The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 2.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)

TICE GREAT NORTHERN PREFERENCE SHARES.

The Lord Chancellor said that during the vaca-
tion an application had been made to him to hear a
case of `• Henry v. the Great Northern Railway
Company," involving a question relative to the
preference shares of ttie company, but ho did not
think the case was one which required such an un-
usual proceeding ; it was not a pressing motion,
but simply an appeal from a regular decree. He
bad, however, promised to take the case early in
the present term, and he had fixed Wednesday
next, but he found that day would not be conve-
nient to the Lords Justices, who would sit with
him, and therefore he would fix the hearing for this
day week (Monday naxt).
sn&Psos V. CAItTER—CREMORNE GARDENS.

Mr. D. Keane maid he applied, with the permis-
sion of Mr. Jus'Ace Crompton, for a rule calling
upon the plaintiff in this case to show cause why
the defendant should not have liberty to put to
him certain interrogatories. The action was for
slander alleged to have been uttered by the defend-
ant at a meeting of the vestry for Chelsea. The
plaintiff complained of a speech made by th 9 de-
fendant, in which the defendant in substance stated
that the amusements carried en at a place of public
resort known as Cremorne-gardens were of an im-
moral and licentious character, and tended to the
corruption of youth. The alleged slander also con-
tained a statement in these words, as to which some
difference arose "I am informed that there are
evil places there for persons of the other sex, from
the lowest prostitute upwards." Leave had been
obtained from Mr. Justice Crompton to plead not
guilty, and also to justify the slander, and the de-
fendant now asked leave to propound certain inter-
rogatories to the plaintiff. On the part of the
plaintiff the objection was taken, that these inter-
rogatories, or the answers to tkem, would have a
tendency to criminate the plaintiff, and his lordship
thought theobjec tion might perhaps be well founded
and referred the matter to this court.

Lord Campbell said there could be no doubt that
the answers might bring out matter which would
criminate the party ; but the qiiestion was, whether
the plaintiff could object to answer the interroga-
tories.

Mr. Keane said there was an authorityto show that
the party must on his oath object to the questions
himself, and that the obj-ction comild not ba taken
by another party in his behalf. In " Osborne v.
London Dock Company," the Court of Exchequer
held that it was for the client himself to make the
objection.

Lord Campbell—ln examining the witness viva
voce there could be no objection to putting the
qiestions ; the objection would be to his giving
answers to them.

Mr. Justice Erle—Ts there no affidavit from the
plaintiff himself, stating that he objeats to giving
answers ?

Mr. Keane—No ; the plaintiff personally made
no objection to the questions ; but the objection.
was taken by his attorney before Mr. Justice Cromp-
ton at chambers.

Lord Campbell—lt seems quite clear that this is
not the stage for making the objection. I think the
plaintiff ought to have an opportunity of denying
the whole allegations. Take a rule.
Rule granted.
APPLICATION TO STRIKE AN ATTORNEY OFF THE