The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-06 00:00:00

THE MARQUIS OF HERTFORD t. LORD LOWTHER.

His LORDSIIIP, in giving judgment in this cause, observed,
that it was a matter simply between a residuary legatee and
a pecuniary legatee. Under all the circumstances he had
come to the resolution of dismissing the demurrer, but with-
out costs. _ _ _ .

The remainder of the day was occupied in the hearing of
unopposed petitions.

VIOE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 5.
The Vice-ChanCellor of England took pleas, demurrers, and
further directions to-day, none of which call fur a special
report.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
IN RE BASSETT.
Mr. ROMILLY, Q.C., began his reply to the defendants,
which is likely to occupy most of the day.
Sir Richard Bassett, of the firm of Bassett, Clark and Roe,
bankers, died in 1837 ; the banking concern was carried on
some time under the same firm ; and now the defendants, who
claim under the separate estate of Sir R. Bassett, are brought
into Court by the surviving partners, for the debts of the
concern.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 5.
Their Lordships sat at the usual hour this morning.
THE MAYOR OF EXETER v. HARVEY.
It appeared by the Counsel's statement of this case that it
was one which was tried at the last Devon Assizes, before
Mr. Justice Erle, when a verdict was had for the plaintiff,
and that it was an action brought by the Corporation of
Exeter against the Messrs. Harvey, who, it was alleged had
used a portion of the Exeter Canal in bringing up certain ma-
terials for the erection of a lunatic asylum, for the building
of which they were the contractors, and for such use of the
canal they became liable to the payment of certain tolls under
the Act by authority of which the canal had been made; but
these tolls the Messrs. Harvey refused to pay. The Canal
Act was passed in 1829, but a considerable portion of the
works had been made before that time, having been com.
menced in 15125. The only question was,whether the portion
of the canal that had been used by Messrs. Harvey came
within the tide-way or navigable river.
Rule generally granted.
PROTHERO V. JONES.

This case was tried at the last assizes of Carnarvon, and a
verdict bad for the plaintiff, damages 231. 2s. 7d., for work
and labour done, &c. Counsel moved to have the verdict set
aside, and for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection and
the admission of inadmissible evidence. Counsel entered
into a long statement of the evidence, which involved a
rather complicated state of accounts between parties who
stood in the relative position to each other of landlord and
, tenant.

Held over to consult the Learned Judge who tried the
case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 5.
ItILDERTON V. SELLS.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL replied at length against a motion
previously made by counsel to set aside a judgment obtained
in this case in the last Hilary term, and on which execution
had been issued for 1981. 14s. with costs, on the ground of
irregularity. The Learned Gentleman said the object of the
rule was first to impeach the judgment and execution on
the ground of irregularity; and secondly, to set them aside on
their terms. The complaint of the defendant was that a
judgment being signed execution was immediately issued
without any notice of taxation of cost being given to him.
This, in his opinion, did not warrant the application made.
The Learned Gentleman then cited a number of cases in
which similar applications had been made, wherein it had
been ruled that the not giving notice of taxation of costs
after signing a judgment was not sufficient to warrant the
the setting aside of the same on the ground of irregularity.
Mr. Sergeant SHER replied. He contended that
no answer had been made to the affidavits put
in by the defendant. The judgment was not complete
until notice of taxation had been given. In
many instances this was the only notice given to a defendant
of judgment being signed against him. In the present case,
his client declared in his affidavit that he knew nothing what-
ever of the judgment till execution had been served against
him. This he (the Learned Counsel) submitted was quite ir-
regular, and was a good ground why the Court should make
the rule absolute. The Learned 4entlemen concluded by
citing several cases in which this view of the completion of
judgment was held to be the correct practice, and the neglect
of which was held to be sufficient for setting aside judgment.
The COURT decided that the rule be made absolute without
costs, and that a week be given to the defendant to put in his
pleas.

wa-MHURST V. DALY AND OTHERS.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL moved for a rule to set aside a
verdict obtained at the last sittings in London, before Mr.
Justice Erle, in which judgment had been obtained against
the defendant for a breach of contract. The contract was
for the construction of a steam-engine, which the defendant
engaged to furnish for the steam .ship Novelty, then lying in
the East India Dock, at the sum of 8001. The terms of the
contract were here set forth by the Learned Gentleman, which
were that the engine should be delivered .within two months
after the agreement was made; that it should be executed
according to the plans and specifications produced, the same
to be approved of by a gentleman named for the purpose;
and that 4001. should be paid in cash, on delivery of the en-
gine at the East India Dock, and the remainder in an ap-
proved bill at four months. The grounds on which the
verdict had been obtained were, that the engine had not been
constructed in time, or delivered, according to agreement, at
the East India Dock. Though the contract might not have
tbeeendnedli,tbereaeill so lyfulfilled'it had, the Learned Gentleman
virtually,con-
tended, and therefore the rule ought to be
allowed.—Rule refused.
ROWCROFT V. HOGGINS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action against the defendant, as proprietor of the
Newcastle Advertiser, to recover xemuneration for literary and
political articles contributed by the plaintiff to that journal.
The defence was, that the Messrs. Hoggins and Co. were not
the proprietors at the time of Mr. Rowcroft's contributions, they
having disposed of the paper to a gentleman named Lowthin.
The case was tried before Mr. Justice Erle, at Guildhall
I (London), in the sittings after last term, and a verdict was
taken for the defendants, with leave to move to enter a ver-
dict of 52/. 10,. for the plaintiff. The point was whether,
although there had been a bond fide sale to Mr. Lowthin,
the defendants were cleared of their liability, inasmuch as
they had entered into the required declaration at the Stamp-
office.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY this day moved for a rule to enter
the verdict for the plaintiff. It had been shown on the trial
that the declaration required had not been made, and the
Learned Sergeant relied upon the express terms of the Act.
By the 6th section of the Act, the 6th and 7th Wm. IV.,
chap. 76, it is enacted that, .s no person shall print or publish
a newspaper until a declaration be made and delivered at the
Stamp-office." And, further, that " a declaration of the
same import shall be made, signed and delivered, in like
manner,
soeverwhe in nevearna;dnseow=er named in any such as any share, interest, or
declara-
tion,pro-
pe
shall be assigned, transferred, divided, or changed, by
act of the parties or by operation of law." In the Bth section
it is further enacted, That all such declarations shall be
filed, and certified copies shall be admitted as evidence of
proprietorship in all proceedings civil and criminal, and on
all occasions whatsoever." —Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 5.
CUNNUSOHASI REDBOROUGH.
This was an action of assumpsit brought on a special agree-
ment, which the defendant traversed by his plea, and the
case was tried before Lord Denman at the last Abingdon as-
nose moved, with the leave of the
Learned Judge who tried the
sizes, when a verdict was returned for the defendant.
Mr. WHEATLEY, Q C.,
cause, for a rule nisi to show
cause why a verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff
on certain counts in the declaration. The action was brought
to recover a sum of money under the following circum-
stances:—The plaintiff had formerly rented .two houses of
the defendant, but the rent becoming in arrear, the goods of
the plaintiff were distrained, in January of the present year,
for 2101. Shortly afterwards the defendant entered into an
agreement with the plaintiff, whereby he agreed to withdraw
the distress in consideration of the latter Fixing up his inte-
rest in one of the houses,
and assigning his household
goods and furniture to the defendant, who, by the
same agreement, undertook to pay the plaintiff on
a particular day the sum of 90/. On the trial, how-
ever, at Abingdon, the agreement was not proved,
and the jury found for the defendant. It was contended,
nevertheless, on the part of the plaintiff, that the verdict was
erroneous to a certain extent, inasmuch as the 90/. included a
sum of money which the plaintiff had paid for the defendant
as the property-tax of the two houses, in respect of which the
distress in question had been made. Now, by the sth and
6th Vie.,
c. 35, sec. 60, rule 9, it was competent for a defen-
dant to pay his landlord's property-tax, and deduct the
amount so paid from the next accruing rent, but in the event
of the tenant failing to make such a deduction, he had no
remedy or means of recovering the amount. In this case,
however, the plaintiff had paid the property-tax according to
the provisions of the Act of Parliament, but he did not pay
the subsequent rent that became due, and it was therefore
distrained for. The defendant was then required to reimburse
the plaintiff the property-tax, but he refused to do.
so, and, consequently, when 'the plaintiff brought his
present action on the agreement before alluded to, he in-
eluded in his particulars of demand the sum which he had
paid for the property-tax, but still the jury returned a ver-
dict for the defendant. The ease, therefore, raised the point