The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-07 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 6.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took pleas
and demurrers to-day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir KNIGHT BRUCE.)
IN THE MATTER OF PHILLIPS' CHARITY.

This case came before the Court upon a petition under Sir
Samuel Romillv's Act, presented by James Newman, the
schoolmaster of a charity school, founded by a gentleman
named Phillips, for the education of the poor at Sutton St.
Mary, Long Sutton, in Lincolnshire, and the object of the
petition was, that the petitioner might be restored to his
office, and that the trustees, who hid, as he contended,
wrongfully ejected him, might be removed.
Mr. J. Russell and Mr. G. L. Russell appeared on behalf
of the petitioner ; and Mr. Cooper, Mr. Swainston, and Mr.
Bilton were Counsel for the trustees and the other parties
who opposed the petition.
As the affidavits on both sides contain serious charges, and
as the case appears likely to occupy several days, we decline
entering into the facts and charges at greater length until
the Court shall have given its judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nom 6.

HARDCASTLE V. WALKER.

It appeared by the statement of Counsel, that this was an
action of replevin, tried at the last York Assizes before Mr.
Justice Cresawell, and verdict had for the plaintiff. Appli•
cation was now made for a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside and a new trial granted, on the
grounds of rejection of admissible evidence, and also of mis-
direction to the jury. The defendants were trustees under a
marriage settlement for the plaintiff. The question that
arose was one of non-tenure. Some houses had been built
upon certain property belonging to plaintiff's wife and son.
After her marriage the husband and wife went to live in one
of those houses, but they separated soon after, and defendant
put a distress on the house for the rent. The quest ion was,
could a document which had been signed by the wife, autho-
rising the defendant to demand the rent, be deemed a suffi-
cient authority.—Rule refused.
DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF RENTON, V. INNOCENT.
This case had been tried at the last Nottingham assizes,
before Mr. Justice Mauls, when a verdict was had for the
defendant. An application was made for a new trial, on the
ground that one of the defendants was the foreman of the
jury, and two others of the defendants were in the jury-
box, and remained there after they had been ordered to leave.
—Rule to show cause granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BARROW V. MT.

This was a motion for a rule to show cause why there
should not be a new trial of the above cause, on the ground
that the verdict, which was for the defendant, was against
the evidence.

Mr. Sergeant BITES stated the naturs of the evidence in
the case, which was tried before the Under• Sheriff of Mid-
dlesex. It appeared that the plaintiff was a coal owner at
Rugby, and the defendant a coal dealer, owning a wharf at
Paddington, and keeping a canal barge, which he used for
the purposes of his trade, employing a man named Marlowe
as captain. The agent of the plaintiff; a man named Bailey,
who was the principal witness on the part of the plaintiff,
sold, in the course of May last, a boat load of coals to Mar-
lowe, the captain of the defendant's boat, it being agreed that
Marlowe, on the part of his employer, should pay the plain-
tiff's agent in London.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked what proof had been
offered that the defendant authorised the purchase of the
coals?

Mr. Sergeant BYLES read a part of the evidence of the
witness Bailey, from which it appeared that the defendant
said to him, " I have given Marlowe the money to pay you
for the coals, and I wish it to be settled immediately," to
which he replied that " according to the agreement it must
'be paid to Mr. Barrow's agent in London."
The agent, a person of the name of Moore, had been ex-
amined, and had proved that he made several applications for
payment to Marlowe and to Jupp, ;the latter always saying
that he would settle it AS soon as he got the money from
Timoth,y.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Is that Marlowe ?
Mr. Sergeant BYLES-•-lt is not very clear who Timothy
is, but I should not think it was Marlowe, seeing that his
name is Anthony.—(A laugh.) It might be a contraction,
however.—(A laugh from Mr. Justice Erie.) Mr. Sergeant
Bylea proceeded to say, that on the part of the defendant the
only witness was Marlowe, who said that he did not re-
member writing the agreement. Upon this case the jury
found a verdict for the defendant, which he (Mr. Byles) sub-
mitted was clearly against the evidence.
After a consultation of less than a minute, the Court
granted the rule.