The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY.. Jan. 19.
NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.

Mr. Purvis, Mr. Walker, Mr. Kenyon Parker, and
Mr. James ussell, were, this morning, called within
the Bar by the Lord Chancellor, having been appointed
Queen's Counsel.

IN THE MATTER OF TINNIE, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.
This case came before the Court about a week ago,
upon a petition, praying that a Commission of Lunacy
might issue against Mr. Tinnie. Upon that occasion
the Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the Commission
should issue, but the place where the Commission should
be executed being in dispute, one party asserting that the
domicile of the lunatic was at Liverpool, while the other
considered it was in London, the case was ordered to
stand over to this day, for the purpose of obtaining fur-
ther evidence on the subject.
Mr. WAKEFIELD, with whom was Mr. M‘Christie,
submitted that the domicile of the lunatic was at Li-
verpool.
Mr. WUITMABSU and Mr. ATKINSON contended
from the new evidence adduced that it was London, and
therefore that the Commission should be executed in
Middlesex.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was clearly of opinion that.
the commission should be executed at Liverpool, and
ordered accordingly.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. THE EARL OP STANFORD.
The arguments were then resumed in this part-heard,
information which, our readers will recollect, relates to
the Manchester Grammar School. The arguments
commenced before the Christmas recess, and were or-
dered to stand over to this day for the convenience of
Sir Charles Wetherell.
The arguments, which had not concluded when his
Lordship rose, will be resumed on a future day, to-mor-
row (this day) being appropriated for motions.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 19.
WRIGHT V. MAUNDER.

This case was instituted for the purpose of compelling
the performance of a contract upon the defendant, torthe
purchase of a certain estate belonging to an insolvent, to
whom the defendants were assignees. The property in
question had been put up to sale, with the provision on
the part of the assignees, that a reserved bidding should be
made for the said property of 3251, but at the sale, this
resolution was not adhered to by the vendor, and a con-
tract was entered into between the plaintiff and the
vender, conveying the property to him for the sum of
3101. This suit, therefore, was instituted for the purpose
of compelling that contract, although it was contended
on the part of the defendant, that the provisions of the
sale bad not been complied with.
His LORDSHIP decided in favour of the plaintiff, the
costs to come out of the estate of the assignees, although
a resolution had been passed by the assignees amongst
themselves this could not be binding on the plaintiff.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 19.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
POTTS V. piNNIGER AND OTHERS.
The plaintiff in this case prayed that the accounts
might be taken of the legacies devised by the will of a
gen tlenam named Broome,` dated in 1798, for the purpose
of enabling the plaintiff-to recover certain arrears of in-
terest due upon a sum of 1,5001.
The case having been before the Court during the
whole of the morning, an objection was taken to its being
proceeded with, in consequence of the representative of
a party interested not having been brought before the
Court. The objection was admitted, and the case was
ordered to stand over until the plaintiff had amended
his bill.

(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
LOUD-MAYOR OF LONDON v. COOMBE—EXCHEQUER CAUSE.
In this cause the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of
London, the commonalty, citizens, and certain other per-
sons, members of the Company or Fellowship of Porters
of sillingsgate, were the , plaintiffs, and Mr. Harvey
Coombe and Co., brewers, of Castle-street, Long-acre, in
the county of Middlesex, defendants.
The counsel engaged were, for the plaintiffs, the Soli-
citor-General, lin-Spence, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Ran-
dall. For the defendants, the Attorney-General, Mr.
Simpkinson, and Mr. James.
The bill prayed that it might be declared, by a
decree of the Court, that the exclusive right of por-
terage and carriage of all corn, grain, salt, and
other articles landed from or carded into any vessel
within the port of London, or delivered and conveyed
from any such vessel to any place within the limits of
that port, was vested in the plaintiffs, to be exercised in
their behalf and for their benefit ; that an account
might be taken cf all the malt belonging to the defen-
dants which had been landed by workmen not members
of the Fellowship Porters, at the Savoy Wharf, in Mid-
dlesex ; and that an account might be taken of the sums
of money due to the Fellowship of Porters, in respect of
such malt landed and delivered. The bill stated that the
City of London was a very ancient city, and that its
citizens were incorporated time out of mind, and were
for an equally long period possessed of exclusive rights
and privileges, which had been from time to time, con-
firmed by Charter and Acts of Parliament ; that the
porterage of all coals, corn, and other grain, merchan-
dise, &e., brought into the port of London, or going out
of it by the river Thames, in arty barge or vessel what-
soever, or delivered or remaining on the banks of 'that
river, within the limits of the port of London (which
port extended from Staines Bridge, in the county of
Middlesex, to Yenland, alias Yendele, in Kent), be-
longed to the plaintiffs, and that those rights are
executed by the corn and salt porters, freemen of the city,
at certain rates of wages ; that by an act of the Common
Council of the Corporation, made in the 18th year of the
reign of James the First, the corn and salt porters were
incorporated into one company, to be called by the name
of the " Porters of Billingsgate"—that no person having
corn, &c., to unload within the limits of the port of Lon-
don, was accustomed to do so without giving notice at
the office of the Porters of their intention to so unload,
&c., and upon the receipt of such a notice that
a competent number of- porters attended to un-
load, &c.— that the Fellowship consists of three thou-
sand persons, all freemen of the City of London,
and that, from time immemorial, certain rates of
porterage, carriage, metage, &c., were received by
the porters ; that the defendants were in the habit of
landing out of vessels from Hertfordshire and other
places, by means of hired workmen not belonging to the
Company of Porters, large quantities of malt ; that
several porters had been present when the defendants
so landed malt, and had offered their services, which
were refused. The amount of rates were also set forth
in the bill, which the defendants, on being applied to, re-
fused to pay.,
Mr. JAMES, for the defendant, stated that their
answer, without disputing the prescriptive right and title
of the City of London to be considered an ancient and
opulent one, &c., denied the right of the Corporation to
the claim of porterage on merchandize landed, &c., from
the Thames ; they denied that the right of porterage
had been from time immemorial exercised by the Com-
pany of Porters; that they believed that such a right did
exist within the City of London; 'but did not extend be-
yond the limits of the City nor to private wharfs; that if
it did it would greatly restrict the trade of her Majesty's
subjects ; they believed that the porters had exercised a
right claimed to some extent of late, but that it is an
usurpation and one of modern date. The defendants also
believed that many persons having corn and other mer-
chandise in vessels coming to be delivered within the Port
of London, not only have been permitted to unload, without
having notice, as mentioned in the bill, but also that
those persons had unloaded the same without giving no-
tice. They also believed that when such notice was
given, a number of persons belonging to the Fellowship
of orters were accustomed to attend, but they
denied that the practice of giving notice was
pursued by any traders, except through ignorance
or through fear of the power of the Corporation of
London. 'The answer went on to state that the rates of
porters were not reasonable, and that at private wharves
such rates had been refused and successfully resisted ;
that the defendants took the Savoy wharf, which
belonged to the Duchy of Lancaster, and which
was not within the limits of the City of Lon-
don, and which wharf was their private property ;
they admitted that on two occasions in the year 1833,
after they had commenced using the private wharf „they
gave notice to the meters appointed by the Corporation
of their intention to land-malt, and requiring them to
come and measure the same. The defendants did so,
under the impression that they were bound by ,
law to employ those meters, and to have such malt
measured, but they did not require it to be men-
enrol for their awn use. They never gave notice
to the Fellowship Porters to attend at their wharf.
The porters having received notice from the meters, came
to the wharf on theabove occasions, and claimed the right
of carriage and porterage, and on these two occasions they
did admit the porters. The defendants alleged that the por-
ters were incompetent and inefficient men compared with
their own workmen, and that the rate of wages charged
by the porters was a hundred per cent. higher than that
paid to their workmen ; and the defendants had accord-
ingly since these two occasions employed hired labourers.
That the malt manufactured by the defendants was
imported by them in bulk; but that the malt purchased
by them on those two occasions above-mentioned, was
measured by the meters. They admitted that
certain porters since the year 1833 had pre-
sented themselves at the wharf, and interfered with the
landing of goo& thereon, and that in consequence the
defendants had put up a notice directing them to be
treated as trespassers. Several other statements were
made in the defendants' answer, setting forth the exorbi-
tarn, of the rate of porterage claimed.
his HONOUR observed that there must be a very clear
cltse made out on one side or the other, to enable him to
decide the question without sending it to a Court of
Law.

The SOLICITOR-G
in-
volved in the r ENERAL said, that the question in-
jouersv case had been in effect already
decided the of Lan, and cited the case of Zac-
keily L. Wiltshire
porting his view ; also the cases of Milbourne
3 Strange 's
Reports, as sup-
v. Fisher, end Layburne
After a long discussion between the Counsel engaged
on- both sides as to why the
oenawueaseezhould not 'be brought
before the Courts of Law than issue,
it
was agTeed. eventually that the plaintiffs had not a clear
right to obtain a decree directing an action.
His floNotnt confirmed that view of the case, and de
creed_ claimed First, an issue as to the custom in the
terms of the bill ; secondly, an issue to the
same effect, , leaving out the term rii
The 'third and fourth issues referred to the reasonable_lf
ness of the amotlnt charged for porterage, carriage,
and the decree further ordered that if the Jurahottla
find that the sums set forth in the third and fourth issues
were not of reasonable amount, that they should find
what was a reasonable amount, and the Judge to be at
liberty to advise any special matter.
It was then fixed that the trial should take place at
the next Winchester Summer Assizes.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
The V. TIM AANK OF ENGLAND.
this caso was fil4 f"
account tau= of the purpose ofhavint
estate of the late Dr. llislop. t