The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-24 00:00:00

L W IN TEL LIG EN CE
C ANCERY.—(THIS DA
LANCASTER V. VIORS.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL replied in this case to-
day at considerable length, and
Vhe LORD CUANCELLOR postponed his judgment.

Y.)

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
This day being set apart as the general petition day,
previous to the dose of term, Lord Langdale was
engaged throughout the morning in hearing consent

petitions.
VICE•CHANCERY,—(THIS DA
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
The COURT was occupied to-day in taking unop-
posed petitions and short causes.
IN RE THE LONDON AND CROYDON, AND LONDON
AND GREENWICH RAILWAYS.
This was a petition presented for the purpose of ob-
taining payment out of Court of two sums of money
invested in Stock, the residue of the purchase money
of property taken by the two Companies of a person
named Freen. This property was devised by Mr.
Rd. Freeu to his son; with leave to dispose of it by
will only ; both the London ard. Greenwich and Lon-
don and Croydon Railway Companys considered
this as equivalent to a life interest in the property, and
accordingly purchased it. By an order of the Court
the money was invested in another portion of real
property, which was devised by John Freen on his
demise, to his five children, according to the terms of
his father's will. There was a residue of the purchase
money still remaining invested in stock, and the object
of the present petition was to obtain the payment of
those two sums.—Order taken as prayed.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WOODWARD.
This was originally an application having for its
object the consolidation of a number of small charities
in the city of Bristol for the 'support of indigent per-
sons. The Charity Commissioners had recommended
that one of these charities, which was possessed of an
almshouse, should have centered in it all the other
small charities, so as to convert them into one institu-
tion, instead of having them divided into small frag-
• ments. A great inducement to take this course arose
from its being held out by several charitable persons
that they were ready to present this consolidated
charity with a sum of 8001. The decree of the Court
referred this application to the Master, who had in-
quired minutely into nil the. circumstances of the
different charities, and reported in favour of the ap-
plication.—LOrder granted, confirming the Master's

Y.)

report.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
BARRY V. HILL.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this case this morn-
ing. In this suit for tithes, by the rector of Brockley,
in Somersetshire, against an occupier of lands in that
parish, and the adjoining parish of Yatton, there were
some points not in dispute. The plaintiff asked relief
only in respect of the period between Lady-day in
1838, and the 31st of December 1841, the former
being the period at which the composition subsisting
between the parties ended, having been determined by
a notice given by the plaintiff, and the latter being
the time from which the statutary commutation of
tithes had taken effect in the parish of Brockley. The
relief asked was also restricted to the tithes of calves,
lambs, pigs, foals, and agistment_ in Brockley; the
tithes of such milk in Yatton as was produced there;
of calves and heifers fed in Yatton with hay brought
from Brockley while they were so fed ; and the tithes
of calves, lambs, and foals in Yatton. As to Brockley,
the right to this account had not been contested ; the
question raised was merely whether there should be
any and what directions as to the agistment of steers
and oxen. The main dispute as to Yatton rested upon
an alleged series of fraudulent removals of stock from
Brockley to Yatton for the purpose of depriving
the plaintiff of the tithes. The removals thus
alleged by the plaintiff and denied by the
defendant had been the subject of evidence on both
sides. That upon proving a fraudulent removal for
such a purpose, a tithe-owner would be entitled to
relief, was a proposition which could not be doubted ;
it was of ancient recognition in the Court. To prove
this it was not necessary to refer to any more remote
authority than the Ist of Roll's Abridgment, p. 42.
His Honour then referred to several cases in which
the judgment had turned upon the fraudulent re-
moval of titheable matters for the purpose of de-
frauding the tithe-owner. From all these authorities,
said his Honour, it was clear that as on the one hand
the mere fact of the removal of cows or ewes very
shortly before the time of calving or lambing did not
entitle the owner to claim in respect of the calves or
lambs; so, on the other hand, he was entitled to relief
if the removal was effected for the purpose of de-
priving him of the tithes. He thought the plaintiff's
evidence in this case as to fraud was not wholly
unmet. Smith's evidence did not appear to him to
have that weight which the plaintiff's counsel
had given to it. He said that he had observed
the defendant's mode of using his farms in
Yatton and Brockley ever since 1838, and where
he had kept his stock during each year ' • and then
came a particular enunciation, which, if regularly
proved, would deserve great attention. He said that
it was from a memorandum which he had made, that
he was able to make the statement. The law of evi-
dence could not allow of a witness using notes in
memoranda, unless he had some further recollection
of the facts than as finding them written in a memo-
randum. The bill stated the defendant himself to
have admitted or acknowledged to his servants and
other persons the purpose imputed, but of this there
was no evidence, and the defendant, in his answer,
denied it; nor did the answers, taken by themselves,
or in connexion with the: bill, offer in his judgment,
either evidence of fraud, or grounds for suggesting fraud.
From the plans and statements of both parties, it ap-
peared that the Brockley and Yatton farms formed
substantially' a single farm. Having regard to all the
circumstances, he coula not say that the plaintiff bad
established a case of fraud. In support of the de-
fendant's answer, several persons, whose respectability
he saw no reason to doubt, had deposed that the re-
moval alleged to be
hen th fraudulent hen
had been carried onon
before the period of 1838, e comp
came to an end. He had considered, how-
ever,' whether he ought not to put the case
in a • train for further inquiry. Counsel had
contended that the plaintiff was entitled to an
immediate decree to the costs of the suit up to the
bearing-, and the defendant's counsel having given his
consent, he was in a condition finally to dispose of the
costs up to that time. He had already said that the
plaintiff had not satisfied him as to the case of fraud
alleged by the bill. Independently of the question of
fraud, he could not concede that there were good rea-
sons for filing the bill in May, 1840. In considering
the question of costs, he was bound to look to the de-
fendant's answer. His Honour then read several pas-
sages from the answer. It was stated that in 1837,
the plaintiff requested the defendant to give evidence
against a Mr. Cox, who resided in Sutton, and against
whom he had commenced a suit to recover tithes.
Upon his stating that he was unable to give evidence
as to the quantity of potatoes produced by a particular
field, the plaintiff became exceedingly angry, and said
he would give him to Saturday to brush up his me-
mory. The plaintiff declining to give evidence,
several disputes occurred subsequently, and the
plaintiff, it was stated, acted hostilely and vexatiously
towards the defendant. His Honour said the mode of
collecting the tithes had not been of a softening or
winning kind. On the other hand, the conduct of
the defendant appeared' to be that which usually
resulted from such disputes. Neither appeared to
have acted in a judicious manner. He declared that
there would be no costs up to the present time. He
did not consider the case of fraud as proved against
the defendant ; his consent was not to be understood
as an admission of fraud. He thought the plaintiff,
by restricting the relief asked in the manner which
he had done by his counsel had exercised a wise dis-
cretion. His Honour then directed an account to be
aken by the Master. •

QIEEN:S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
BOSANQUET V. GILAIIAM.—BOSANQUET V. BRIDGER. ,
The plaintiff in these cases was the public officer
of the Westminster Banking Company. The de-
fendant, Uley Graham, was sued as the public officer
of the Southern District Banking Company, and the
defendant Bridger was sued as one of Al Share-
holders of the said Company, a scire facias having
been issued against him after judgment had been ob-
tained against Graham, in conformity with the pro-
visions of the Statute regulating Joint Stock Banks.
Mr. THESIGEB had obtained a rule calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why the warrant of attorney
given by the defendant Graham, and the judgment
entered up
.thereupon, should not be set aside, and
why the scire facias issued on that judgment should
not be set aside.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared this morning to
show cause against the rule, and took a preliminary
objection to the title of the affidavits in the case, and
contended that it was contrary to practice to have one
rule in two cases.
Mr. THESIGER denied that the cases were really
separate cases, the scire laths against the defendant
Bridger, as a Shareholder, being merely a following
up of the judgment against the defendant Graham, in
the manner prescribed by the Act of Parliament.
Lord DENMAN said the feeling of the Court was
aingatih itsneste atheeu d
hN g,aamdlidity of the objection, but it would re-
serve judgment. In
glnotloien.meantime the arguments
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the rule had
been obtained on several distinct grounds.

AY.)

BAIL COURT._(THIS D
IN THE MATTER OP CAPTAIN ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in this case moved for a
mandamus on the part of the prosecution, directed to
the Chief Justice of Madras, commanding him to hold
a Court for the purpose of, examining witnesses, in