The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-07 00:00:00

CATELLE V. GIBBS.

Mayor, and the ito restrain the Lord May
Mr PRIOR applied in the course of the morning, ex parte, on
of the Watermen's Com-
pbaehnaylfloorfathneipn
jlauinnctti lie representativefor
autho-
rities of the City of London, from removing certain barges placed
their passengers, instead of
in the river at Greenwich by the Watermen's Compan‘ for the
purpose of forming a rro' n t
landing-place
their going to the old pier. The Learned Counsel read several
affidavits in support of his application, from which it appeared that
present
it was intended to remove the barges this day.
The Vice.CitaNcetwa said the question with him was, whether
mb last, had stated his intention to order fayor, upon being installed
er Lord
he should grant the injunction without notice. if he recol.
alectoed.
ffircieg.h ,
iu November
these barges to be removed. The parties therefore ought to have
come to the Court earlier, and what had been said in the affidavits
about licensing certainly implied that the Lord Mayor had
jurisdiction. On the whole, his Honour thought he should not be
justified in granting njunction ex parte.
Mr. PRIOR trusted theC lull would allow his client to give short
notice.
The VICS-CRANCELLOR—Oh, certainly ; but then you roust
apply to another branch of the Court to hear you—t
ithabeen t branchacces
-
which you would have applied for the injunction had
sible. His Honour, we believe, alluded to the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce, who did not sit till one o'clock.
(Before the Vice. Chancellor BRUCE.)
His Hosoua sat at one o'clock, and heard bankrupt petitions of
no general interest.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAII.)
LUND C. RLANCRARD.
His lloNoua gave judgment to-day in this case, which was a
bill filed by the plaintiff and two others, on behalf of themselves
and all others the shareholders in the Yorkshire and Agi icultural
Bank, except certain of the shareholders who are named as de.
fendants, and the defendants were those shareholders and the Lou.
don and Westminster Bank, and prayed for an injunction to re.
strain proceedings at law by them. The bill having
been filed, and defendants not having put in their
answer within the time allowed by the practice of
the Court, an injunction was granted restraining the London and
Westminster Bank proceeding at law, under which recently exe-
cution has been taken out. The plaintiff insists that the injunc-
tion protects those shareholders who are named as plaintiffs, and
an amicable motion was now made to commit the plaintiff for a
breach of the injunction, which his Honour refused, but directed
the matter to be mentioned again by Mr. Wood.
His HoNoca, having disposed of all the cases on his paper, rose
before two o'clock.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, May 6.
Mr. Baron Platt sat in the Exchequer Chamber this day, and
took term motions.

WOOLLEY v. CONQUER.
Mr. POLLOCK applied to have a writ of summons deemed a good
service upon the defendant, who was one of the officers of her Ma-
jesty's steamer, Alecto. The vessel is at present laid up in ors:i.
nary at Woolwich. The residence of the defendant not being
known to the plaintiff's attorney, a copy of the writ was left in the
cabin of the Alecto, and in the Ship Tavern, which the defendant
was supposed to frequent. Another copy was stuck up in the Court
of Exchequer. Under these circumstances, he trusted that his
Lordship would deem the service good.
Mr. Baron PLATT—Upon whom was the writ served on board
the steamer ?
Mr. POLLOCK—
Lord
She (the steamer) bad been' there was nobody on board.—(A laugh.)
paid oft'.
Mr. Baron PLATT—Why not stick the summons to the funnel,
MY
where it must have attracted the defendant's notice when he same
aboard.—(Laughter.) Take your rule.

6.
SHERIFFS' COURT, May
(Before Mr. Under. Sheriff BURCHELL)
MAADLOW V. TWENTYMkN.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 101. 7s. 4d.,
for work and labour and materials supplied to defendant.
The defendant is a builder in an extensive way of business, and
in the years 1843 and 1844 employed the plaintiff to build two
houses, called Regent's Villas, Regent's Park; the whole
amount was 3,1471. In December, 1844, plaintiff drew
a bill for 401. as the balance of the account up to
that day. That bill was paid, but the plaintiff now
claimed 10/. 7s. 4d. for extra work. It was contended for the
plaintiff that the two houses spokon of were built under a contract,
and that it was agreed that the extra work should be kept quite
distinct. The contract was not put in on either side, although the
defendant had set it up as a set.eff, alleging there was a covenant
in it that the plaintiff should forfeit 1001. if the work was not
completed by a certain day, which it waa rwt.