The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-04 00:00:00

THIS DAY'S NEWS

Mr. Erie is appointed to the Justiceship of the
Common Pleas, vacant by the retirement of Mr. Jus-
tice Erskine. This appointment does honour to all
parties concerned, as no more deserving man exists
than Mr. Erle ; and Sir Robert Peel, by disregarding
party claims, and looking for talent alone, will gain
the approbation of every honest practitioner at the
English bar.

CHANCERY—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to-day in his Court at West-
minster, shortly after 10 o'clock.

MALCOM V SCOTT-JUDGMENT.

His Lordship gave judgment in this case to-day, the
facts of which we gave a full account on its hearing in
July last. His Lordship affirmed the judgment below
with costs. The Lord{ Chancellor then proceeded to
bear appeal motions and lunatic petitions which occu-
pied the Court the whole day.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-t;hancellor of England having;
on Saturday disposed of all his short causes, proceeded to-
day to hear unopposed cause petitions which occupied
the Court the whole day. No case of the least possible
interest came before the Court.
(Vice-Chancellors Knight Bruce and Wigram are at
present sitting in the Westminster Sessions-house.)
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
DIALING V. PRICE.
His Homoun pronounced judgment this morning in
this case, which was heard immediately before the long
vacation. At the conclusion of the hearing his Honour
directed certain issues to be tried upon the question in-
volved, namely, the mode of working certain mines in
Glamorganshire. The issues having been tried before
Mr. Justice Patteson, and the findings of the jury
not being satisfactory to the defendant, a motion on his
behalf for a new trial was made before his Honour
during the vacation, and on this motion the Court now
proceeded to deliver judgment.
His HONOUR, after enumerating in detail the various
objections urged by the defendant against the finding of
the jury, said he saw no ground upon which those
objections could be sustained, and he, therefore, thought
himself bound to adhere to the Ending of the jury, and to
refuse the motion for a new trial, with costs.
Mr. KENYON PARKER said that, in consequence of his
lionones decison, he must apply for the injunction to
prevent the working of the mines by patchwork, as the
motion for that injunction had, in accordance with pre-
vious arrangement, been kept in abeyance until his
Honour's decision was kuown. •
Counsel on the other side having stated that his clients
were not prepared for the adoption of such a course—not
being able to foresee the judgment of the Court—the
motion was, in consequence. postponed.
(Before Sir J. WIGRA3I.)
His HONOUR disposed of a number of cause petitions
which w ere unopposed, and then proceeded to hear causes.
HARRIS V. HARRIS.
This case came before the Court on exceptions. It
as a suit which was instituted by the personal repre-
sentative of a deceased partner against the surviving
partner, for the accounts of a partnership which was
alleged to bare been entered into between the deceased
and his father, the defendant.
The statement in the bill was, that in the year 1834
Walter Harris, who was the husband of the plaintiff,
entered into partnership with his father Thomas Harris
in the business of jobmasters, postmasters, and omnibus
proprietors at Richmond, and that the business was
earried on between them under the style or firm of
" Harris and Son," on the premises called " Wellington-
yard," from the month of June 1834 till the time of
Walter Harris's death. The deceased made
his will in September, 1843, and died,
and the plaintiff was alleged to be his personal repre-
sentative. After the death of Walter Harris the de-
fendant continued in possession of the business, never
having rendered any account to the plaintiff of Walter
Harris's share. In the month of October he sold a con-
siderable portion of the effects of the partnership by
public auction, and received all the moneys for them, and
on being applied to for an account of these moneys, and
for a dividend of the share to which she, as personal re-
presentative of the deceased husband was entitled, he
denied that there was any partnership existing between
them, consequently it became necessary to file the present
bill, which was done in Dec., 1843. To that bill a plea
and answer were put in. On the 29th of February, 1844,
the plea was argued and disallowed, with liberty to the
defendant to amend it. The defendant amended hisplea,
and the amended plea was set down for argument and
disallowed on the Ist of May. Twenty-four exceptions
were taken to the answer, and the first six were allowed
by the Master. The Master considered that it was
not necessary to hear any more, those which were
allowed being sufficient for all the purposes of the plain-
tiff, and he, therefore, overruled all the others. To that
disallowance exception had been taken, and those ex-
ceptions were now brought before the Court.
Mr. Kenyon Parker and Mr. Winstanley appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Temple for the defendant.
By the answer it was denied that any partnership
had ever existed, the case set up being that the defendant
had employed his son during his lifetime in the capacity
of his servant.
His HONOUR allowed the exceptions.

JE/171.1...)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court heard motions in the early 'part of the
day, and afterwards proceeded to hear arguments in
cases on the new trial paper. No case of public interest
came on in the course of the morning.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON. )

THE QUEEN V. ALDRED-APPLICATION FOR A CRIMINAL

INFORMATION.

Mr. MARTIN applied in this case on behalf of Mr.
Marsh, the Mayor of Yarmouth, for a rule for a criminal
information against the defendant. Mr. Marsh stated
in his affidavit that he was Mayor of Yarmouth, and a
magistrate of the borough, and that on th, 10th of June
last he attended at his office for the purpose of trans-
acting magisterial business, upon which occasion a
person was charged with ringing the bell of Mr. Aldred
during Divine service, and a constable produced a paper
without any direction or signature relative to the offence
with which the person was charged. The Mayor and
the Magistrate who was with him were of opinion that
they could not receive such a paper, and that Mr.
Aldred ought to attend himself. The paper was re-
turned to the constable with injunctions to tell Mr.
Aldred that he must attend himself if he wished to take
proceedings against the party. This took place on the
10th of June. On the 12th of June, Mr. Marsh was
;,ruing in along King-street, when the defendant came up
to him, seized him by the arm, and making
Use of some very offensive expressions, demanded an
explanation for the impertinent manner in which the
Mayor had treated his letters. The Mayor replied that he
was the chief magistrate of the town, that his hands
were therefore tied up, and that he could not enter into any
explanation then. Mr. Aldred then reiterated the ex-
pressions, and followed Mr. Marsh up the street, still
repeating them all the time. Mr. Marsh after this sent
two persons to Mr. Aldred, requesting him to consider
what he had done, and whether he would not attend to
make some apology fir his conduct. Mr. Aldred did
attend, but instead of making an apology, he repeated
the observations again in a manner most offensive to the
mayor. After the first offence, the mayor thought to
take proceedings against the defendant for sureties to
keep the peace, but considered that the repetition of
such conduct in open court was such an aggravation of
the original offence, that he felt it due to his office and
to himself to take other proceedings. One of the
magistrates insisted on taking sureties, which he did
two or three days afterwards. But he (Mr. Martin)
apprehended that the circumstances of this case were
such as not to deprive Mr. Marsh on that account of
coning to this Court. •
Mr. Justice PATTESON—You do not put this as being
a provocation to a breach of the peace ?
Mr. MARTIN—It was an actual breach of the peace,
for an assault was committed.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—That was in the first instance.
There was nothing but words in the second instance,
but the magistrate was acting at the time in his magis-
terial capacity.
Mr. MARTIN—It was SO ; and they thought it also
right to have an affidavit from the police-constable. who
stated in his affidavit that he merely delivered the paper
without any offensive expressions whatever, and the
answer he received was, the mayor and the
oTmaagnitsedtrates ; what do I care for them?"—Rule nisi
e,
The Court afterwards heard causes at Nisi Prins.