The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-03 00:00:00

rtir!‘

El
06-11'AI
• 1,1
,trucl'oli
4 lito
Lbo
Y=Fll

#144,

I'AVV INTELLIGENCE.
,C H A.NCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westmin-
ster
long rtoor:dal3-
a,eafotn
rioth,e first time since the termination of
and proceeded with the hearing of
t!se and lunatic petitions.
12eMany of the cause and charity petitions on the
4USenc
,a_Per erewr struck out, in consequence either of the
onsel or having previously been disposed of.
, RE DURHAM CHARITIES.
certaThiinSestWlSt the. petition of the surviving trustees of
left fo es in the city of Durham, which had been
t 431,, for estates
benefit and support of two bridges in the
and the surplus rents were to be applied to the
iorli'Port of a lecturer. The charities were formed as
and
gth agO as 1698,
.. the ancestors of Henry Baines,
by
tl trustees of them had always been appointed,
etrj h.ooat,rporation of Durham. It so happened, hoN%••
in the petition presented in 1836, under the
~,ne7e'ettpal Act, for the appointment of new trustees,
the '4° charities were omitted ; since then, two of
trustees of the other charities of the town had died,
Zwhat the petition prayed was, either that it might
to ineefrietl to the Master to appoint new trustees, and
eo4N. ad those two charities, or that they might
.be
the °Yell to the trustees of the other charities, under
liirder of the Court.
mrr. ItT.°:MILLY appeared for the petition.
L'll:' did not oppose the petition, but sub-
por„e:il that the nomination should remain in the Cor-
44.‘y%here it had been for the last centuryt.ion
of
such •4:‘°.riLL•ir had no objection to the adop
ma.eourse.
the3;.144°41) CHANCELLOR ordered it to be referred to
that tiBT-sr to appoint two new trustees, and declared
ratio nomination of the lecturer was in the Corpo-
-511 n of Durham.
Tilr.ll. MATTER OF SMITH, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.
of 21101' c, carne carne before the Court upon the petition
sion 4.e I‘,"e of James Smith, praying that a Comnis-
Pror,fOnatico inquirendo might issue against him.
rareett affidavit; in support of the petition, it ap-
ad beenatSrilith Was so confirmed a lunatic, that it
lunatic as
„"nind necessary to place him in a private
air . m `GRAIkt appeared for the petitioner. of the s„'„°ent was counsel for the brothers and sister
eatitied-PP°sed lunatic, and submitted that they were
lutistid. to attend the Commission, together with the
•
oratnL ()111) CHANCELLOR made the order for the
to t 61.18141161; observing that there could be no objection
the C-orm..:atio and his brothers and sisters attending
art A's;li°n, but it must be at their own expense,
Oat, .4VANLEY V. THE EARL OF KINNAIRD.
elf), application of Alr. Wakefield, the LORD
had 17414,0 R _ordered that the supplemental bill that
befor 611 filed in this case, which had been set down
the ae,L_Yice-Chancellor Wigram, be transferred to
giaityr of the Vice-Chancellor of England, the on-
"7-tlillaving been set down before his Honour.
LS
COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
s THE DEVON AND CORNWALL BANKING
S 0. COMPANY.
Was r --`llse, which had been part-heard yesterday,.
and °s limed to-day, after some unopposed motions
Itetitions had been disposed of.
Spioe application was on behalf of Mr. Henry
,77:1 late of the Banking Company of Sparks and
44;4 Eketer, for an injunction to restrain the d!-
0tth,,!1t92-tr. Deny, who is registrar and public
froft-`iet the Devon and Cornwall Banking Company,
the-,-,'ssoing execution on a verdict obtained against
wartaitltitt in the Court of Queen's Bench, for up-
prte7„er 400/. ; also to restrain the said officer from
`'`nlll. g in a suit to recover another sum of
mentioned in the pleadings. It ap-
that Thomas Henry and Joseph Sparks
.
lkgk,,ll bankers in Exeter, and in the y.eal
tact ,i43T agreed that Joseph should treat for selling
till:transferring the business of their bank to the
latteVl.and Cornwall Bank for 10,000/. ; that the
deh, were to wind up the affairs, assume the
kid.u; and discharge the liabilities of Sparks
thebV4)* A part of the arrangement was that
eht*L-evon and Cornwall Banking Company should plir-
tcrh- certain freehold and leasehold estates belonging
kitt dad of Sparks for 24,0001. A private arrange-
4tialso been made byJoseph Sparks on his own
nt with the Devon and Cornwall Company, that
Nuose
ph) was to purchase back the estates
lit,g,Tled at the price they (the Devon and Cornwall
tit(2) Were to give, and Joseph accordingly had
sizaLvo It note for th'it sum, namely, 24,000/., and had
spy time to time, paid 6,0001. of it. Joseph
Italait'f,_ had since died, and the Devon
against
the 4 Cornwall Company had proceeded
for °llly surviving partner, Henry Sparks,p
oalance of 18,0001. 0n the part of the e-
had hittsn,d Cornwall Company it was stated that they
used not Cornwall
hlwigood the titles of the estates to be
Sparks,
le the surviving partner, Henry .
t-7„,jle had nothing to do with any privae
rdec'lltn`7.,.ol the Company with his brother Joseph,
- ..I,..a.„„7llability to be bound thereby.
41' 1344 rd LANG having concluded his reply,
ta-1,";14.t, in passing judgment, said that the
r decided was, whether the plaintiff was
L'lvhe e't to pay any money into Court, and if
hisa As- the transaction then appeared
irdship, he thought he ought not
Pel the , the
`which' Painful. money
defendant to go on to.. corn-
to pay the large sums of
theni t,1!:1 defendants claimed as due from him to
Many in,here were undoubtedly in the case a great
the rtPitant questions, which, if not settled by
--es without the intervention of the Court,
Were tequire
a great deal of discussion before
.t they
questi satisfactorily settled. But the single
tarty °Tla. c..nOvy to be considered was, whether on
ave, ;via- vu Proceed on a legal right, which he might
inl3' those having all the advantages of, perhaps, hav
11111.,. P then° questions decided in his favour. His Lord-
rentien,o went on to recapitulate the facts above-
Junction' and declared it his opinion that the
proceed-711 must be granted to restrain the
With ,Ling.,• He would read over the answer
and if view to determine whether any sum,
I‘ishanY, what sum should be paid into Court
to be d ed to avoid giving any opinion on the matters
defendant eterrained in the case, but he did not wish the
the ~,stitc. take away the whole of the sums when
fight be had not been determined, which
• c determined in favour of the plaintiff.
17
017:4-k-;t1ANCERY,—(THIS DAY)
the. v
- - VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
BT' JAMES'S, CLBRKENWELL—SCOTT V. PAS-
b-,, CILL, AND PASCALL V. SCOTT.
tirCutbst:lS°l-111 gave judgment in this double case, the
on it, area COS of which, and the decision now given
°Mc of great importance and interest to the
1, era
Pariah f u ratepayers of the large and. populous
s; stated that he
James's, Clerkenwell. His Honour
the substantial t..at he meant 'to give judgment in both cases,
• ex, question of which was, whether a deed
18i'711te,1 by Mr. John Scott on the 27th of October,
_Partiessr,.llld he allowed to stand as security, as the
411z1t .auirlof
laiLing the cross bill insisted it should. do, for a
1,1, to the money said to be due from the said John Scot!
• Parish of St. James's, Clerkenwell. The plead
`1;.) 64 Weft
'2, These. /lively extensive but the facts appeared to be
v. t" month of March, 1834, John. Scott
-heiti",.l.leas public offices in the above parish, he
i
4400 unardian
of the Poor, and Overseer, and
Ittil Trustee for some Church. In that month
thiite\t:, asPicions were entertained by the paris
Whet,- John Scott had • not acted faithfully in the
his ,;vuo 'sustained, but that be had appropriated to
C01it„,,4 use large sums belonging to the parish. A
'1! tothe t""ttee was appointed by the parish to investtigato
ruth of these circumstances, and John Scott took
By
eerttna, at what was going forward in the Finds
14th (*)f
Apriln documents executed on the lathan
of th 1834. it
appeared that all the tangibleproper.tN.i
< lianiess4idtkiln Scott was vested in his brother,
-c°tt, and a gentleman named Turner. This
),4 tr pit
rty consisted of a freehold, a leasehold tenement,
• ass) °l.tgage, and in addition a sweeping conveyance
eouv:',ng over all his personal estate. These were all
,3ecl in trust for the use of Mrs. John Scott.
was' Tuesday, the 15th of April,
a warrant
• Se,,,,.taken out for the apprehension of Mr. John
the ""t, The above deeds were executed on
)
of Albeit of the 14th, or the morning of the 15t
kim. Vl], and on the morning of the latter day
'the 41)• Scott absconded, and remained abroad from
the he first left till the 26th of Oct., 1837. At
offe time
he left placards were issued about the parish,
314(111n,_g a reward for the apprehension of Mr. J. Scott.
Crator,.‘_oe terror of what was going forward appeared t(.,
111:e very strongly on the mind of Mr. Scott. Beside;
die__N'arrant. in the month of June, 1835, an iplict-
nt outlawry was brought against him, ar:4 as hi
the °t aPPear in person to plead to that is as
talnPiroceedings of outlawry were made ti,erfect against
that t7i•August, 1836. It was fairly to be inferred
pse e real ob,;ect of these proceedings was to enable
g"roantconducting the prosecution, by means of soul,.
the Crown, to obtain dominion over th(
person from
Itit,eatir
.aol property of dr. Scott, either to deprive him 01 compel him to appear to the indictment ;1 in the
v__ time his situation abroad appeared to be one o 4
sgreat distress. On the lath ot July, 1837, a letter.
etTri4t,ed to have been drawn up by Mr. Bodkin, th,
:touilffitileeren.tpttja.reiossdhucid,nsel, who throughout acted as the advise,
was sent to the Committee, in the slam,
ott. If really written by Mr.. Bodkin.
• 'a great letter
n 1 a great deal of credit, for it showed
curnstandeegree of feeling and regard, both for the cir-
• poscs h fM. J. Scott and the parish. The pro-
subs, ' "ever, C )ntained both in this letter and in ;
by eel t one sent on the 20th of July, were rejected
It appeared as if the parish was im-
Ina.°Znaebi:, 11:111
that nothing could satisfy it but the
i„ „g _secured to it the whole of that sum which.
manner held out to be due to it from Mi
On the 26th of October, 1837, Mr. Scott re-
'410:013:1 and iramediately proceeded to

the Central Criminal Court, and pleaded to the pro-
ceedings of outlawry, which gave him the power of
reversing them ; on the 27th he attended at the offices
of Messrs. Pownall and Cross, where Mr. Bodkin and
several other parties were present, and executed the
deed which was the subject of the present proceedings.
The question was, whether such an account of the
sum due to it had been taken by the parish, from the
security for which the Court ought not to relieve ?
It appeared to him that no account had been taken.
A committee commenced an investigation, and after

it had made some progress in it, it is stated that when
Mr. Scott appeared before it his manner was that of
a man who considered himself guilfy. That, his
Honour thought, was not the course that
ought to have been taken ; the report itself
states that much of it could only be considered specu-
lative, that its amount was not exact. In the proceed-
ings taken, the parish only professed to exercise a law-
ful power, but did they use that legitimate power in a
lawful manner ? The whole course of the transaction
appeared to show that there was an undue exercise of
lawful power on the part of the parish. It was utterly
inconsistent that the parish should be allowed to be-
come themselves judges in their own case, and with-
out allowing the matter to be investigated, to assume
that to be an absolute debt due to them which their
own Committee had stamped with the character of
uncertainty and doubt. The justice of the case re-
quired then, not that the deed of the 27th of October,
1837, should be set aside altogether, but that it should
be ordered to stand as security for what, on taking
an amount, should appear to be the sum due to the
parish on the 27th of October, 1837, with
interest. The Court, therefore, declared that
the deed must not stand absolutely as security
for the sum of 10,5741. 19s. 2d., but for what should,
by taking an account, be found to be justly due.
The conduct of Mr. Scott was inconsistent with the
supposition that nothing was due, but the account
must be referred to the Master, to ascertain what was
the amount of the debt, with interest. The Court
would make no declaration as to costs, but he should
reserve the consideration of them till he had the
Master's Report before him. Even if it should turn
out that nothing was due to the parish, it would still
be a very great question as to how the costs should be
disposed of. His Honour also decided that with re-
spect to an objection that had been taken as to the
parties to the case, it was perfectly sustainable, though
only Messrs. Pascall and Adams were made parties
to it on behalf of the sixty-three Guardians of the
parish.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY)
(Sittings in Banco.)

WILSON V. beLEAN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
lady keeping a young lady's school, against the
defendant to recover 671. 10s. for the board and
education of the two daughters of the defendant. The
first count of the declaration claimed 261. 55., because
the plaintiff had, contrary to agreement, removed his
daughters without giving a quarter's notice of his in-
tention so to do; which notice, according to his
agreement, the plaintiff contended that defendant was
bound to give. The second count claimed 45/. 15s.
for work and labour done. Defendant did
not join issue on the second count, but paid
the sum of 451. 15s. into Court. The defendant
pleaded to the first count, that he had given the ne-
cessary notice, and thereupon issue was joined. The
case was tried before Mr. Justice Wightman, and the
Jury found for the plaintiff for 26/.55.
Mr. THESIGER, on behalf of the defendant, now
moved for a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence. The Learned
Counsel contended that the defendant had really given
all the notice required by the agreement, and that the
dispute had arisen entirely from the confused and ar-
bitrary manner in which the plaintiff divided what she
called the " school year," consisting of nine months.
The COURT granted a rule nisi.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
BLACKBOURNE AND ANOTHER, V. WHITEHEAD--LOAN

SOCIETIES.

This was an action brought by the trustees of the
Amicable Loan Society, to recover the sum of 91.,
being the balance due upon a bill of exchange, of
which the defendant was one of the acceptors, and
which had been received by the Society as security
for a loan of 151., advanced to a person whose name
did not appear. The case was tried before the Se-
condary, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
Sir T. WYLDB now moved for a rule nisi for a new
trial. The action was brought under the sth and 6th
Will. IV., c. 23, one of the provisions of which was, that
loan societies, whose rules were deposited, certified,
and enrolled in manner and form therein specified,
should have against defaulting borrowers and their
sureties certain facilities for recovering payment, not
available under other circumstances; and, further,
they were allowed to receive as security unstamped
bills of exchange or promissory notes, and to proceed
upon them with the same effect as if they were stamped.
In the present case it appeared that at the time
when the loan was made and the bill of ex-
change drawn, the rules of the Society were
not certified, enrolled, &c., as required by the Act.
Therefore, the Learned Sergeant contended,
that the Society did not., at the time of the loan, come
under the Act, and the unstamped bill ought not have
been received in evidence. On this ground he moved
for a rule to set aside the verdict, and grant a new
trial.—ltule to show cause granted.