The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-14 00:00:00

JODDREL V. JODDREL.

Mr. KINDERSLEY replied to the arguments adduced on the
opposite side, and contended that the authorities cited by his
Learned Friend, Mr. Turner, did not apply to the present
case.

His LORDSHIP in giving judgment went at length into
the merits of the case. He considered that the sums
granted to Lady Joddrell had been given her for the purpose
of supporting herself, and maintaining and educating her
children. It did not appear that she bad neglected her chil-
dren in any point; therefore there could be no objection on
that head to the deed in an equitable point of view. It had
been urged that a deed of this description went to destroy
the relation between man and wife, and therefore was
opposed to the policy of the law. Certainly the provisions
of that deed did to a certain extent alter the relation of
man and wife, but it did not alter the duties of the married
state. Now, there had been no objection to the
manner in which Lady Joddrell had fulfilled those
duties, and therefore that objection was ground-
less. The other arguments against the validity of the
deed derived from the position that it would have the effect
of depriving the father of the authority of a parent, were he
conceived valueless, for he was not excluded from superin-
tending the education of his children. Certainly, evils might
grow up under a deed of this description, but the same oc-
curred in the married state, where no such deed
existed between the parties. Looking at the
practice of the Court and the authorities on the
question, he considered it was a wise policy which gave the
wife an opportunity of having her own fortune secured to
her, and by that means being rendered independent of the
husband, should he fail to discharge the duties of the rela-
tion he had assumed. Nor did he conceive the arguments
urged against this, of his being without means of support, to
be at all to be regarded. From these considerations, there-
fore, he felt bound, whatever further steps might be taken, to
declare the deed of settlement a legal instrument.

. . . . . _
9%

1%

7%
2%

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour took unopposed petitions, short causes, poi
ions, and motions to-day.

ROOKE O. ROOKE.-THE SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.
This case came before the Court upon petition, praying the
confirmation of the Master's report, approving of certain costs
incurred by the petitioner in opposing before Parliament a
proposition made by the South Wales Railway Company, to
carry the railway across the Severn by means of the Old
Ferry. It appeared that that proposition, if carried into
effect, would have been most injurious to the land of the pe-
titioner, and that his opposition to it before the Legislature
was successful.

The COURT granted the prayer of the petition.
Mr. James Parker and Mr. Freeling were counsel for the
petitioner.

BAZALETTE V. BAZALETTE.
This petition, which was heard in his Honour's private
room, occupied the Court the remainder of the morning.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in London, before Mr. Justice CRESSWICLL.)
NEDBY V. DUNHAM.
The plaintiff in this case is the landlord of the Three Tuns
public-house, in Fetter-lane ; action brought to recover the sum
of 2/. 15s. 6d. for injury done to the lamp in front of his house
by a waggon load of hay, belonging to the defendant, who is
a-hay-merchant, knocking against it.
William Lancing, a carpenter, stated that on the
Ist of October, 1844, he was at work in the plain-
tiff's 'muse, when a waggon passing up the lane,
came in contact with the lamp, and knocked it
down. The lane at that part was very narrow,
so, that only one vehicle could pass at a time. It
was a tram-road, that is, a road in which that part next
the kerb is formed of flat stones on which the wheels of the
carriage run, and the middle is paved in the ordinary man-
ner. The lamp was not a very large one, and it was placed
as near to the wall as it could be. The arm which supported
the lamp was about 14 feet above the pavement.
James Barker, a working gas-fitter, who mended the
lamp, identified a bill, which was put in in evidence, as that
which he had sent in to the plaintiff; and for which he had
received payment from him. The amount was 2/. 15s. 6d.
On the part of the defendant, it was represented that the
lamp was improperly placed, and that it was, in consequence
of its position, and not of any neglect or mismanagement on
the part of the defendant's carman, that the accident oc-
curred.
The first witness called on the part of the defendant was
Mr. Mortimer, who stated that he was surveyor of pavements
for the district in which Fetter-lane is situated, and, that he
had often noticed the lamp in question, which he thought
was so placed as to be in danger from the ordinar.ytrailic
In cross-examination,- however, he said that it was his duty
to give notice of any obstruction to the traffic of the streets,