The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-13 00:00:00

• •

ments, postponed giving judgment. tbe
NEEDHAM V. NEEDHAM. ,fith
The remainder of the morning was occupied... t(3, die;
arguments on this motion, the object of which In'evers'
charge a writ of attachment, an habeas corptis, au"
and
tb
orders and decrees of the Vice-Chancellor Wigrela •
Lord Chancellor.
ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS
His Lordship sat at ten o'clock this day fascle
Several motions of an unimportant nature Wore 000100
The only matter of the least interest was an ,elPlf)etd, for
on the part of the Master of Gresham College, v,..„,tedill
the production of certain documents which he conw--
was entitled to inspect. „tate.s
Mr. KINDERSLEY, who appeared for the app, arose wet
that the circumstances out of which this application a,roei'd,
simply these :—The Master of Gresham College, ox,linjos e,!
by the charter of James 1., and the Clad of grant of
Winifred, entitled to a salary to the amount of (T..,core;
part of the president's, and one-half of the fellows Tot tee,
and as an increase had taken place in them for the
yeaW, was desirous to see an account for that P 176 0
the comi:lons cf the College, as it was clear tho,„01 te
entitled to
.rarticipate in the profits that bad &Cc".
itsteu
the institution.
Mr. TURNER, on :he opposite side, contended tbet413.0.:
be injurious to the inttivests of the liege to make w;ith tio
sure of its pecuniary conC erns which a compliance ee
application involved. atitled t°6oo
His Loaffsnir considered the :spplicant was c
~, and co
the documents in question for the rriod specified,
no,: conceive how their production coz.ild by yo;
prud,!cial to the College. He would therefor e
order to that effect.
-n.O)
ITTICE:CHANCERY.—(THIS J-• ,
witaVDi
(Before Li:" VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ...
His Hosoun took motions to-day.
,LUND V. WATTS. ctiOn
Mr. STUART applied parte for a special inr Lerog frool
this case, to restrain the defendant from withd 300 0%4
the bank of Messrs. Gurney and Co., of Norwich, reseeteie
money which he had received as personal reP. .‘„y
Ia
of the plaintiff, and which he had i,een ordered to)pdr,
of himsea iceet
the bank of Messrs. Gurney, in the namethe s
paid . cation"
solicitor. The defendant, it appeared, had t applies
in his own name alone, and hence the presen
His HONOUR granted the injunction.
DE TASTET V. BEBIE. • tea the dog;
In this case his Honour a few days since ov.erlideod
murrer, and an application was now made to
former injunction to stay trial.
The COURT granted the application.
GLASSE V. THE EAST INDIA COMTAT4It'
This case came before the Court upon motion woe r,,'j
an injunction granted a short time since, restrainlode,o
India Company from paying thirty East India
also restraining a lady named Marshall from Pl"'" Llo0!!
them. Mr*
Mr. Stuart, with whom was Mr. Wigram and di/
was proceeding to open the case, when P5t
The VICE-CHANCELLOR inquired whether the Co ei
Company 'would pay the amount of the bond intudoptioe
the injunction was granted, as he thought the a 1,0
that course would meet the justice of the case.ti
Mr. STUART fclt no doubt the East India Con3s Cosll4
adopt the suggestion of the Court. The Learn:-cpieropt
after consulting with the solicitor of the East Wu% sia/ciei
said that the CompartLad no objection to pal the hail
of the bonds into Court, rovided the bonds we tr
over to them.d "V
Mr. Wiannm, whoa ppearod with Mr. Stuart, Saoo,
toot
East that one of the bonds had been actually isioe toot
East India Company were most anxious not to rot of
injunctions hanging over their heads, as the veil art,et. of
doing so caused the bonds to be depressed in tbee.3stratolist•
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, as one of the adrninl,ceolLo
justice in the Court of Chancery, could not taken'thot
Mr. STUART stated that he had been. inform, oso
r
Marshall had not been served with this applicatlo sift
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed that under sarnhst
stances the case had better stand over, .13 "de ID°
,
might be served. stateuci
Mr. BETHELL, on the part of the plainti.",,nei iO,,
they should be most happy to have the hard uu.
It was well known that the East India Ceent‘!),4oll
East was supposed to be an old lady. He ha ° ria mot'
pudiated such a notion till the present moment,, 'toe ).1i
bound now to admit that in the East they had a 'Jr thtle ap
ledge of the character of the East India Compan.„69 .tioa
had in this country, considering the timorous dier-
had displayed to-day.—(A laugh.)
The motion was then ordered to stand over.
(Before Viee-Chancellor WIGR4M.) ,le
FRANCIS V. GROVER. OW O"
Mr. ROMILLY moved for an order for a new sous
This is a will case, which came before his Holl°,l' elehhee
ago. It turned out that the will, after the death
tator, was found with a pencil mark struck thl_ rev,
word, " I decree to Margaret Evans, my servae",ol,,'
me, 20/. a year during the term of her ne`„ pe!„"tice
Whether there was or was not a revocation yrnatir. /1-(It-
fact, which came by his Honour's order before dOW
Erie and a jury at the last assizes, at Bristol, Pawl, or,
termined by the jury under the judge'
the words so marked were part of theses l. DitooriV
fendants to-day came before his Honour, corebeforese
the manner in which the point had been stet a 0410
jury ; that they had been made defendants f the v f
which they had to prove an affirmative, in whie",;,.04°,,,t,
of proof was thrown upon them; that the direc;belvoif
judge were prejudicial when he put it to the kic,;.
had been made out that deceased intended to leve7; 00g'groe'
the presumption of law being in their favour, theiel,,,ey'
, r..ree,c,e;e3lat- fed te-
Judge, in laying down the law of the case, attenwa, -act°
perly and excessively cancellation by ;pencil SiSan tb
•sefl
vocation. be'
His HONOUR said that two points had been. I'3'4 0,4
motion. The point of law whether cancellation, e;:jitelor
cese, by pencil amount to revocation in la arnd M 3
w, 01
of the Learned Judge. As to the latter oo
could not agree that the Learned_ doe"
misled the jury. And as the point of law cent forfe',o
to be argued when the cause comes before the (lAsur:;i
directions, his Honour would not order a new' t,ll-dder.
the motion to stand over till the point of law,.
thought proper, be argued.
/TA )
COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS -
(Sittings in Banco.)
REGISTRATION APPEALS. ,h 6 al':
The Court this day commenced the hearing Of
against the decisions of the Revising Barristere. -01'HO
36 appeals on the list—of which 3 were from
(East Division), 1 from 'Yorkshire (NI est Ri(
Lichfield, 2 from Middlesex, 1 from Lincoln, .6 ill'o-tei''tbe
shire (South Division), 5 from Cheshire (N( O'OV-freed
1 from the borough of Chatham, 1 from Not te • I'l'
fip
borough of Dartmouth, 1 from th city of Rochl,toth„Ve
the borough of Scarborough, 2 from Lancashire. 1(1g1 e'
sion), 1 from New Sarum, 1 from Westminster, '-
London.
The first case taken by their Lordships was tilfat
BISHOP, APPELLANT V. HELPS, RESPON aplie,
in which Mr. Sergeant Talfourd appeared for tle`
and Mr. Sergeant Byles for the respondent. tr tfe
,espo
The appellant ,it appeared, had objected to t b"
cool,"
being placed on the list of voters for Cheltc n'o'11:1;,'
revising barrister was of opinion that the o bee'plree`otios
not be entertained, as the respodent and the 'o The
not received the notice of objection in due time. '„ tbe ,tb
had been posted in due time, and the delay wa eA- 01' 08
of the postmaster through whose hands it pat t°
part of the appellant it was urged that, acoet u.co- it
statute, Gth Victoria, cap. 18, the posting of the rioett °id;
deuce of its having been served, while on the: r 0 void
.00
respondent it was represented that it was only .r 4
evidence, and if it was intended by the statute 01400 'the
be conclusive evidence, the word " conclusive"' l'fbefoletios
been used; and in this case there was evidenon..;„clee
revising barrister that the notice was not receiv' P"
The Court took time to consider their dedsio n•
BISHOP V. COX. OP A
In this case which, like the first, was from t - A,Y
sion of Gloucesterdep, eIVA
Mr. Sergeant BAYLIS said, that as this cast 01'
the same question as the previous one, it was "cfise°
to argue it again, but the decision in the form et -
govern this.

A4'
SHE SHERIFFS' COURT.—(TH 1$
( Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuncliEt I.)
fo
2(od
MAME V. HUMBER. (01
This was an action to recover the sum of 14',
7
.4
lent. .
The plaintiff is the: landlord of the Ship, Stone 11et
-1,.„ 01
rough, the defendant a broker in the Commercial-I oawdr
plaintiff's brother proved that the defendant hog' his h";
that he had borrowed the money, and express' td.,.,: V°
that he could not repay it, as his partner had actea I''
toward him. .
Verdict for plaintiff. the
SOLOMONS V. IROOMBRIDGE. i 4/0°
This was an action to recover the sum of 34 Zola. i
amount of an attorney's bill. The defendant Pi e-
he never was indebted. 600911 ~,
Mr. Saul Solomons, the plaintiff's brother, vreg°, otel A,
he deposed that he went to Horsemonger-lane a 11,7 0 di OF,
Groombridge (the brother of the defendant), anlstrec (itr,
quence he went to the defendant's and took L.° 6211 ~
for an affidavit to set aside some proceedings for ir.gael 101
The next day he went to the Judge's Chambers, 'lalsfil 3
defendant and another brother, William, and an Ou. 0 PI
made, on which the Judge ordered the pro
aside. The defendant signed a retainer at the time' he 1
r ,_lo,
The witness admitted that the item of 13.1. ."
_wool"
fee would net be allowed on taxation. VP- el
Mr. Beard, a solicitor, said the charges were I. .•
except the 135.; 10s. would be taxed off. °I/ 00
Mr. Glascow confirmed the giving the retainer 's fl
i. •.'
deposed to. • al suit efes '
The defendant's attorney said that the origin tbo /I ,
against John and William Groombridge, but that wiePe,
dant having been served instead of William, the (104
ceedings were irregular, but it was necessary ghat the be
~„ 4
dant should join in an affidavit. As to the retCillnn.;,sir:4,
that the plaintiff's brother induced the defendant 1- siz
saying that it was a matter of no consequent% iii.ii
matter of form, in order to enable him to go before
.., ecelto
The proc.:edings had been set aside and the plaintiff 'I sai' ere
Tla 115 0
13s. 4d. costs in that suit by order of the judge- o ,O.
money out of pocket in the present bill was only °Bx- 10 ille
was also another remarkable feature in the ce-se, 13,,f1ii. i
that the first item was made out for an atteadan PA"
was , ,
defenda:f' and the second for the first attendance e...ist o.'
John Gro,:nbridge was called, and swore that heTng {end
ra4
Solomons, and after the proce" 0 ,10er
the witness Sau:
witness and said the judge had
al, •e. ,/
set aside he called or,
him 13s. 4d. for costs, an'. that lie would only char' e,,4tivii
tendered that MI
thee - --r,
30s. more. Witness had situ::
Cross-examined by the plaintiff—
the Insolvent Act in August last,
6- Pu ' • • r
William Groombridge deposed that Mr. ,n cote' 000ge
the schedule. Defendant had nothing 1:0 do wic_tnin`iii or . tot
Had taken
._ia; ieti toll
that the retainer was merely a matter of form, .01 ..;d:•1 ..4
inossubersrt.o, tahniVedirr..sWaSoi:niarna::ewawsouivedurYin3".l° take
.°PI
before the Judge. Re did not say :hantditins:arts::-:1:11e-bli °::
witness andthe
I.'
hce
l through)ay
the
lEfi Rehr:thifil not employ ...---_,, tjle!
do ttii
suit
matter hoer not,w epti
for it. nd said i al pr -'2' ver
Ilytandichheeittlwobastalivnaelditeciby, mthiesrpepiariesnte.init:YtaltaseistStl.ii:t/741; ®it
had :edi tdie ie
employedndan ntravrtehda: II-
a in the--
his favour.
The jury consulted, and almost immt.../1
..-
diet for the defendant. ate,' gale""

The Court assented

~.

-tft-

7'