The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-31 00:00:00

L W INTELLIGENCE.

- •
CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY•)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE EARL OF .STAMIFORD•
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, which was argued a short time since upon
motion to take a petition of re-hearing, which had been
presented off the files of the Court. His Lordship, after
shortly adverting to the circumstances of the case, which
we have already given, stated his opinion to be that the
parties were entitled to present a petition of re-hearing,
and dismissed the motion.

WOODCOCK V. RENNECK..
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave jUdgment in this
case, which was an appeal for the judgment. of the pre'
sent Master of the Rolls. The question in the case arose
under the will of a person named Linton. His LordshiP •
Ordered the judgment of the Court below to be affirmed'
BLUNDELL V. GLADSTONE.
• Our readers will recollect that a short time since this
case was argued before his Lordship, with reference to
the will of a gentleman named Blundell, who had
amassed a large fortune, and resided in the neigh;
bourhood .of Liverpool. Ills Lordship intimated
on Saturday that he should this day state the course he
intended to pursue with respect to it, and accordinglY
this morning, on taking his seat, his Lordship Stated that
he considered the matter of suchimporlance as to render
it necessary to have the subject argued again by 0"
counsel on each side before two of .the Common Lair
Judges and him-self upon the point that was raised at
the bar as to the admissibility of certain parole evide"ce'
Mr. Justice Matteson and Mr. Justice Maule had kindly
consented to attend the Court on any day that might
be convenient.

Thus the matter rests at present, as no day is fixed
for the hearing.
This being. the last day of-Hilary Term, the Court
proceeded with appeal motions, but no case of interest
came before his Lordship in the course of the morning•

---- - ----------i--
VICE•CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY V. THE COOPERS' COMPANI:i
• His Hoeounprouounced judgment in this case. He lin,
already expressed his opinion that the provision by We . • -
plaintiffs of the ground in question, explained as it was.'
by the lease, and the expenditure of money 25 years af-
ter its commencement, could not, on this record, ,I.'e
deemed acts of part performance sufficient to take Wei
case out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds ; 811"
that if the plaintiffs could not sustain their case urn
one or other of those grounds, he was prohibited by set-, ,;,,,iti
tied rules of law from enforcing the agreement alleged in;,;1,74f
the bill. That opinion disposed of the whole case, so far, of t.,::
as it depended upon any supposed original contract en' „4-tr,
titling the plaintiffs to a license to alien. But if the.'
Coopers' Coopers' Company, with notice of the lease to Trinder, lia° et
stood by and allowed the plaintiff's to expend their moue :=0
in building upon the premises, that might give the ISI ainti I,,##
an equity to an injunction, preventing the Coopers' Cobh; 41
pany from availing, theMselves of the forfeiture ;11 ,
further than that lie could not go, unless the expel"- ;
ture could be considered as an .act of part performance'
~
An injunction for such a purpose, however, was not the ~
object of the bill. The bill sought in effect to have i i:,.,
I
declared that the plaintiffs ought now to be in the same..mty
position as they wouldlave been in if the Coopers' Coln' -i3l,
pany, after the execution of the case of, the 30th of Oe'
tober, 1770, had granted a license to alien to Mr. Trie-
der, which, according to the decision in Dumper's case,
would have foi• ever discharged the proviso in the leis°
against alienation. Being of opinion, therefore, that li°
could not, in that suit, make any such decree, he 03;
stained from expressing any opinion whether the allege'
agreement, as set out in the bill; admitted of that eon-
struction or not. The only question which he had then •
to consider was, whether; when the bill was framed for
the specific purposes he , had mentioned, he ought
t
to give relief founded upon an equity which was In";
set up in the bill. That the Counsel for the Coopers
Company had insisted he ought not to do, and, 1.11
strictness he thought he ought not to do it in thellart"
cular case before him ; • for, independent of the frame
and scope of the bill to which his attention had been
directed during the arguments for the Coopers' Cow:
pany, the expenditure by the plaintiffs was immaterial,
so far as the equity of the plaintiffs' case depended upon
.t01;11
their right to the specific performance of an agreement' .4' A
whereas, upon _the equity to which he thought thert ej
might be entitled, that expenditure as a matter of fact' I,ifr.
and under the circumstances in which it took place, will Al
of the very essence of the case, and a decree founded
~P;
upon it might - be a.. surprise upon the defendants, and ,:ill',
work ,ilOistice. He thought, therefore, that justice ', iil3.
would,be: best consulted by his dismissing the bill ; but,,, - 1-if'
being of opinion that the plaintiffs might have an equity
not set up by the bill, he thought the order of disnussiaa
'should be' accompanied by a declaration that it shot"
be without prejudice to any other bill which the
pilau- 0:
tiffs might be advised to file.
DUKE V. APPLEBY. .
hbill' ,6`.f,
IBS HONOUR gave judgment in this case. It was a
filed by a mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage, the snort'
, •
gager having become insolvent, and his interest in the
equity of redemption being vested in the provisional
as-
signee_ It was admitted that a decree of
must be made, and the only question was, wheat -'I ' '
by the
provisional assignee was to have his costs paid ,old ' •
to
mortgagee, and the mortaee was to be allowed ,
them to his debt. His honour refused to allow the COst,',',.•
foreclosure.be

. .

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
EX PARTE THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANI%
Mr. TALBOT applied for a writ of certiorari to bring
up into this Court the inquisition taken by the Ma;Y°l.
of Reading, at Reading, on the body of Richard Wool.leY'
who had died at Reading of the injuries he had recelvel 441;o1.;
in consequence of the dreadful accident which occur'''. 'iciA
The
at the Sunning Cutting on 25th December last.
Coroner had levied a deodand on the carriage and en" ;
gines, which the Learned Counsel contended he had 1:(i
right to do, inasmuch as the accident had not occurr •
within the boundary of his jurisdiction. ,He might has!:
a right to hold the inquisition, but he had exceeded
jurisdiction in levying a deodand. Application had been
made to Mr. Justice William's on the subject on Satin—
day, and the Learned Judge had directed the application
to be made to the full Court.
The COURT at first granted a rule nisi, but after sortie
time, the Judges having consulted together,
Lord DENMAN said the Court is of opinion that the •
writ had better go at once to bring up the inquisition.
The LEARNED COUNSEL then said he had made fin
application,' in- a case of a similar nature, to Mr. Justice,
Williams; :On Saturday, who had granted a rule
Perhaps, in that case, the Court would order the Writ
to go at once also.
• Lord DENMAN—YOII had better apply to Mr. Justice -
Williams on the subject.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE SUNDAY TIMES'
THE QUEEN V. CHAPMAN AND OTHERS.
On the first day of this term, the Attorney-General
had obtained a rule calling upon the defendants, the
printers and proprietor's Of the Snnglay Times 'newspaper,
to show cause why a criminal information shoUld not be •
filed against then? for the publication of a libel reflectiar
on the character of Mr. Grove, one of the magistrates of,
the Greenwich Police CoUrt.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL this morning showed cause
against the rule, and said that the proceeding aroie
out of certain proceedings which had been taken before
Mr. Grove, in his magisterial capacity, who had, in ;the
month of October, issued a warrant for ejecting NIP'
Graham from certain premises occupied by her, for
which, however, no arrears of rent were due. On the •
3d November, the Police-officer applied.to Mr. Grove u'; •
the subject of the execution of the warrant, trod
stating that Mrs. Graham was near her confinemen," •
and requesting to know whether under those chew"
stance the warrant was to be executed. Mr. Gro'e
having had medical evidence tendered as to the clang'
rous state of Mrs. Graham, directed the warrant to 11
executed. Mr. and Mrs. Graham were removed, a"
a week after Mrs. Graham was confined of
dead child. It was in relation to these • circual- •
stances that the article in question, which imputl
to Mr. Grove, that he had acted with haste, ar,
inhumanity, that the article in*question had been writ-
ten. Now, in showing cause against the rule, he wouk,
first of all call the attention of the Court to the Act °t
Parliament under which Mr. Grove had taken 111),°11
himself to act. He contended he had no authortki,
whatever to act. The tenaiitcy ought to have bee°
determined, and the warrant ought to have bee,,,
u
issued by the Justices in, Petty Sessions assembled
Now Mr. Grove was sitting alone, and although; under
the Police Act, one magistrate was enabled to do 101 - 111
acts previously requiring the presence of two, yet it "St.'
expressly provided that no magistrate should, under th°
)11',
Act, be competent to do acts required to be done at Pear,
or Special Sessions. He therefore conceived it, at ' ,
events, extremely doubtful whether Mr. Grove hat` r;
any authority to act at all under that statute' [ll'o,tli
Ile, however, had thought proper to do so, and had • t!'Y
issued his warrant on the 6th October, which warrant. fiP4
he had not set out in his affidavit, and therefore it "is.
impossible to know whether it was in accordance
the statute or not. Application bad been made to 311.' faf4.
Grove in behalf of Mr. Graham, and the state of MI #ll
Graham was represented to Mr. Grove by a mcdica
man. Mr. Grove had ordered his warrant to be executed
nevertheless, and it would be for the Court to say, uncle! ,f 0 701
the circumstances, whether Mr. Grove was in a pos';
tion to apply to the Court for a criminal information 1
),J1
The article was a comment upon a report which had l ,1040,
appeared in one of the daily journals, of what had Passed' -;
before Mr. Grove on the occasion in question, as,
~./t/Joi
the truth of which report was verified by
~";,
fidavit. Mr. Macdonald, the surgeon had rc
prsented to Mr. Grove that the consequencesf
of the removal of Mrs. Graham would be the death
el,
either herself or her child. She was confined awe *,4
after, and the child died. A letter from her husband
stating this fact had appeared in the Morning
not in the S'unday Times, and it was the comment
that account of which Mr. Grove complained. ,
(The case was prOceeding when we went to Press.)
Advertiser,o

Y.)

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DA
WELD V. WARD, ,AND SHOOLBRIDGE V. WA"' he
This was an issue from this Court, under the Tito
Commutation Act, to fix the modus of tithe of a parish. l.
Kent, of which the defendant is the rector and the On
tiffs represent the parishioners, who resist the reet
damn s. The issue was tried at Maidstone, and the vert
diet was in favour of the defendant. Mr. Sergal:
Channell since obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, 00111 t
which Mr. Sergeant Bompas showed cause.
Their Lordships this day gave judgment. La
ping
read over the notes of the trial, S of
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the Court - •
opinion that the case ought to undergo another con_sl
deration, and be sent down again.—The rule for a nul,
trial was therefore made absolute

na

His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex
the Duchess of Inverness entertained a distinguish
circle to dinner last evening at Kensington Palace,
eluding the leading members-of the corps diplomatique

a
y ,iT 1
5
th
be ~,

ket
toy
the

dttt
thit
tht

ar
})i,
lv

kW!
Ns
I„,s