The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 3.

The Lord Chancellor sat at Lincoln's Inn-hall to-day,
shortly after ten o'clock.
His LORDSHIP, after disposing of the case of Ashley
v. Hoskins, proceeded to hear the further arguments in
the part-heard case of the Princess Baratinski, which
our readers will recollect is a lunatic petitioner, and
comes before the Court upon a petition presented by her
brother, who is a Russian Prince. The facts of the case
we have already given at some length. Sir Charles
Wetherell, on behalf of the unfortunate lunatic, occupied
the Court nearly the whole day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 3.
(Before Sir K. BRUCE.)
THE GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND, CLARENCE, AND HARTLE-
POOL JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE CLARENCE
RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from offering any obstruction to the plain-
tiffs in constructing a bridge over the defendant's line,
which should form a shorter and more direct mode of
communication than the Clarence Railway now afforded.
The defendants refused to let the plaintiffs make use of
their land adjoining their line for the erection of the ne-
cessary scaffolding, &c., for the construction, and had
built up high walls so as to completely prevent the plain-
tiffs from proceeding with the bridge. The object of the
motion was to have the obstruetfens thus erected re-
moved, so that the plaintiffs' woll.s night proceed.
The case has been already twice before the Court.

His Honoun to-day stated, that, under all the circum-
stances of the case, he thought the best course he could
adopt for all parties was to refuse to make any order
upon the motion at present, as the plaintiffs did not yet
appear to have a right to the temporary casement on the
defendant's soil, which they claimed as being requisite
for the construction of the bridge. Let the parties bring
the motion before the Lord Chancellor, without being re-
quired to give fresh notice.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
His Honour to-day beard arguments in several cases
which wore set down to be spoken to.
His Honour will take petitions and short causes on
Friday next instead of Saturday.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 3.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury.)
THE QUREN V. GORDON.

This was an indictment against the defendant, James
Brodie Gordon, for perjury alleged to have been com-
mitted in swearing in two affidavits, in an answer in the
Court of Chancery, that certain promissory notes and
bills therein mentioned were not in the possession of the
firm of Gordon and Sons, of which firm defendant was
a member, Whereas the said notes and bills had been
out of the possession of the said firm.
Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bute conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. Jervis and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the de-
fendant.

Mr. KELLY having stated the case to the jury, put in
the bills, the affidavits and the proceedings in Chancery,
on an application to the Vice-Chancellor, for an injunc-
tion against the defendant and his partners, restraining
them from endorsing or paying away a promissory note
for 1,0001. signed by a Mr. Rice, then in their posses-
sion.

The solicitor, who conducted the proceedings in Chan-
cery, and his clerk, Mr. Westwood, described the his-
tory of the suit.
Mr. Edwin Bryant, merchant, has known defendant
fifteen years. lie has had in po.session a promissory
note of Mr. Rice's for 1,0001. in July or February,
1841. It was left with him by defendant as a col-
lateral security for money lent, Defendant told
witness if he had an opportunity of negotiating
it, or desired to discount
.it, he might do so.
Witness said in reply, "He would do so, if he had an
opportunity." In March defendant applied for further
advances, end had 100/. That was on the 3d of March,
He had also advanced money on the 19th of February
On the 15th of March there was another advance of 65/.
and on the 23i of March another of 1201. Witness did
not negotiate the bill. Ile does not recollect having pre-
sented the bill while it was running, although he has been
told that he did. He has been closely interrogated upon
the point before, but he cannot recollect that the bill was
out of his possession until after the month of June. Has
understood from defendant that Glynn and Co.had granted
him a temporary loan upon securities, of which this note
constituted a portion. Has been told that such was the
case while the bill was running. If he had been asked,
he would hare had no objection to have let defendant
have the bill to raise money upon it, for the purpose of
withdrawing it, and repaying him, or of letting him hare
it again. He had the utmost confidence in the firm of
Gordon and Sons. The first time he heard of the bill
having been at Glynn's was about the time of the trial
of Scurnett v. Rice, to recover the amount of the bill.
In June he made a further advance to defendant.

Mr. KELLY—Did you make any advance on the 9th of
June ? Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. KELLY—Your Lordship will find it so stated in the
supplemental bill.

Mr. JERVIS interrupted the Learned Gentleman, who
resumed the examination.

Witness did not on 9th of June give the defendant or
his firm 3801., or any such sum, to retrieve the bill from
Glynn's. He does not recollect defendant stating when
the note came back into his handy. It was most cer-
tainly in his hands on the 10th of June, the day it be-
catne due, and his clerk presented it for payment. He
had never had any further communication on the sub-
ject with defendant since the trial of Scurnett v. Rice.
Had never either directly or indirectly had any commu••
nication with Messrs. Glynn on the subject. Presented
the note to Mr. Eyres at the request of Messrs. Gordon on
payment of costs some months after the bill had be-
come due.

Cross-examined by Mr. JEnvis—When the promissory
note was given to him, he was in advance to the Gordons
4001. or 5001. The note was endorsed to him in the
regular way. The disputes between Gowan and Gordon
had been referred. When defendant spoke to witness about
the bill he told him that all his books were in possession
of the arbitrators, and that consequently he was in a very
awkward position.
Mr. Daniels, the managing clerk to Glynn and Co.,
deposed that they were the bankers of Messrs. Gordon.
On the 10th of April, 1841, there was an advance to
Gordons of 1,500/. Has no doubt but that they took
security, but that would not appear in the books.
Mr. Pickering, another clerk at Glynn's, proved the
state of Gordons' account at the bank in the early part
of 1841, from which it appeared that, before the ad-
vance on the 10th of April, they had 161. balance in the
bankers' hands, and, on the 7th, 2541.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Jitavpi then addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant, and contended that there was not one tittle of
evidence to support the charge. Not only so, but there
was not the slightest stain upon his character.
Lord DEN MAN, in summing up the case, told the jury
that the perjury was alleged to have been committed in
two affidavits end a supplemental bill in the Court of
Chancery. William Rice, it appeared, had applied for
an injunction to restrain defendant from negotiating two
promissory notes signed by him, and should de-
liver them up to William Rice. The defendant
stated in his affidavit that he had paid away
the two promissory notes, and had them not in
his possession. This was alleged to be untrue.
In the second affidavit it was sworn that the notes had
ben paid, the one to Mr. Scurnett and the other to Mr.
Bryant. This was denied, and perjury assigned thereon ;
and in answer to the supplemental bill, defendant
stated that the bills were not in his possession,
and had not been in his power ; and on that statement
also perjury was assigned. Such were the alleged per-
juries, and it certainly was much to be regretted that
Mr. Rice should have died before the case was brought
to trial. He now came to the supplemental bill, in the
answer to which defendant swore that he had pro-
cured the bill from Bryant, and lodged it as security
with Glynn's for an advance, and that on the 9th June he
hail agreed with Bryant, that he should'adeance 387/. to
make up the sum required to redeem the bill from Glynn's,
-which was done, and the bill was handed over to
Bryant. Now, this certainly was a different account
from the one formerly given, but they must
be satisfied that this was the true account, and
that the other was false, before they could convict.
If they had any dOlubt on the subject, they must
acquit. It was also stated that the defendant was very
nervous, and that the interrogatories put by the Court of
Chancery were very embarrassing, but they would not
lead a person to make a false statement. They must
also be satisfied that the false statements had been
made wilfully and corruptly, and certainly it should he
recollected that he had by his first affidavit obtained
his object, the dismissal of Rice's application with costs.
They had heard the evidence of Mr. Byant, and they
would determine whether the former account given by
defendant was untrue in point of fact, and if such un-
truth was uttered corruptly—if so they would give the
verdict for the Crown, but if they had any doubt they
would give their verdict for defendant.
The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of Not
uilty.