The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-05 00:00:00

LAM IN TELLIGENC E

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.)
THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION

oy LUDLOW.

Sir CHARLES WETHI..; ELL, en the Lord Clit,,necllor taking
his scat, IN oceeded to reply in this case, but had not cot:cluded
whe❑ our Evening Edition went to press.

ROLLS' COURT.-(TIIIS DAY.)

BISHOP OF EXETER V. HAWKINS,

Mr. PEMBERTON, with whom was Mr. Prior, moved for an
injunction to restrain the defendant, Henry Hawkins, the legal
representative of Sir Christopher Hawkins, from working or
receiving, or retaining the profits of certain lodes or mines of
lead, contained in and under the will of Sir Christopher Haw-
kins, who possessed leases. of the said lands or manors, as also
certain property lying near and adjoining to the township of
Newlyn Church, in the county of Cornwall. Sir Christo-
pher Hawkins had leases of the property from the Lord
Bishop of Exeter, in 1807, which property was afterwards
divided, and one portion of it became the property of Sir
Christopher Hawkins, the other remained with the See.
The shaft of the mines, which are at present worked by the de-
fendant, and which run in the direction of the Bishop's manor,
was sunk in his own lands, but in the course of working them
the boundary of the Bishop's lands was arrived at and trans-
gressed, and the defendant was at present working his mines in
the Bishop's manor. Counsel contended that the defendant
had no right to do that which they sought to accomplish, and
that the only possible title the defendant cou'd get up to work-
ing those mines, was one which would invalidate entirely the
grant under which they claimed ; and the only question was,
if the former Bishop of Exeter had granted a right to work
those mines, could the present Bishop confirm that grant, or
had he done so? _ _

Lord LANGDALE thought the question a mere legal one.
Mr. TURNER and Mr. TEED, who appeared for the defend-
ant, admitted that the boundary of the Bishops manor bad been
transgressed a few feet, but contended that whatever questions
might be raised as to the original lease of 1807 being voidable,
it certainly was not at present void.
Lord LANGDALE was:of opinion that, with the evidence which
was now before the Court, and the disagreement between the
parties as to the state of facts, he could not make any decision.
He, therefore, directed the cause to stand over to the first day
of next term, by which time the parties could agree as to the
state of facts, and the Bishop could be consulted as to Isis con-
senting to let the defendants work the mine, on the conditions
that account be kept of what was done, in case the ultimate
decision should go in his favour.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. ALLEYNE.- JUDGMENT.

The defendant in this case, Henry Lee Alleyne, who had
been convicted at the last Warwick Assizes of sending a chal-
lenge to Mr. Henry Power, an attorney, residing at Hinckley,
in Leicestershire, was this day brought up for judgment.
Mr. Justice Wm HTMA si read the notes of the trial, which took
place before the Lord Chief Baron, who had made a note at the
end of the trial, stating that he would not pass sentence, in order to
give an opportunity for further investigation, as the truth of the
case would make all the difference. This note alluded to the
circumstances which had led to the sending of the challenge,
and which may be gathered from the affidavits. It appeared
that a cross-action had been entered for slander, in which Mr
Power, the prosecutor, was defendant, and Mrs. Hemming'
the present defendant's sister, plaintiff; and to the facts
elicited on the trial the note of the Chief Baron alluded.
The affidavits in mitigation of punishment were then put in
and read. From these affidavits, which extended to an im.
mense length, and the reading of which occupied more than
two hours, it appeared that the defendant was the son of Henry
Denham Chard, a ship-builder of Lyme Regis; that lie had
been a Custom-house officer at Liverpool; that while living
there his sister, Rebecca Mary, had come to reside with him ;
that in consequence of pecuniary difficulties he altered his name
to Henry Lee Alleyne, and his sister also ;adopted the name of
Alleyne ; that subsequently defendant and his sister went on a
visit into Warwickshire, where they became acquainted with
Dempster Hemming, Esq., of Caldecott Hall, who shortly
afterwards married the defendant's sister ; that shortly after
the marriage reports were in circulation that defendant and
Mrs. Hemming were not brother and sister, but had, pre-
viously to the multiage of Mrs. Hemming, been living
together in an improper manner ; that the defendant hav-
ing traced these reports to Mr. Power, had sent him the
challenge which had led to these proceedings. There were
affidavits from the defendant, himself, from Mr. and Mrs.
Hemmings, and from various members of defendant's family,
distinctly denying the truth of the slanderous reports which
had been circulated against the character of defendant and his
sister. There were also affidavits from medical men, stating
that defendant's health was very bad, and that he was labour-
ing under disease of the heart. Several affidavits of an aggra-
vation of punishment were then put in.
' The affidavit of the prosecutor, Mr. Henry Power, went
into various matters relating to the Hinckley Banking Com-
pany, of which Mr. Hemming had proposed to make the de-
fendant a Director.
'l he case was proceeding when we went to press.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS I)AY.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. TILDESLEY.

This was an information, filed by the Attorney •General,
against the plaintiff, for the non-payment of duty upon a quantity
of bricks. The case had been tried before Lord Abinger at the
sittings after the last term, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
The Attorney-General had since obtained a rule calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why a new trial should not be granted,
on the ground that the Learned Judge, in charging the Jury,
had used certain words which remained for their consideration
as part of the evidence.
Mr. LEE, en the part 'of the plaintiff, now applied for a dis-
charge of the rule, on the ground that in informations filed by
the Crown, the Court never granted new trials, after a verdict
had been returned for the defendants.

The COURT, after hearing the arguments on both side, stated
that they should consider their decision in the case.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

GIBSON V. BRAND.

This was an action for the infringement of a patent for an
improvement in the carding and spinning of silk, flax, and
cotton. The verdict was given for the defendant, to set aside
which a rule nisi was obtained last term. The arguments oc-
cupied the whole of Monday and Tuesday this week, and was
adjourned yesterday in consequence of Mr. Justice Cresswell,
who tried the case, having to attend her Majeaty's Levee to
receive the honour of Knighthood. It was concluded this day,
and their Lordships discharged the rule, seeing no reason to
disturb the verdict.