The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-13 00:00:00

hearing
the arguments in this cause. The facts presente'l
no feature of interect whatever.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
THOMPSON V. DURHAM.
ThiS WAS a motion for an injunction heard in private
Previous to the Christmas vacation.
His HONOUR gave judgment at great length this mo-
‘ng, The qu rnestion turned upon the construction of the
'74, of a testator named William Wade. In the month
ne 1829, the testator had entered into partnership
with three other persons as a worsted spinner,
rd. Wool stapler ; and by the 28th article of the deed,iewas agreed that if Wm. Hinde should depart this life
re the expiration of the term limited for the partner-
-Brip• he should be at liberty to nominato any one or
'le tmore of his sons to succeed him in five of the shares, and
profits' arising from them. The bills ought to have
o trusts of Win. Hinde's will executed, and prayed a
,ien upon the bankrupts' property to the amount of the
fa 'are& It appeared that the surviving partners having
:come bankrupt, the Commissioners •of Bankruptcy
e ere about to enter a fir upon the bankrupts' Os when the • plaintiffs opposed the proceeding,
tlkillilt,Pra.yed that no dividends might be received
h nen- claim had been adjusted. That application,
however was refused. His Honour was of opinion that
hi ding to the true construction of Wm. Hinde's will
w,s"_ executors were not authorised to make over the
the testator's estate was unlawful, and constituted a debt
rent the partnership to 'Win. Hinde's estate. He could
tot
henv,aoweer, grantthe injunction then sought, because
be deciding that it was the duty of that Court
aullnc every decision of the Court of Review at the
be''anee of any creditor against whom its decision had
en pronounced.—The injunction was therefore refused.
zl°lt'rli UNION RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE BOLTON
This case RAILWAY COMPANY.
hich was a motion f an innction to
restrain
itie the' defendants from erecting g certainjuworks on
Plaintiffs' line of railway, was concluded this morn-
Jur His Honour said there was no proof that any in-
Would be sustained, and the motion, therefore, must
end over generally, with liberty to apply.

-EN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY )
"RH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—DARBON V. ROSSER.
THESIGER moved in this case for a rule to show
Why the verdict should not be set aside, on the
of the damages being excessive. The case was
la before Mr. Justice Wightman, at the sittings after
T'r term, and a verdict had for the plaintiff for 1,600/
here were various promises assigned, and the defendant
artTcled the payment of a sum of money in satisfaction
_acquittal of these promises.
e beNaLAN said the Court generally knew what
was, and Mr. Justice Wightman had an opinion
Zil3° it but, without being taken to pronounce any
taii on at present, the Court would suggest whether it
e°,,,ld not be advisable that the parties should confer to-
" ""er, and the case could be mentioned again in the
ec'till:se of the week.
vir• TRESIGER assented to this suggestion.
it.ExP v. GARLAND, ADMINISTRATOR.
beffr. PLATT said this was
an action of assumpsit, tried
h
• °re fir. • ustice Wightman at the last Guildhall sit-
The declaration stated that Charles Garland, de-
sa"ed, was indebted to the plaintiff in his lifetime in the
3301., and for which the deceased had given his
4th lant of attorney to confess judgment for the sum
reill mentioned, with a defeasance indorsed upon the
aaoria°t of attorney. By that defeasance the sum of
pa. , Was to be paid hy instalments, of which five were
pip'sand eight remain un id. To that the defendant
ilettllst, that he did pnot. proms' e ; 2d, that he did
4,h,el.,ecute the warrant of attorney ; 3d, a set off ; and
fi,tine statute of limitations. All the issues were found
lt.tile plaintiff, except that witivregard to the statute of
oaitat• • ,
defend 'olls7 on which a verdict was entered for the
verplant, with liberty to the.plaintiff to move to enter a
the '°,t for 741. Is., if the Court should be of opinion that
The le
of the statute of limitations did not apply.
e warrant of attorney was given in 1832, and it was
(4-pitted that all the instalments except the last three
otgrillOt come within the statute of limitations, and the
re,le• test was with regard to the se three instalments. The
tion made at the trial was that the statute of li-
eltations had run as against these three instalments, be-
conl2Be by the terms of the defeasance the party had a
t,;nplete right of action more than six years ago. He
the d, however, that that did not bar the right of
he Plaintiff to recover the instalments in dispute, and
T'°g' •-uoted some authorities on the subject,
the Ile
ease said it would be necessary to look into
,r THE QUEEN V. KENRICK AND ANOTHER.
hia was an indictment for a conspiracy to defraud
jitGeorge4 William Featherstonhaugh of a valuable se-
y for 1681., by unlawfully, knowingly, and design-
nla e
pretending hater certain carriage, and a certain
and gelding, w the property a a lady deceased,
alsince then of her sister, and that they were not the
i°Perty of a horse-dealer. The defendants had also
that the horses were quiet. to ride and drive, with
to defraud. The case was died before Lord Den-
-13411 at the sittings after last term, and the Jury found
-4e two defendants guilty.
there
BYLES now moved for a rule to show cause why
cshould not be a new trial, or why the judgment
ould not be arrested, and why there should not be a
pelll,ire de novo. With regard.to the arrest of judgment,
iviri:l4•l's it might be convenient to mention the point
Caine -arose upon, the record. The indictment con-
e',_two sets of counts. One for false pretenees, in
or a two
that the horses were quiet, and the property
rebll/41Y, and the other for a conspiracy, by fraudulent
K:esentations, to sell the horses and obtain the money.
liabi2 he submitted that the count for false pretences was
that t
ito two serious and fatal objections. It alleged
horse defendants had fraudulently represented the
theret t° be quiet, &c., for the purpose of fraud, and had
suta _ obtained a vauable document or cheque for the
tu,iitut,l6Bl. The first objection was,; that the indict-
the state whose order or cheque. it was that
NthatTifve
j'lt.dnt had; the consequence of that would be,
Neat
,)11'11 be extremely difficult to plead that indict-
.oar to an indictment for a felony for the same
ti)ils,°3l'er°tyl rm,f.°leY• The money was ;not laid to be the
%tie te u,bie_LnY person, but there were sever. al authori-
nlisb nhe would refer the Court, which would
the valuablecoact that it was necessary that the money
thaltPropert Y
°fsideration obtained should be. laid to be
in a tals some party. The second objection was
-eut. e
1,4,03 warranty was not the subject of an indict-
h xntitA
'"nou, tia'e a said it was clear the Learned Counsel
Mr, -1,-1° anthr,,79l' the first objection, but he wished to
-ytt, :',Ltles for the latter objection.
for chtirie "aid there was Weekes's case, Pye's case,
° the c gton's
eous,. 0141 ease, which all bore upon the point be-
teeirraey, it Then with regard to the counts for the
were'9th melvas laid down in the case of the Queen v.
Coi, bad for and Ellis, that counts for conspiracy
tneap:`°ts for tieing too extensive. The words. ;a ere
1)01- "a, is bad ' conspiracy to defraud, not stating the
ob:P"se was' not showing that the conspiracy was for a
qie‘ti`etien
4130 nreessaridy criminal." He had another
of the,cl with Fi'st,hat the younger Kenrick, who was ni-
b e action father, had died after the commencement
it% the re", and there was no statement to that effeot
e°rd• After going through the evidence at
ane COURT granted a rule upon that point also.
ad This Was an ac...Tolus SIMMONS.
ly) 'lced by tis non brought to recover a sum of 101.
atidttWas trielbWeellfoerreoftiale
ta.tt° aas th plaintiff on behalf of the defendant,
to enterVe_rdict had for the vessel called the Pheebe. The
Plaintiff,nd e
andhe Sheriff ffaGlamorgan,ffor
leave
ofrule
Mlnonsuit havino• subsequentl been obtained,
LTON now appeared fo AL cause against the
s appeared that tl •ie vessel was lying in the port
hilsea and thmaster being in want of money
t" h'
tai6 is owner, reside I t distance df eleven
to and the answer was
that
411(.1 him, but to tahata lie had no money
try and sell the barley
paa.3ter'_i_s on
.board at five shillings per bushel. The
outho not being able to obtain more than 3s. 6d. the
14(E1,, 440ppl,led to the plaintiff's agent, residing in Swan-
aavanced him 10/., which the owner refused
pays
11 • p eging that the master had no right take
aneY on his account. The Learned Counsel
.seri"ref,
nf. rred to the law, as it bore upon cases of the
tillkht4not 11 before the Court, submitted that the verdict
setTh to be disturbed.
ae COURT
was of opinion that the verdict ought to be
e> and the rule for a nonsuit made absolute.

tNetiEQUER.
_(
THis DAY.)
kr. .„ RICKETTS V. NASIIh
k Iv_ Li,
and Mr. PRIDEAUX s b this 4" to set aside a release grantedthe plaintiff in
*owed cause against
44,0 car, "hereby the
plaintiff was
plaintiff's attorneyy had been de-
-4a ih-eu q his costs. It appeared that the
th, -dsolvent, and having been run over and iured damages..
111, -eferidant, brought 'his action to recover
'thee trial was had in August last, and lasted two days,
11,:esult was a verdict for the plaintiff with 501. damagees,
to,
.eosts incurred were upwards of 120/. The attorney
%I tiihe defendant intended to move for a newtrialt bt
Ilte e 3°lll of October some mutual friends interfered,
that Plaintiff and the defendant met, and it was arranged.
diet, former should accept the amount of the vera
Isele,"nd settle the dispute. The money was paid, and _
the vphe g, iron, the plaintiff's attorney being ignorant off
,411.1.,,',° matter. The Learned Gentleman on behalf
'he t ',efedant contended that, according to the cases in
tli,
,noßs, as it was clear that the offer to settle came from
till,l3,aintif,'.he had a right to enter into the arrangement;
tit‘,:
aN,t'atos no collusion on his part to defraud .the plain"
rnecir, for he bona fide intended to move for a
kroiNtlial, an his attorney swore that he had .good
kig -18 for supposing that he would obtain a new trial,be
itt,,,etttuany get the verdict ; therefore he thought t
zirlgetnent a fair one.
%1 tttchl(ti.ty and Mr. BURT, in support of the rule,
‘.4,eicred, that as everything had been done behind the
itstia °E the plaintiff's attorney, the Court must infer
t'N'' and collusion, for both the defendant and his at-
omi47knew at. the time the arrangement was entered
test the costs to which he was liable were enormous,
Thilht the plaintiff was not in a position to pay them.
t'llar,Q QoicitT
NI tas a plainti were offf opinion
ithat the rule must be dis-
d had a rght an
'l,4e ;Irl an 37 litigation in which
he vat any time to put as engaged. In this
tlft_.,,tle o.Ter for an arrangement came from the plain-
ltnill,ser_e was, therefore, no collnsion on his part.
' oascharged without costs.
/j

pa. JD -r.
man,
b. ----, a IJEATH.--yesterday morning a -
tator pad attended the Insoivant Debtors Court as a spec
Nrri ? kat)* years, dropped from his seat. He was
144:' out to a surgeon's eon's, and breathed his last. The
1,,3".'1its a Coroner's inquest.
ketk,,,;?, WE&THER.---A heavy fall of snow crn
thz.e-,-; tnis forenoon about ten, and has continued up to
4%4 ~elock without intermission. A keen wind blows
‘44th''.4° south-east, with every appearance of severe
Mather. !the snow lies several inches deep in the streets.