning in listening to arguments re.
lating to mere technical points of pleading.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON. )
EXPA RTE BLUNDELL.
Mr. COWLING in this case moved for a rule for a cer-
tiorari to bring up the inquest and depositions taken
before the coroner of Wigan, with a view to their being
quashed.

- It appeared that an inquisition was held on the 7th and
9th of August last, on the body of Michael Ashcroft,
who had been killed in consequence of the bursting of a
steam-boiler belonging to Mr. Blundell, before Mr.
Rogerson, the coroner of Wigan, in the county of Lan-
caster, and " good and lawful men of the said county,
duly chosen." The first objection to the inquest was,
that it did not appear from those words that the jury
came from the b:mrough. A coroner's inquest was in the
nature of an indictment, and ought to comprise equal
certainty, and should therefore show that the jury came
from a place within which the coroner had jurisdiction.
The second objection to the inquest was, that it found a
deodand of 1301 upon a certain boiler, because it killed
M. Ashcroft. Now, it appeared that Ashcroft was only
six years and three months old, and therefore only an
infant. and it was extremely doubtful whether there
could be a deodand where the person killed was under
fourteen years of age. The third objection was,
that it did not state with sufficient certainty
how he came by his death. It was clear
that he came by his death in consequence of the explo-
sion of the boiler, but it did not say whether he was
killed by the steam, or whether he was blown up or
killed by the fragments, or in what way it was he was
killed. For the uncertainty on this ground also he con-
tended the inquest was bad. The fourth objection was,
that there was a departure from the ordinary form in
the finding of the jury in this case. They state that
M. Ashcroft came by his death in consequence of the
bursting, exploding, and blowing up of a boiler ; but
they did not state that the boiler moved to the death.
He would also contend that there could not be a deodand
in a case of this kind. There could not be a deodand on
a fixture, and the boiler was a fixture. There might be
a deodand on the fragments, but not on the boiler. In
the case of a person killed by a cannon-ball at a consi-
derable distance from the cannon, the deodand should
be levied on the ball, and not on the cannon.
Mr. Justice PATTEsort—Suppose the boiler burst, and
the person killed by the steam, you would contend that
the deodand should be levied on the steam.—(Laughter.)
Mr. COWLING—There could in fact be no deodand.
There were other objections, but he thought he had
stated enough to entitle him to a rule.—Rule nisi
granted.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN HOWARD.
Mr. COBBETT in this case moved for a writ of habeas
corpus to bring up the body of John Howard, now con-
' fined in the New Bailey prison, Salford, on the ground
that the warrant of commitment was bad on the face of
it. It appeared that this person was committed under
the 4th Geo. IV., for leaving his service, and the objec-
tion was, that it did not appear there was any complaint
made by the person with whom Howard entered into a
contract, nor did it appear that there was any contract at
all entered into with that person. There were other
objections also, but those were the principal ones.
Application granted.
THE QUEEN V. THREE OF THE BURGESSES OF TREQONY.

Mr. SIVIIRILE in this case moved for a rule for an at-
tachment against three of the capital burgesses of Tre-
gony for not complying with the order of the Court. It
appeared that a mandamus was directed to the burgesses
to elect a mayor, and there were only eight burgesses
altogether, and but four of these assembled in com-
pliance with the order of the Court to elect a mayor; but
this number was not sufficient. The object of the pre-
sent application was to compel the three persons who did
not attend (the fourth being of unsound mind, was not
included in the application) to comply with the order of
the Court. The affidavit on which the application was
made, stated that the deponent believed those persons had
no valid cause for remaining away, and that they wilfully
absented themselves.—Rule granted.