The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-15 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 1.1.
LONG V. BURROWS.
Mr. KINDERSLET begged to remind his Lordship that
there was an application standing over for to-day.
His LORDSHIP said he recollected the case perfectly, and
adhered to the opinion that very serious inconvenience would
result from that Court interfering in this matter where there
were two causes against a party growing out of the same
transactions, one which was before the Vice-Chancellor.

MADEN v. BEEVERS.

Mr. MumAT, on the part of the defendant, moved this
case should be dismissed with costs, on the ground of the
length to which the matter had already been protracted.
He would call his Lordship's attention to the history of this
cause, which he had little doubt would show that there were
just grounds for the present application. In July, 1845, the
plaintiff had leave granted to amend his bill of costs. On
4th of following November, an order was obtained to remand
the bill till the May ensuing A motion to dismiss the cause
was then made. 'the matter was then postponed till the sth
of July, and was then further ordered to stand over till the
first dav of the present term, upon which it was brought
before the Court, and an order was obtained to have the
matter still further postponed to that day. He would now
press his motion unless the opposite side could adduce suf-
ficient evidence to sustain them in seeking any further delay.
His Lonnsair—This is a very extraordinary case, and un-
less it can be shown that something has been done by the
defendant, I will certainly grant your application.
Mr. KINDERSLEY, for the defendant, produced an affidavit,
which stated that an endeavour had been made by his client:,
to effect an arrangement, for which both parties were ex-
tremely desirous. It was a most difficult matter, and ob-
stacles of a most unusual character had sprung up to impede
its adjustment. For instance, the falling in of a portion of the
mine threw a considerable impediment in the way of a settle.
ment. He trusted that this was a proof that there had been
some endeavour en the part of his clients to bring matters to

an issue.
His LORDSHIP said he knew enough of the case to be satis-
fied that considerable efforts had been made to terminate the
matter. He was aware of the peculiar nature of the case.
and considered that it excluded the application to it of the
ordinary regulations of the Court.
After soma discussion between the counsel,
His LOnDSHIP agreed to allow the matter to stand over.

JODDREL V. JODDREL.
Mr. KINDERSLEY replied to the arguments adduced on the
opposite side, and contended that the authorities cited by his
Learned Friend, Mr. Turner, did not apply to the present
case.
His LORDSHIP in giving judgment went at length into
the merits of the case. He considered that the sums
granted to Lady Jocldrell had been given her for the purpose
of supporting herself, and maintaining and educating her
children. It did not appear that she had neglected her chil-
dren in any point; therefore there could be no objection on
that bead to the deed in an equitable point of view. It had
been urged that a deed of this description went to destroy
the relation between man and wife, and therefore was
opposed to the policy of the law. Certainly the provisions
of that deed did to a certain extent alter the relation of
man and wife, but it did nut alter the duties of the married
state. Now, there had been no objection to the
manner in which Lady Joddrell had fulfilled those
duties, and therefore that objection was ground-
The other arguments against the validity of the
deed derived from the position that it would have the effect
of depriving the father of the authority of a parent, were he
conceived valueless, fw he was not excluded from superin-
tending the education of his children. Certainly, evils might
grow up under a deed of this description, but the same oc-
curred in the married state, where no such dead
existed between the patties. Looking at the
practice of the Court and the authorities on the
question, he considered it was a wile policy which gave the
wire an opportunity of having her own fortune secured to
her, and by that means being rendered independent of the
husband, should he fail to discharge the duties of the rela-
tion lie had assumed. Nor did he conceive the arguments
urged against this, of his being without means of support, to
be at. all to be regarded. From these considerations, there-
fore, he felt bound, vtliatever further steps might be taken, to
declare the deed of settlement a legal instrument.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Aov. 14.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour took unopposed petitions, short causes, peti-
tions, and motions to-day.
ROOKE V. ROOKE.—THE SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.
This case came before the Court upon petition, praying the
confirmation of the Master's report, approving of certain costs
incurred by the petitioner in opposing before Parliament a
preposition made by the South Wales Railway Company, to
carry the railway across the Severn by means of the Old
Ferry. It appeared that that proposition, if carried into
effect, would have been mast injurious to the land of the pe-
titioner, and that his opposition to it before the Legislature
was successful.
The COURT granted the prayer of the petition.
Mr. James Parker and Mr. Freeling were counsel for the
petitioner.

BAZALETTE V. BAZALETTE.
This petition, which was heard in his Honour's private
room, occupied the Com t the remainder of the morning.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Nov. 14.
(Sittings in London, before Mr. Justice CRESWELL.)
NEDBY V. DUNHAM. - _

The plaintiff in th►s case is the landlord of the Three Tuns
public-house, in Fetter- lane ; action brought to recover the sum
of 21. 15s. 6d. for injury done to the lamp in front of his house
by a waggon load of hay, belonging to the defendant, who is
a hay-merchant, knocking against it.
William Lancing. a carpenter, stated that on the
Ist of October, 1844, he was at work in the plain-
tiff's house, when a waggon passing up the lane,
came in contact with the lamp, and knocked it
down. The lane at that part was very narrow,
so that only one vehicle could pass at a time. It
was a tram-road, that is, a road in which that part next
the kerb is formed of flat stones on which the wheels of the
carriage run, and the middle is paved in the ordinary man-
ner. The lamp was not a very large one, and it was placed
as near to the wall as it could be. The arm which supported
the lamp was about 14 feet above the pavement.
James Barker, a working gas-fitter, who mended the
lamp, identified a bill, which was put in in evidence, as that
which he had sent in to the plaintiff, and for which he had
received payment from him. The amount was 21. 15s. 6d.
On the part of the defendant, it was represented that the
lamp was improperly placed, and that it was, in consequence
of its position, and not of any neglect or mismanagement on