The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-06 00:00:00

ATKYNS V. BANKER.

This was a petition praying for a reference to the Master
to make a report respecting certain property belonging to
the defendant, situated in Oxfordshire. It appeared that
a Buie had been established for the purpose of having the
property in question disposed of to liquidate certain demands
thereon by a Mr. Thomas Buck, since deceased, and which
was considered to be beneficial to the defendant and the heirs
of Mr Buck. An order was then obtained from the Master
to investigate into the title of the property when it was
discovered that some obscurity existed as to the title of one
portion of the land in the county of Oxford, which rendered
it impossible to effect the sale at present, and that another
portion of the land was enclosed under the Enclusure Act.
'All parties were anxious for the reference, which was granted.

tICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 5.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

FRASER V. SIR B. HALL.
HiJ HONOUR gave judgment to-day in this case, which
came ,before the Court during the last term, upon a motion on
behalf' of the plaintiff, to compel the defendant to produce
certain documents. The plaintiffs, the Monmouthshire and
Glambrganshire Banking Company, became creditors of the
lesse of the original lease of certain mines in Monmouth-
shire hinder Sir B. Hall, and obtained judgment against him,
and issued a fieri facias under that judgment. Upon this a
treaty took place between Sir B. Hall and those who were in
his interest on the one side, and the Monmouthshire and
Glambrganshire Banking Company on the other, as to what
shoulo be done, and what were the rights of the different
parties; the opinion of Sir John Bayley was taken, and se-
veral Other proceedings, the documents connected with which
the plaintiffs contended they had a right to the inspection of.
His Honour was clearly of opinion the documents were privi-
leged, and refused to order their production.
The Court then proceeded to hear short causes and unop-
posedpetitions.
. . ,

COUR7' OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Deco 5.
• (Before Mr. Justice VitatintAl4).

'4., • BUNTER CALDVOMLL.
In
this case the jury fonnda verdict forthe plaintiff', 1801.
-dltnlaf

r+ • s'' PAGIC nATCHET. '
This was a case arising out of th 3 question of a prescriptive
right which the plaintiff alleged he had to a wharf at Bat-
terse4 which he at one time used for the purpose of landing
coals, ihe being then a coal-merchant ; and he had taken the
actioo against defendant for a trespass, for having insisted
that the wharf gave him a right of way to landing goods,
and uhder that impression had driven piles in front of the
wharf as he conceived it was a public thoroughfare. Plain-
tiff alleged that his property had sustained considerable in-
jury by what the defendant had done, and, therefore, now
sought compensation for those injuries.
Evidence was gone into, to show that the plaintiff was a
coal-merchant, and used the wharf in question for the pur-
pose of landing coals, &c.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 5.

(Sittings at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and
a London Common Jury.)
MASON V. FLETCHER.

This was an undefended action of assault, the defendant
allowing judgment to go by default, and the only question
for the jury being the amount of damages.
The assault complained of was committed when the de-
fendant, who is a medical student, was in a state of delirium
tremens, represented to be the result of intemperance. The
defendant, it appeared from the statement of Mr. Nair, a
medical gentleman who had attended the defendant
during his illness, was under a delusion, the result
of his illness, fancying that all who attended him
were conspiring against his life. The plaintiff, in whose
house the defendant lodged at the time (in July of this
year), was in the habit of sitting up with defendant,
as well as the witness himself, and an object of the defendant's
especial animosity. The plaintiff interfering in a scuffle
which took place between the defendant and Mr. Nair, when
the former was making an attempt to escape from
the room, received a kick in the lower part of the abdomen,
the result of which was a rupture, from which he has not
yet recovered. Several surgeons, who had seen the plaintiff
while; under the effect of the injury, were examined to
prove the extent of his sufferings, and also the expense to
which he was put, viz., surgical attendance and medicine.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up shortly,
The jury found a verdict for plaintiff—Damages, 801.

- HOLMES V. THE FOUNDERS' COMPANY.
This was an action to recover compensation for an injury
done to plaintiff by an accident, which occurred in conse-
quence of the neglect of the defendants. Damages were laid
at 50OL

Mr. Sergeant Talfeurd and Mr. Lush were for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Sergeant Byles for the defendants.
Before the swearing of the jury,
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD inquired whether any members
of the Founders' Company were on the jury?
The Court having ascertained that there were not, the
jury was sworn, and
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD stated the case, the facts of which
are as follows :—The plaintiff is a publican and eating-house
keeper, in Grocers' Hall-court, Poultry, and on the 28th of
May last was passing by Founders'-court, which is a
passage between the Founders' Hall, on the one hand, and the
Commercial Bank of England, the Church of England In-
surance Office, and the Founders' Arms public-house, on the
other. This court is blind, but as it is lighted at the public
expense, he (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) did not conceive
that it could be asserted that it was not a
public thoroughfare. In this passage there were some altera-
tions going on, in the course of which a deep hole had been
dug in an arched recess at one side, which hole had remained
there for a long time, and ought to have been removed
by the company. Mr. Mason had occasion to go into
the court, and, though it had been represented that
he went there for an improper purpose, he (Mr. Segeant Tal-
fourd) thought that such a pretence could not be supported,
as there was a sink there with a gutter; and, indeed, al-
though the defendant had given in pleas of, first, " Not
guilty"—second, that the plaintiff entered the passage for
an immoral purpose, and must therefore take the consequence
of the injury, the passage not being a thoroughfare—yet,
the latter plea had been withdrawn, and the only plea Was
not guilty. The plaintiff on entering the court for the purpose
previously intimated, went to the recess, and was going
into the place, not perceiving the hole, when his foot slipped,
and he fell to the bottoth, where he lay in a state almost of
insensibility, till he was heard groaning by an old woman
who was passing by, and who gave the alarm to Mr.
Cutby, the manager of the Commercial Bank of England,
who was going in at the private door of the bank, which is
in the court. Mr. Cutby, also hearing the groans, called a
policeman, who having got down into the hole by means of
a ladder, he, with the assistance of other policemen, who
were brought to the spot by the old woman, got the
man out, and took him to the public-house. A
surgeon was then sent for, and, it was found that, falling on
his feet, he had suffered a compound fracture and one of the
bonei of the foot had been forced out of its place so as to in-
jure the leg. He was indeed so much injured that he
kept his bed for a period of ten weeks, and after
that time he was obliged to go about on crutches, and
would, probably, be a cripple for life. He had applied for
compensation to the Founders' Company, who said they
were very sorry for the accident which had happened to
Mr. Holmes, but that Messrs. Burton, the builders, were
the responsible persons, and that the Company had nothing
to do with it. Now he (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, thought
no such defence could be sustained, if intended, as every one
is responsible for the conduct of his agents, and indeed it
would be impossible to maintain an action against the
builders in this case.
Mr. Cutby, manager of the Commercial Bank of England,
Mrs. Gummer, landlady of the Founders' Arms public-house,
and City policeman 170, gave evidence as to the facts stated
by Mr. sergeant Talfourd in his address.
Mr. Elliot, a surgeon, stated that he was called to the
assistance of Mr. Holmes on the night in question. He found
a compound fracture of the leg, and dislocation of the ancle.
The plaintiff was confined to his bed for ten weeks, and after
that time he was obliged to use a crutch. He was
not yet thoroughly recovered, nor would he be
for some time. He might, perhaps, recover the use of his
leg by next summer; but it was not certain. Witness's bill
for attendance and instruments was 271. 3s. 6d.
M
t o tahrey
He had before the accident a good business, capable
iJn
jannrey Holmes,deneto theh isplabinntsiiffsne'ss dba;ghhtiesr,
illsnpeoskse.
of supporting himself and his family, but that after
he had been laid up in consequence of the accident, the busi-
ness had so declined,: that they were obliged to give it
up. He was now engaged to manage a beer-shop for a
brewer. _

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES addressed the Court on the part of the de-
fen dants,and raised three objections to the plaintiff's declaration
First, it was stated that the defendants had made a hole in a
certain archway, and opening into a certain public highway.
Now the court in question, which the hole opened upon, was
not a public highway. It was a private passage to the four
buildings on either side, namely, the Founders Hall, the
Commercial Bank, the Insurance Office, and the public-house.
He (Mr. Sergeant Byles) contended that this court, being a
cul-de-sac could not be a public way. Secondly, the
action lay, if against any one, against the builders, who were
not the servants of the Company and the Company would
not be responsible unless they were their servants.
Thirdly, even if the court were a public thorough-
fare, and if the Company were resposible for what
was done by the builders, they were not bound to cover an
opening which was entirely on their own property, and not
infringing the public property.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he would reserve the point,
if necessary.
After a desultory discussion,
Mr. Sergeant BYLES having addressed the jury,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Summed up, and
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1501.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES, having handed in a bill of excep-
tions, asked leave to abandon it at a future time, if he should
think fit, and inove for a new trial.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD objected to his friend taking this
double course; and after some discussion,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the Learned Counsel
could not have leave to move, unless he abandoned the bill of
exceptions at once.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES preferred to adhere to the bill of ex-
ceptions.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 5.
(Sittings after Term, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a

Common Jury.)

GRIFFITH AND ANOTHER V. WA .TON.
This was an action on the case brought to recover damages
for the infringement of a patent.
Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Jervis for
the defendant.
The plaintiffs were the inventors of a process for manufac-

taring tea and coffee-pots from iron tinplates, for which they
had obtained and enjoyed a patent for eleven years, and it Wag
to recover damages for the infringement of this patent that
the action was brought.
The case, which occupied the Court nearly the whole of
the day, presented no features of interest, except to the
parties immediately concerned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

John Jones and Richard Connor, two young men of shabby
genteel appearance, were charged with assaulting Mr. Joh,:
Stanley, the keeper of a coffee-shop, No. 39, High-street, St.
Giles's, and defrauding him of refreshments, &c., to the
amount of between 3s. and 4s.

The complainant stated that between five and six o'clock
that morning, the defendants, with another young man, came
to his shop, and ordered coffee, eggs, and rolls. After par-
taking of which, they regaled themselves with ginger-beer,
cigars, &c. At length their companion left ; and on com-
plainant requesting payment for the ample breakfast he had
supplied them with, they declared that they had no
money ; and, in attempting to prevent their leaving the shop,
they both assaulted him; and, forcing their way into the
street, ran off. He, however, pursued, and overtook them,
and gave them in charge 9f the police.
Mr. HARDWICK asked What they had to say for themselves?

The defendant Jones said the person Who had accom-
panied them to Mr. Stanley's, had invited them to breakfast,
promising to pay for whatever they liked to have.
Defendant Connor—Mr. Stanley should'nt have let go the
only one of the party who had money; that was not the
way to get his bill discharged:
Mr. Stanley said he had ascertained that but a short time,
about half an hour, previous to their coming to his shop,
they had paid a visit to another coffee-shop in the neigh-
bourhood, and after running up a score of several shillings
made off without paying.
Mr. Hannwrcx said he could only deal with the case as
regarded the assault on the complainant, for which he should
fine the defendants 10s. each, or ten days' imprisonment to
hard labour. The defendants having no money they were
locked up.
John Williams, a young man dressed as a countryman, was
charged with stealing 71. 10s. in gold, and a silver watch, with
gold chain and seals, of the value of 6/., the property of Mr.
William Lovett, of Newman-passage, Oxford-street, carman.
It appeared that the prosecutor had taken the prisoner into
his service from motives of charity, and that on one occasion
the prisoner was left in charge of the place during the absence
of the proseeutor and his wife for about ten minutes, when he
took the opportunity of forcing open a cupboard, and possess-
ing himself of the property in question, with which he in-
stantly decamped, He was not again heard of until last
evening, when he was accidentally met with begging, in
Wardour-street, Soho, and given into custody.
The prisoner declared his innocence. He had been living
at Bishop Stortford, as a farmer's servant, from the time he
left the prosecutor's service.
He was remanded for a week, to allow the police to trace
the property.