The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-19 00:00:00

BURRIDGE V. ROW.

In this case Mis:l3u;idie is the plaintiff, a daughter
of Mr. Alderman Winchester, and the cause was insti-
tuted for the purpose of claiming, from the assignees of
the bankruptcy of Mr. Alderman Winchester, certain
policies, in which. she had a life interest, belonging to
the late Mr. Alderman Winchester. The principal facts
of the case will b 9„ gathered from the judgment of his
Honour, Mr. VicChancellort Bruce.
Mr. Cooper appeared for the assignees of the estate
of Mr. Alderman Winchester ; Mr. Rogers for the trus-
tees; and Messrs. Russell and Simpkinson for the plaintiff.
The arguments in the cause occupied several hours,
and, on their conclusion, •

Its HONOUR said—rom whatever motive Mr. Al-
derman Winchester paid these premiums, if they were
not paid by means of any contract with the trustees,
and for Mr. Burridge or his wife, the conse-
quence of this payment would be the accession of the
property in the policies, but by which Mr. Alderman
Winchester acquired no right in the bond, possible or
probable, for re-payment'with or without interest, with or
without a lien for them. Nothing has been stated to
m which has had the effect of persuading my mind
that Cere ever was a contract with the trustees or Mrs.
Burridge. The mere far...t, of making the -pay-
ment, however necessary for protection to the property,
would give the party making that payment no tide to the
property. lam aware of no authority or principle in sup-
port of such a preposition. I must therefore hold that
Mrs. Burridge's life interest in the policy fund exists
in her, not affected to any extent by what has
been done, except there should be any dispute
as to whether Mr. Alderman Winchester had been
fully repaid by the detention of Mrs. Burridge's
income, which he was liable to pay, or otherwise ; then
there would be an inquiry in this respect. I wish to
know whether the asiigness were paid the debt ?
Mr. CoorEa—There is no doubt about that.

His HONOUR—Then I inn to understand it is admitted
by the assignees of Mr. Alderman 'Winchester, that he has
been fully repaid all that he did pay for the premiums ?
Mr. COOPER—Certainly.
His HONOUR—Then that admission must be taken
down, in order that it may not prejudice any other
claim in this case, otherwise there will be an error ap-
pearing on the deeree. Then it only remains to con-
sider the title of Mrs. Burridge to compensation or in-
demnity in respect of the payment which she ha's made,
or that her husband's estate was liable to make.
It is, as I understand, proved in dm case
that Mrs. Burridge had by her income, or money de-
ducted from her income, actually paid premiums to a cer-
tain extent, and which her husband's estate was liable to
pay. I may therefore declare that Mrs. Burridge, the plain-
tiff, in respect 'of this payment, charged against her in re-
spect of these premiums so made, has alien on Mr. Row's
interest under the settlement, whether assigned or not ;
whether with interest may possibly be a question. I
would rather have that spoken to. My present im-
pression is, that it will carry interest at the rate of
four per cent. I will hear the assignees on that
point if they wishe but if I am to decide it
now, I should decide that these premiums paid by her
will bear simple interest at the rate of four per cent.
charged upon Mr. Row's interest in the fund ; because
if I were now to settle the portion of capital for the pur-
pose of paying that, I should prejudice Mrs. Burridge's
interest. If you wish, 'Mr. Cooper, to address the Court
as to the liability in respect of the payment of these pre-
miums I will hear you.
Mr. CVPER—I declined doing so.
His HONOUR-Then my impression is that the pre-
miums ought to bear simple interest, at the rate of 4
per cent. Then comes the other question, and it
may, perhaps, not be inconvenient to the Court
to declare its opinion upon it, viz., the ques-
tion , whether Mrs. ' Burridge is affected by any-
thing which has taken place under. Mr. Alderman Win-
chester's bankruptcy. It is only a claim so far ; there
is no proof ; and I apprehend that having referred to
what the rights and liabilities of the parties
were immediately 'before the bankruptcy of Mr.
Alderman Winchester, that there is a right on
the part of the plaintiffs to see upon what the interest.
belonging to Mr. Row stood. Although the liabi-
lity does not stand exactly upon the same footing
as it does in the cases of Priddy and Row, Cresley and
Woodroffe, and Smith and Smith—although there was the
obvious difference I have mentioned, I viewed the case
in this way—the policy found is rightly in the name of
the trustees now in Court, and I viewed it as coming
rightly into their name. If Mr. "Winchester had not
become bankrupt, and if after his decease his
executors had applied to the trustees for a
transfer of the policy fund
on payment of interest
on the policy, the trustees would have a right to say, "True,
this is yours, but you; to whom this money is due, also
owe us moneys in respect of the bond; therefore let an
account be stated between us, and let us see who is debtor
and who is creditor." I will now state the rights
of the estate between the trustees and Mr. Winchester.
I apprehend the bankruptcy makes no difference ; but,
according to the extensive meaning which has been fixed
between them to the time of the bankruptcy. It
name you will, which the that there is that right,
by authorities on that point, there was a mutual credit
_appears to me, therefore,
whether retainer, set-off, or lien, call it by what
clallaerithnge
,absecsigaluieseestohfc:leri.:
not, however, prepared to say that I can give an imme-
diateplaintiffs contend for. lam
effect to it, but it may be convenient to the par-
ties to declare it, that the effect might be obtained with-
out waiting till Mrs. Burridge's death, because it is proba-
ble
wronc, in this
ary interest on the policy,.but if they do they must sell it
subject to that right, which I think I am justified in de-
settling the NnVointhcihneg:ter will sell the reversion_
part of the case, and this may probably have the effect' of
admission that
nac
ocr :woe , :
nwhether
t youi judgment upon this point, and on this prin-
ciple I will decree. You must state the form of the d.,:-
I decide the whole now..
may. be erroneous. If you want any
Mr. SIMPKINSON—We want no account.
His Howoua—l decide the principle of the decree
Mr. COOPER--Yes, Sir, I would say the whole decree.
His Howoua—Then you will mention the minutes at
another day, and if you will prepare them upon the
principle I have. mentioned, I will endeavour
aanndd I,
shoolipneitothrea
ot
to settle any difference of opinion: You will name a day,
minutestof w
Court,i will bbe
n consideredorderth
that
ty the e Counselinay
not
t wnlilulr
is
gthhabtlie:s
°ion:
NtErocculdeg.ri
y, to exclude
stand-over.. . 1

. M.
.COOPEit said, he had to apply to his Honour re-
specting the costs. -4 .
His HoNovu--:I ani much obliged to you for remind-

ing me of it. I have thought of it during the argumen'.
Neither party has addressed me on the subject, but I
think the plaintiff ought to have the costs out of the fund.
Mr: COOPER thought the assignees were entitled to the
costs out of the fund.

Mr. SIMPICINSON—They ought to pay the costs. Your
Honour should know that they claim everything by the
bill.

His HONOUR—I am disposed to apportion the costs
to all parties between the policy fund and the bond fund,
if you can do that practically, and I do not see why not.
One fund has produced nothing, but I suppose it will
produce something.
Mr. SIMKINSON-It will produce something, probably
Is. in the pound, and that will not go far.
His HONOUR—The simplest would be to take them
out of the policy fund. But I will tell you what I think
of the costs when the minutes arc settled.

The case will be heard again on Saturday next
(Before Vice-Chancellor WmaAm.)
PERKINS. V." BRADLEY.

Ms HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. Henry
Perkins was possessed of a sum of 675/. Three-and-a-
Half per Cent. Annuities. On the 13th of February,
1838, he mortgaged that stock to Henry Bradley, for
the purpose of securing to him the sum of 251., recited
in the deed to have been then advanced, and further
sums intended and expected to be advanced, not exceed-
ing 251. It was admitted in the cause that 25/. was the
fee paid to Mr. Kelly for the purpose of defending
Henry Perkins on his trial for felony. On the 21st of
February in the same year, another mortgage was exe-
cuted by Henry Perkins, subject to the prior mort-
gage, to Henry Bradley, for the sum of 428/. 17s.
Two persons having put a distringas on the
stock, proceedings were had in the Court of Exchequer
for the purpose of having it removed, and the result was,
that it was discharged. On the 7th of March a meeting
took place between the parties, at which were present
the defendant, Henry Bradley, and James Perkins, the
father of the plaintiff. At that meeting. Henry Bradley
suggested that, the distringas having been removed, a
letter should be written to Henry Perkins, then in prison
at Cambridge, requesting him to execute a vower of at-
torney enabling them to receive the stock. That power
was executed, and on the 12th of March, 1838, Henry
Bradley received the money. If the matters had rested
in that state, no difficulty at all would have arisen as be-
, tWeen the plaintiff and Henry Bradley. On the
14th of March, however, Henry Bradley being
gone to Cambridge, obtained for Henry Per-
kins another deed, by which he charged the stock
with a further sum not exceeding 100 L Another case
set up by Henry Bradley was, that at the meeting
of the 7th of March, it was agreed that he should de-
fend Henry Perkins upon his trial, and that the expenses
incurred should be paid out of the stock in question. He
set up a claim to those costs, and also to the costs incur-
red in removing the distringas. That being the state of
the case between Bradley and the plaintiff, inasmuch as
the defendant's costs, when added to the paid mortgages,
exceeded the amount of the stock, it had become neces-
sary to determine the question of priority between the
parties. A third party, however, had set up a claim to
the entire stock, and if that claim should be established,
it would be quite unnecessary to enter into the question
between the two other parties. The Crown said that when
these several securities were executed, H. Perkins
was awaiting his trial on a charge of felony. On the Ist
of March, 1838, shortly after these several transactions,
Henry Perkins was.convicted of felony, and all his goods
and chattels being thus forfeited to the Crown, the Crown
insisted that that forfeiture overreached these several
transactions. Now it was a settled point of law that the
goods and chattels of a felon were forfeited only from
the time of conviction. The authorities upon that point
were Coke upon Littleton, 391 A ; Hawkins's Pleas of
the Crown, 2d book, c. 49; and Blackstone's Commenta-
ries, pp. 387 and 388. He quite concurred in the argu-
ment for the Crown, that the. alienation had been frau-
dulent, and for the purpose merely of avoiding the for-,
feiture, that alienation could not stand against the right
of the Crown ; but if the alienation had been for value
and bona fide, to say that in that case it should not pre-
vail against the right of the Crown, would be to deny the
main proposition, that the forfeiture took place only from
the time of conviction; it was, in other words, a declara
Lion that the right of property remained in the felon up
to that time. His Honour then referred to several cases
to establish the point, that the forfeiture could only ope-
rate from the conviction. He felt therefore bound by
the authorities,-to hold that a felon, indicted but not con-
victed, had power to pay his debts. As to the question
of whether this was an alienation for value, it appeared
that in May 1836, the sum of 4271. was advanced by the
plaintiff to his brother, for 'the purpose of enabling him
to embark in trade, for which an I. 0. U. was
given at the time. With respect, therefore, to that sum,
the felon did nothing more than pay a debt which was
due from him to his brother. The first sum of 501. ap-
peared to have been expended in the costs of the trial -;
that too, was clearly a bona fide payment: With respect
to further inquiry, on the part of the Crown, if the 'case
went before the Master, upon the preSent state of the
evidence, and the Master decided that these were
not bona fide transactions, and exceptions.were ,taken
he should feel bound to overrule those exceptions. Then,
with respect to the second mortgage of 50/., it had been
arranged that when Bradley received the money from
' Henry Perkins he should pay the plaintiff's claim out of
the money so received. The deed of the 14th of
March could give him no priority. The defendant
claimed a lien upon all money which came into his
hands to pay himself the. expenses incurred in
defending Henry Perkins. The law of the case was,
that if a solicitor recovered money in a suit to the ex-
tent of the costs includedoin recovering that money, he
had a lien upon it, but he had no lien at all upon the
money in respect of any general claim. He was of
opinion, therefore, that the claims must be taken in this
order. First, 50/. payable to Bradley ; secondly,
417/., payable to the plaintiff ; thirdly, the costs with
respect to the distringas ; and, fourthly, the claim of
Henry Bradley. The Bank of Englund had been made
a party to the suit, but as he could see no reason why
that had been done, he must refuse to grant wets. The
plaintiff must recover costs from the corporation of Cam-
bridge. The defendant might, if he pleased, take a re-
ference with respect to the second transaction.

The case was then ordered to stand over for a few days.
NEW APPOINTMENTS OF QUEEN'S COUNSEL.

Mr. Loftus Wigram, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Koe, Mr.
Teed, and Mr. Lowndes, took their seats within the bar.

MONK V. TANKERVILLE.

Mr. GIRDLE STON E opened this case at great length this
morning. The plaintiffs are Sir Charles' Miles Lam-
bert Monk and Mary Elizabeth his wife ; the de-
fendants to the record are the Earl of Tankerville and
Frances Hills, and the object of the suit is to have it
declared that Frances Hills became the trustee of a sum
of 8481. 12s. 3d. Three per Cent. Annuities, and to obtain
payment of that sum, together with the dividends which
have accrued since the death of the late Earl of Tanker-
ville in 1836.

The case is expected to last two or three days ; we
shall give an outline of it in a more advanced stage of the
proceedings.

JANUARY 17.
(Before Vice• Chancellor BRUCX.)
JONES V. HUGHES.

The arguments in this cause were brought to a hear-
ing. His HONOUR commented upon several of the points
which had been raised at the bar, but deferted his judg-
ment till Wednesday.
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY V. THE COOPERS' COMPANY.
Mr. BURGE opened this case at great length for the
plaintiffs. The prayer of the bill was that the Coopers'
Company might be decreed to grant to the plaintiffs a
formal license in writing in pursuance of the agreement
entered into between them and.llavid Trinder in the bill
mentioned, and that it might be declared that the plain-
tiffs were entitled to demise, assign, or underlet, the pre-
mises in dispute. The Learned . Counsel said that, by
the Act of the 4th Wil. IV. c. 85, the East India.
Company were directed to close their commercial busi-
ness, and for that purpose to sell all their warehouses,
tenements, hereditaments, , and other property, which
were not necessary for the government of the territories
in the East Indies. Part of this property consisted of
certain premises at Ratcliffe, upon which were erected
the Saltpetre Works of the East'lndia Company. They
held these premises for the residue of .a term of 260
years, which had been granted to them by the Coopers'
Company, by an indenture of lease of the 30th of Octo-
ber, 1770. In and previous to the year 1770 a person of
the name of David Trender had been in possession of the
premises, as the assignee of two Indentures of lease,
bearing date the sth of February, 1760, and granted by
the Coopers' Company to a person of the name of Hatt.
In the year 1770 an agreement was entered into be-
tween the East India Company and Mr. Trinder, by which,
in consideration of the sum of 3,9201., Mr. Trinder
agreed to surrender the residue of the term to the East
India Company, and to procure a grant by the Coopers'
Company to the East India Company. of this term of
260 years, at an entire rent of 1551. ; and the East India
Company, in consideration of this, were to grant to Mr.
Trinder the lease of a parcel of land adjoining the wharf,
being part of. premises to be included in the lease
from the Coopers Company to the East India Company.
200 years were to be added to the term of the lease,
and Mr. Trinder agreed that he would deliver up to
the Coopers' Company the two indentures of lease, and
the Company agreed to grant him a portion of the land
comprised in that extended lease, at a yearly rent of
1654 payable quarterly. The bill stated that Mr. Trin-
der entered into the agreement with the East India Com-
pany with the privity and consent of the Coopers' Com-
pany. The whole of the negotiation on the part of the
Coopers' Company and the East India Company was
carried on by Mr. Trinder, and the Coopers' Company,
must be taken to have been fully acquainted with his au-
thority to act on the part of the East India Company.
On the 30th of Oct., 1770, the. Coopers' Company exe-
cuted this indenture of lease to the East India Company
for the term of 260 years ; and that lease contained a
covenant that the East India Company should not part
with the said demised premises without the license and
consent of the said Coopers' Company first had and con-
tained in writing for that purpose. The plaintiffs en-
tered into possession of all the premises except that
portion which was demised to Mr. Trinder. The East
India Company had regularly paid to tho Coopers' Com-
pany the reserved rent for the whole of these premises.
In the beginning of the year 1836, the East India Com-
pany proceeded, in obedience to the directions of the Act
of Parliament, to sell this portion of their property.
The British Gas Company first proposed to become the
purchasers ; but, 'discovering in the lease this covenant
against leasing or assigning without the license of the
Coopers' Company, and not being.aware of what had
.passed between Mr. Trinder and the Coopers' Company,
making the latter parties to the agreement, they offered
500 L for a license ; and that offer being rejected, there
was an end of the negotiation. The Coopers' Company,
being aware of the situation in which the East India
Company was placed by the Act of Parliament, and
having it, as they supposed, in their power to prevent
that sale, by not grantea license, they being in the
possession of the only evidence of that license- having
been originally, panted. to Mr. Trinder, it occurred to
,thptithat they- might make a bargain for themselves,

and they ofered•to become the purchasers of the premises
for the sum of 4,0001. They afterwards extended their
offer to 4,5001., but that sum was ri,fusi.d. It v. as (Fite
clear, from all the circumstances, that the Coopers' Com-
pany were seeking to avail themselves of the obligation
imposed upon the East India Company by Act
of Parliament, to compel the latter to sell. The 1
interposition of the Coopers' Company, and their ;
refusal to grant a license, originated entirely in
the passing of the Act, making it obligatory on the plain- !
tiffs to sell; and it was to protect themselves against such
conduct that the present bill had been filed by the plain-
tiffs. The Learned Counsel insisted, at great length, on
the right of the plaintiffs to have a formal license granted.
The property had been sold to Mr. Ward for the sum of 1
5,5004 ; but the Coopers' Company had refused to enable
the East India Company to complete the sale. He con-
tended, that upon all the evidence and correspondence in
the cause, the plaintiffs were entitled to what they asked I
by, the bill.
_ _

Mr. LLOYD followed on the same side.
The further hearing was postponed at the request of
the parties until Friday next.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR directed the attention of
Counsel to two points—first, to the manner in which it
was sought to be proved that there was an agreement to
permit an assignment contemporaneous with the grant-
ing of the lease which expressly forbade it, which must
be a matter of groat difficulty ; and, secondly, as to the
relief which could be given against the lessors, when it
did not appear that, they had threatened to eject-the
Plaintiff, even supposing that there existed an agreement
to permit the lease to Trinder to be granted, it not be-
ing the rule of the Court to make any merely prospec-
tive declaration of the rights of the parties. The Act of
Parliament directed the East India Company to sell
their commercial property, but it was difficult to argue
that it.gave the CoMpany a right to come into a Court
of equity for help, in order to carry the Act into effect.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 18. I
HOWARD V. GOSSETT AND OTHERS.

This was an action of trespass for breaking and enter-
ing the plaintiff's house, and making therein a great
noise and disturbance. The defendants had pleaded,
first, that as to breaking and entering the plaintiff's
house they were not guilty; and, secondly, that as to the
alleged trespass, the Parliament of the Sovereign was
being holden at Westminster, and on the 27th January
it was ordered and resolved by the House of Commons
that the plaintiff do attend the said House, of which he
had notice, but had neglected and refused to do so ; that
on the 4th February it was ordered that the plaintiff be
sent for and brought in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms,
and that the Speaker do issue his warrant for that pur-
pose ; and accordingly the then Speaker, Charles Shaw
Leferre, issued his warrant to the Sergeant-at-Arms, by
whom it was delivered to the defendants, as his deputies
and assistants, who proceeded thereupon to execute it,
but without using any unnecessary .violence, and think-
ing it probable the plaintiff Would shortly return to his
dwelling-house they remained there for some time. To
that plea the plaintiff had demurred, that the second plea
was insufficient in law, as it did not disclose any sufficient
authority for the violence that had been used by the de-
fendants, and also, that although the second plea ad-
mitted the acts that had been done, it did not show that
they were acting under any authority proceeding from,
known to, or recognized by law;, nor did it show what
acts had been committed by the plaintiff, which rendered
it obligatory upon him to attend the House of Commons.
Neither did the plea state any particular ciantempts or
breach of privilege committed by the plaintiff ; nor did it
show that the warrant contained any distinct ground or
charge against the -defendant; nor that he was in the
house at the time the defendants went there to execute
the warrant; and, lastly, that it was bad for uncertainty
and informality.
Mr. KELLY now appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, in
support of the demurrer, and submitted that the plea
demurred to was wholly insufficient in law, and set forth
no sufficient justification of the trespass complained of.
The question was one of ;very considerable import•
slice, and involved considerations of the greatest
moment as regarded the liberty of the subject.
M; presumed it was the object of those who justified the
plea to put forward two propositions for the decision of
their Lordships—first, whether the House of Commons
had the power of arresting and imprisoning the Queen's
subjects without their having been guilty of any offence
known to the law, but merely for a contempt of their
privileges ; and, secondly, whether, if the House had
such power they could justify their officers in breaking
and entering a dwelling-house and remaining there at
their own, pleasure, even although the party against
whom the warrant was issupd was not in the house, and
was not alleged to have been there. But there were
other preliminary questions first to be disposed of, and
one of them was that there was no actual charge Of the
plaintiffhaving committed any contempt of the privileges
of the House of Commons: There was no allegation in
the plea that after notice had been served on the plaintiff
by the House a reasonable time had elapsed, previously
to the taking of these further and more stringent steps—
nor did the plea allege that he had refused to attend
without any reasonable or legal excuse. A <further
objection was that the warrant, the foundation of the
defendant's proceedings, was not set forth on the plea, and
the Court had no means of judging whether the defendants
had any legal and sufficient authority for what they had
done. These were objections in point of form to the plea as
far as regarded the first count ; but with regard to the
second plea, wherein it was stated that it was probable
the plaintiff would return, by way of justifying a second
entry into the house; there was an allegation that they
believed or hadevery reason to suppose that he would re-
turn. Now their Lordships were aware that it was a
general principle of law that the plea must be taken most
strongly against the party pleading, and in the present
case it must be taken to be bad for uncertainty, because it
did not state whether the warrant authorised-the defen-
dants to take the plaintiff, and bring him in custody be -
fore the House of Commons, or that they were to bring
him befere the House fora contempt of its privileges. He
submitted that such a warrant, so vague and uncertain in
its powers, was a violation of Magna Charta. If a party
arrested on such a warrant were brought before their
Lordships on a writ of habeas corpus they could not
have anything of the nature of the offence charged
against him, and unless they went the length of ascrib-
ing to the House of Commons the arbitrary and un-
oonstitutional power of arresting and imprisoning the
Queen's subjects without any cause assigned, they must
discharge the prisoner. In the case of a Magistrate ex-
ceeding his jurisdiction, and wilfully imprisoning one of
the Queen's subjects, a prosecution might be instituted
against him—if any other of the authorities known to the
law transgressed their authority the same remedy was
open to the party aggrieved, but in the case of the House of
Commons, itovas to their Lordships alone the public could
look for protection, and it was the more imperative upon
them to watch their proceedings narrowly, inasmuch as
they were in almost all respects an irresponsible
`upon
If
the warrant had been issued by that House upon a
conviction for a contempt, then it could not
be impeached in the present mode, because it
was admitted that the House of Commons had
jurisdiction in all cases of contempt. - The Learned
Counsel then referred to a number of authorities
bearing upon the privileges of the House of Commons,
and its right to commit for a contempt, and: con-
tended that the present case did not properly
come within them. Ile submitted that if the plea
put in by the defendants was to be taken to be a justi-
fication of the trespass, the cons2quence would be that a
party could go as often as he pleased to execute a war-
rant, and remain in the house on each occasion as long as he
pleased—Lord Tenterden's remark about a man's house
being his castle would be a complete dead letter, for the
trespass, and breaking, and entry, might be carried
to the extent of di.possessing a man of his house alto-
gether. If such a doctrine was recognised there was no
knowing to what an injurious extent it might be
carried. He would now come to the entry, which it was
clear was unjustifiable and unlawful, except in cases
of felony. It was stated in the.declaration, and was
not denied, that the defendants, without attempting an
entrance by the door had forcibly broken open
a window and effected an entrance in that
way. In the case of Burdett v. Abbott, Mr. Justice
Bailey bad laid it down that a party had a right
to break open an outer door and force an entrance,
provided there was first a demand of entry in the
usual way, and a refusal. There was, however, no alle-
gation of either a demand admission refusal,
set out on the plea in the present case, and the proceeding
was therefore clearly unjustifiable and illegal.
After the Learned Counsel had concluded his argument,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to the Court for
leave to amend the plea, on payment of costs, which was
assented to by the Court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 18.

The Court was engaged the whole of the morning with
cases in the New Trial Paper. Their Lordships found
much difficulty in proceeding in consequence of the
absence of Mr. Wortley, who is attending the obsequies
of the Countess of Earn, his grandmother. He is engaged
in many of the causes which now stand first on the list,
and they being put off until his return, the cases which
stand lower were called on suddenly, and the parties
were not prepared.
There was no point of interest raised in any of the
causes which were argued.

BAIL COURT,Jan.IB.

THE QUEEN V. THE GREENWICH RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. WALLINGER moved for a certiorari to remove into
this Court three indictments which had been found
against the Greenwich Railway Company, for a nuisance
in building certain arches across a road, on the ground
that on the trial of those indictments many points of law
would be likely to arise on which it would be desirable
to have the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Justice WiawrmAN granted the application.
HULL V. FEARNLEY.

This was an action brought by Benjamin Hull against
Henry Fearnley, to recover compensation in damages for
having been run over by the defendant's cart, in conse-
quence of which plaintiff's leg was fractured. •
. Mr. T. CROWDER stated the case to the Jury. The
plaintiff, whose name was Benjamin Hull, was in a humble
station of life, and up to the 9th of June last,
had been in the employment of Messrs. Vexiables and
Hull as light porter. The defendant, Henry Fearnley was
a coppersmith, carrying on business in Shoreditch. On
the 9th June last, the plaintiff had been sent by his mas-
ters, who carry on business in the City to Tottenham-
court-road, for the purpose of fetching a parcel, and
when on his return, passing on the narrow footpath
close to St. Giles's Church, with the parcel on his left
arm, his right arm being towards the road, he felt
something touch his right arm, turned, and immediately
was knocked down by a cart, the wheel of which passed
over his leg and broke it. When picked up be was
found with his body lying across the pavement and his
feet in the road. The cart which had done this mis-
chief was the property of the def,.nd..nt, and was driven
by him at the time. The cart drove on, but was stopped,
and the plaintiff was taken-to a surgeon's, and ' subse-
quently to the Middlesex Hospital, where he remained
seven weeks, At the time of the accident the plaintiff was

MORNING SUN

earning 18s. a week, but had not been able to do any•
work
since. Mr. Venahles had called on Mr Fearnley-, who had
never made any ihquirice, and Mr; Fearnley had in con-
sequence gone to the hospital, and given the plaintiff 55.,
and said he must see what could be done for him when
he should came out. Application was accordingly made to
Fearnley, who offered 2L as compensation, which was re
fused. Mr. Fearnley subsequently raised his offer to 519
which was refused. Mr. Fearnley had never imputed ttnY'
blame to the plaintiff, and the only excuse he had made
for his Conduct was, that. he had that morning been •
teaching his son to drive. The Learned Gentleman then
called his witnesses, who deposed to the facts of the case,
and who were subjected to a rigid cross-examina
tion by Mr. Thesiger, on the part of the defendant, in the
course of which it was elicited, that at the time the ac-
cident had happened, an omnibus, foll Owed by a cab, we°
coming in an opposite direction ito defendant's cart; that
the road was very narrow ; and that some of the per-
sons,
who had taken plaintiff to the surgeon's had sun'
that he had slipped off the curb, and been run over.
Mr. THESIGER (with whom was Mr. Knowles) then
addressed the jury for the defendant, and begged to as-
sure them that no one could more deeply regret the un-
fortunate accident than the defendant himself; on whom
his Learned Friend had been instructed to cast what be
(Mr. T.) must characterize as most unjustifiable impute-
tions. At the time the accident had occurred,
th
defendant was utterly ignorant that he had occasioneo
any accident. He was not driving at an unreasonahl:.
rate at the time, the rate at which he was going not
being more than five miles an hour. The mono;
the defendant knew the injury he had occasion,
he went to the Hospital,. gave plaintiff 55., told
him to want for nothing, and promised to satisfy
him when he should come out. Now, what could be
have done more ? He contended that the plaintiff had
not established the fact, that the injury he had sustalne'
had been in consequence of the blameable conduct of the
defendant, which he was bound to do to recover aft;
mages. In any case of inevitable accident no pluintlp
could recover. Now, he contended that this was a co°
of that nature, and therefore the defendant was not liable:.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, in summing up, said an°
after the accident had occured it appeared to him that the
defendant had done all that he could do, and that,
'sequently, no blame attached to him for that. If the JOl2
were of opinion that the mischief was occasioned by
evitable accident their verdict must be for the defendant;
If, on the contrary, they should be of opinion that it
been occasioned by any default of the defendant, then
their verdict must be for the plaintiff, with such damsel
as they might think the justice of the case required.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 18.
CLARRIDGE V. X`RENZIE.
The defendant rented a house in High-street, Ainr
lebone, from a person who held the premises under si_
lease from' the plaintiff's father. Upon the expiration
the term, the lessee informed the defendant that Clan'
ridge's interest was also expired, and that the rent mu!
in future be paid to the Duke of Portland, the grountr
landlord. On the other hand Miss Clarridge served tri
defendant with notice that the interest of her deceas
father, whose heir she was, continued, and that the rell,
must be paid to her. The defendant agreed at fir ost `t.,
pay her, if she would reduce the rent, and she cone°
mg, he did pay the first quarter, but on the second be:
coming due, refused, and this action was brought for the
rent since alleged to be due.
For the defendant witnesses were called, who stated till!!
when Clarridge gave the lease to Mlienzie' he said 1,
was for,the whole term of his own interest. The rutin'
tiff produced no proof of the nature of her father's inter
est, and the Jury found for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant SIIEA. this day moved for a rule nisi
set aside the verdict and; grant a new trial, on the gill,
that the defendant, having acknowledged the plaintiff
It
his landlord, could not afterwards question the right. •
was the Duke of Portland's case in reality ; and the. pr'r
per mode of bringing the plaintiff's right into queo/,
was by an ejectment.
The COURT refused the rule.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 18.
BURKE V. SWIFT.
This was an action brought to recover the sum clr
91. I Is. from the defendant, who is an attorney. It l',1),1
peared that, some time since, the plaintiff had employ
the defendant in an action in this Court, for the recocey,
of a small sum • and the case having been frequen,Ve
postponed, Mr. 'Swift charged the sum of 31. Bs. fer `,ll
attendance of counsel, amongst other items, althonb,
the law forbade an attorney; on his own responsibilitYo'
to employ counsel in suits for any sum equal or less thfin
that in which he was concerned for the plaintiff.
Wally a bill of costs was run up, which more than 4",;(1
drupled the sum for which the action was brought
.the plaintiff having subsequently executed some Ivor' re
Swift, the latter refused to pay him, alleging that the
was still'a considerable sum due to him for costs. dis
The present suit (which occupied the Court nearly ed
whole day) was then instituted, when the Jury return
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 61.115.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jas. •
IN THE MATTER OF CLARKE.
The insolvent, who described himself as foretnall,,in.'
the. establishment of Messrs. Clarke and Turner, 1%1'5 "L
posed by Mr. Woodruffe, on behalf of Mr. Robins.°S;
the proprietor of the extensive horse repository in
Britam,:on the ground of haong contracted debts on '6,
commodation bills without any reasonable prospect ,
meeting them. f fel
It appeared that he had been twice insolvent be•°„t,
and had, in connection with a horse jockey named Grn"-nt
raised 92/. from the opposing creditor on these ..10!0,
bills, soon after which Grant disappeared, when theilt.
solvent was sued, and defended the action at consiuer
able expense with plaintiff. He had also dealt verY,e..i,
tensively in accommodation bills, and in his scheille
appeared the names of several loan societies to which
had become security. orti'
Mr. Commissioner BOWAN said the insolvent, ecc.o6l
ing to his own representation, could not have entertalmj
the slightest hopes, of being able to pay the debt het ibe
contracted with Mr. Robinson, and upon the face t,rbe
schedule there appeared no means of paying it- or
judgment of the Court, therefore, was -that he be
est.
prisoned for eight months from the date of hie Ye
mg order.
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN cntron.“. ei
The insolvent was opposed by Mr. Hall, on beh
Mr. Allen, of the firm of Allen and Co., Piccadilli•
The grounds of opposition were that the inscA'' Q$
rented a tenement from the opposing creditor, an'ftet
leaving it did not give up the key until two days
the termination of the last quarter day, and he c°-
quently sued for a quarter's rent.
Mr. WooniturrE was about addressing the
the insolvent, when—
Mr. Commissioner BOWAN said the grounds of Oeits••
tion were most frivolous, and at once . ordered the 111-
•. •
vent's discharge.

The famous insurrection of the French peas°. uP
in the fourteenth century, called " The Jacciti of
has been selected by Mr. James as the groundworicho
his last Historical Romance. The Captal de 13tich'
was the bosom friend of Edward the Black Princ,e'rter•
was one of the founders of the Order of the urfinro'
and who remained many years in prison rather than
mise not to fight for England, is one of the most pr,,,oc
nent characters. The Literary Gazette observes,that that
Jacques and their savage leaders, and the lords :tad 'fitful
followers, who opposed them and perished, form of the
and dreadful tragedy ; and the final overthrow " gt
peasant force, with its Parisian and other alliestio
Meaux, and the catastrophe which closes the neirrit
are in the very highest style of this class of writing'

GOLD WATCHES, LONDON-MAD deo,
T. COX SAVORY, Watchmaker, No. 47, Cernhill, Lo'! AOl
seven doors from Gracechurch-street, submits for selecll7:
very: large STOCK of GOLD WATCHES, the vrliwo die
which are carefully examined by experienced workmen
premises, and each is warranted for correct performance.
' SIZE FOR LADIES.
Fine Vertical Watches, jewelled, in engine-turned ,„
gold case., and gold dials, warranted £lO -"
Fine Vertical Watches, jewelled, with double-backed
engine-turned gold eases and gold dials, warranted I 2 '-
Patent detached Lever Watches, jewelled in four =
holes with double-backed gold cases and gold dials, t/
warranted