The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-12 00:00:00

submitted to her Majesty for the ensuing year.

CHANCERY.--('rins DAY.)
DAVENPORT V. BISHOP. and
Mr. TINNEY concluded his reply in this case to-day, •
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment. tjo
His Lordship rose shortly aftter two o'clock to Well'
pricking for Sheriffs in the Court of Exchequer.

6014

114
20

9%

II
73

43%

.....
7%

104

3%
22

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DA:tr')
JODDRELL V. JODDRELL. taleti
This was a demurrer to a marriage deed executed 1/6
the defendant Sir Richard Paul Joddrell and his wife vest
Joddrell, by which her ladyship's fortune of 3,700 L 4000
was settled on herself, as well as au annuity of 300 L .410
were subjected to certain restrictions to the effect thPeo.
former was to be appropriated to the maintenance and
cation of her daughters, and that the annuity arising out isice
house in Portland. place was to be considered as a pro. . bet
for herself, in case of any separation taking place between
and her husband. After some years' cohabitation, her
ship determined to leave the plaintiff, and retire to her Do
dence in Po/land-place, taking her children with ber,•. pa.
plaintiff, under these circumstances, conceiving that red to
deprived of the control of his children, endeavours
cancel the deed.
Arguments were heard on Monday in support of the de'
murrer,
The case and
was ordered to stand ov in behalf of the plaierntitill ff.
Friday nett'
iD
,„
order to give Mr. Romilly an opportunity of rePlPe'
extenso.
West.

The remaining causes were quite devoid of public in'
VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAV')
GOODALL V. MAXWELL. ed
The further arguments in this part-heard case oceuPl
Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England the whole day
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
CUTHBERT AND ANOTHER V. ATTWOOD. rwirt
His Honour sat this morning as Chief Judge of the 'd
of Bankruptcy.
Mr. FOLLET, official assignee in the estate of Cuthberto
Clark, appeared by petition, requiring Mr. Attwood, fee.,
representative of the house of Spooner, Attwood, and iii'
to refund certain sums overpaid, and to give up a rewto
ing dividend of 2501. on the estate. It seems oh'
Spooner, Attwood, and Co. had security from
bert and Clark to the amount of 5,000/. in the " 1110
of five; 1,0004. bills, Stein and Co. on Kensington and Co. deed
material question in the case seems to be whether the.
of security be general, extending to all debts, or only ha but
specific reference to a particular loan. The assignees, .:t 030
1821, seem to have considered, rightly or wrongly, t""ti to
security had a general reference to all debts, and sot 04
srs. Attwood the bills, Stein and Co. on Kensington
Co., which they held under the deed of security, for 25014tet0
lowing a further debt of 233/. to be proved against the es
of Cuthbert and Clark.
A bpi
His Ho:Noun, in giving judgment, said the petition had
put in, fequiring from the creditor a restoration of POI; of
of the bankrupts, which was held by Lim in liquidatiess to
an unsecured debt. His Honour would hesitate much this
whether the jurisdiction of the Court, could extend to iog
case without the consent of the defendant. But assliiineoce
the jurisdiction of the Court, considering the evtu
without the affidavit of Mr. Attwood, it aears that
eS
Attwood received certain security, and that in pp
conseel to
this security he had received more than his right. I'll'o
tition requires that this be returned. The last stun psi the
the estate was paid in 1822, twenty-one years befpr° at
petition. A petition in 1845 is presented on the grout'area
that security was redeemable, and that the bankrupts 114
claim on that security. His Honour did not
tter.
the Court had any jurisdiction over this mat
ed, the petitioners will, they must try this point not,
and make it out if they can. Taking, h°vr-t
ql
Mr. Att wood's affidavit into consideration, it appeart that
years ago the assignees either knew there was a contraare
tending the security to debts in general, or honestly 01,,gction
mistake in so considering it. From 1821 to 1845 the qu'"etie
had never been raised. He could not afford relief to the f3O.
tioners against Mr. Attwood, but in consideration thoevil•
Attwood had not appeared to be personally examined P
to
ing ill health, and that the letter sent by Mr. Attol"n d
„or
the assignee in 1844 had not been answered, his 11°,;sto
dismissed the bill without costs, and ordered that the '
of the petition be paid out of the estate.
•

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DO'/
THE QUEEN V. THORNTON AND BENTLEY. C.
This was a scire facias to repeal a patent granted :;
Thornton, for improvements in cardsetting machines.
peered at the trial, which occupied two days, that theka,
tentee had disclaimed four out of six parts of the ilieent the
and the jury found that he was not the first inventor offies
remaining parts, and that one was not useful, thereby in c
repeali. g the patent. the
Counsel on a former day moved for a new trial onpt
grounds of misdirection,- that the evidence of an assign, to
from Thornton to Williamson, and from Willianise,css
Bentley had been improperly received; that a seire 'rol* se,
granted upon the original specification could not he P‘,011:1*
cuted after a disclaimer, and that the verdict was not se'
ing to the evidence. of
oe r.
Lord DENMAN, in giving judgment, said the Court - W 0., •
opinion that there was no reason to disturb the verdict i tbs.
at the same time, it held that, as the evidence 5" to
tele
assignment might be questionable, there should be "
granted on that point.—Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. EDWARD COALES. dC
A rule having been granted to show cause why
fendant should not be prohibited from exacting cert'itoel
as the Clerk of the Quarter Sessions of Somersetsbirel
prisoners charged with misdemeanours, s t th°
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to show cause agB-i
yr or
rule, and to show that there was nothing in the case t°
rant the interference of this Court. Cotta
The object of the application was to call upon the os-
to quash the order that had been made, prohibiting the e
tion of those fees.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case against the ,
plication at great length, and read several affidav(i been
parties who deposed that enormous or illegal fees he thel
paid by prisoners to the clerk of the sessions before the
would be allowed to go to trial. In one of the affidavlneo' /ifs
deponent stated that in a certain case several poor rd
charged with misdemeanour, would not be allovreescip
take their trial until they bad paid 21. 15s. 6(1,* ught
In another case which he (the Attorney. General) the
called, more than any other, for the interference of
sod
justices, was when a poor old man, eighty years of 14%01
his two children, who were charged with an assault, ^too
not be allowed to take their trial until they had paid wake
illegal fees; the consequence was that they had w
d; but
two or three journies, and when tried were acquitted) 0
the expenses they had been put to were eu role'
to have brought them to the very verge
,01t !oral
The affidavits he (the Attorney-General) had soul'
him were full of such allegations, and, therefore, he
,uslie
ask, were not the justices bound to protect the
rol'aer.
against what he would not characterise by any St.-
term than improper conduct. -s the
The COURT—Were the fees taken other than those in
tables then existing?
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT—NOt one. d reail
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there were several, 50 s
a passage from one of the affidavits, which stated liLat ovoess
times the legal amount bad been exacted in some Wow'
The CounT—lf so. tbe act was clearly
live darit-4
DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL said there were defen
and the legl fe was taken from each.
The Soliciator-eGeneral followed on the' the At‘
same side as ---
torney-General.
grej
DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL then addressed the Court ikt the
length, and said that Mr. Coales had been In bad
office for the last thirty-four years, and that he t se•
succeeded his father in that office, and that the present Ode
fendant had always been anxious for the settlement of
aul-
fees, and that he would rather have a salary as he felt it 131 est
ful to be obliged to take fees. He contended it was e_gsd to
hardship on the part of his client to have affidavits reties,
this Court which he had not answered and could not el.l„ste
and which would make him out to be the most extorts
man eti
man in the whole county of Somerset. He also ceFteintisS
that it was most extraordinary that in the whole of tloner,
of affidavits that had been read, there was only tine
one magistrat, an one attorne our °'
The COURT,e afterd a short consuy.
ltation, decided in fay'
quashing the order, upon the ground that the order de-
Bench of Magistrates was evidence of itself that the .
mand was legal.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY')
(Sittings in Banco.)
SMITH V. NEBBITT. with
The Court was occupied nearly the iv hole morninf
oiDt
the arguments in the above case, which presented no r
of public interest. orrog
The Court rose at two o'clock, and will sit to-01-r the
morning at ten to hear appeals against the decisions 04
Revising Battistero, under the Act 6 Vic49rio, 01). 18'