The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 30.
TOLLOCH V. HARTLEY.
The bearing of this part-heard appeal was continued
during this morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jax. 30.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His HoNoun disposed of a great number:of unopposed
cause petitions and short causes, possessing no public
interest.

BAIL COURT; Jan. 30.
(Sittings in Banco before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
IN RE TIIE MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Mr. DEVONPORT HILL moved the Court for a writ of
certiorari, to bring up the inquisition on the body of
William Vernells, and also for a rule to show cause why
the inquisition should not be quashed. He objected to
the inquest on two grounds, on those that appeared oa
the face of it and on those that did not. It appeared that
William Vernells was killed upon the line somewhere
between Nottingham and Derby, and that an inquest
was afterwards held upon the body. Sometime before
another person, Mr. Dean, had also lost his life on the
same railway, and in reference to the proceedings upon
that occasion an article had appeared in a newspaper,
which newspaper was carried to the second inquest and
handed to the jury, notwithstanding the objection to such
a course urged by the gentleman who attended there
for the Railway Company. The neighbourhood
was in a greatly excited state, the jurymen
were also excited, yet when that gentleman urged upon
the Coroner the impropriety of placing such an article
before the jury at such a time, he declined to interfere,
alleging, forsooth, that " the jurymen were in an awful
t-mper." Mr. Hill then read the article in question from
the Morning Post newspaper. It imputed blame to the
Company on account of defective arrangements, and said
that the driver in cases of that painful kind, blamed the
guard and the station-master, anybody or nobody ; and
in conclusion it found fault with the jury for not amer-
cing the Company in a heavy deodand. Another point,
not on the face of the inquisition was, that by a late
statute regulating the Coroner's Court, it was laid down
that the jury should come from the county in which the
inquest was held. That accident oecurred in the county
of Nottingham, and yet he ( Mr. H.) held affidavits proving
that, at least, one of the jurymen resided in the town of
Nottingham, which was a town and county in itself, and,
therefore, as far as the legality of the case went, he
might just as well have come from Wales or Cornwall.
The Learned Counsel took several technical objections
to the inquisition itself, and was proceeding with his
argument, when
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS intimated that he might take
the rule.

IN RE GILBERT.
Mr. JERVIS said that in this case his Lordship might
recollect that the Learned Solicitor-General had applied
for and obtained a rule for a habeas corpus to bring up
the bodies of two children of the names of Francis and
Joseph Gilbert, on the application of the mother.
The children were at the time in the
custody of a gentleman, named Schwank,
who had brought up the deceased father and his brother,
one of the co-trustees in this case ; he having reason to
believe that the moral and religious education of the
children were neglected while under the mother's care,
and with the full approbation of Mr. Schwenk and his
wife, sent them to a most respectable school. It had
been arranged, with his Lordship's approbation, that the
children should, by a fiction, be considered before the
Court, and that they should remain at school accord-
ingly. William Gilbert, while in possession of the chil-
dren, made a return to the Court, in obedience to his
Lordship's direction, without producing the bodies
of the children, the return, in effect, stating
that he was appointed testamentary guardian along
with the widow, and that believing their education
not attended to, he had, with Mr. Schwank's approba-
tion, sent them to school. His Learned Friend Mr.
Iloggins and himself were then prepared to show just
cause why the children should still be kept at school ;
but it now appeared that the mother of the children had
learned where they were, and had gone there and obtained
forcible possession of them. This was no doubt a con-
tempt of Court, and a warrant of attachment might in
consequence be issued, but he (Mr. Jervis) would at pre-
sent content himself with filing certain affidavits.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 30.
(Sittings in Banco.)
LACEY V. BUNN.
Mr. OGLE moved for a rule, calling on the plaintiff
in this case to show cause why defendant should not be
allowed to add special pleas to the record, in addi-
tion to the general issue. The declaration was on a
contract between the parties, that plaintiff would at
Christmas next following enter the service of defendant.
as manager of Drury-lane Theatre, and would act and
perform in light comedy during the remainder of the
season, the defendant agreeing to retain to him for that
time at a salary of nine guineas a week. In other parts
of the contract plaintiff gave defendant the power
of declaring it to be void, if he performed at any
other house in the stipulated time, or refused, after
a week's notice, to act in a piece which was not light
comedy. Plaintiff having made default in some of these
particulars, an application of the same nature with the
present was made to Baron Rolfe at chambers, who did
not 'decide on it, but allowed three days, in which to
obtain the opinion of the Court.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—When was this condition
made ?
Mr. OGLE—It was a part of the contract, my Lord.
Baron PARKE—I should like to see it.
Mr. OGLE—Unfortunately, my Lord, I have it not
with me. It does not appear in the plea, and we do not
want to compare it with the original document. But de-
fendant is advised that it would not be safe to go to
trial with the record as it now is.
Baron PARKE—There is a case in point, respeo ii g
contract and plea.
Mr. OGLE—It is the case of Nash v. Burge, in tie
11th Meeson and Welsby.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—There the plea qualifii s
the contract recited in the declaration.
Baron PARKE—The case I speak of is of much carlit r
date.

Mr. OGLE.--Your Lordship, probably, alludes to the
case of Smart v. Hyde, in the 7th volume of the same
reporti.ll
Baron PARKE—Just so. It appears to me a sufficient
warrant for your application.
Baron ALDERSON—What pleas do you want to add ?
Mr. OGLE—It was part of the contract, that the de
fendant could oblige plaintiff to play in a piece which was
not light comedy, after a certain notice. Notice wa.
accordingly given him t a appear in the character of
Ferdinand, in the Tempest, which he refused to do.