The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-17 00:00:00

SMITH V. WARDE.

This case came before the Court upon further directions
and costs. The bill was filed by two of the infant daughters
of the late Sir Lionel Smith, Governor of the Mauritius,
against Mrs. Warde, a hurried daughter of the late Sir
Lionel Smith, the present Sir Lionel Smith, his son,
and two relatives of the family, named Pottinger,
who were appointed guardians of the children, and
also Sir-. Henry Pottinger. By the statements in
the bill it appeared that Sir Lionel Smith died in the Mau-
ritius in 1842, and his lady expired three days after him.
Mrs. Warde, one of the defendants, married a clergyman
belonging to the Government at the Mauritius, and under
the care of Mrs. Warde and her husband the other children
of Sir Lionel were brought to this country. Sir Lionel,
after giving to his wife and children certain sums, directed
the residue to be divided among them equally. Under these
circumstances the principal question for the judgment of the
Court was what were the rights of the infant plaintiffs in
respect of the investment of 12,0001. VA per Cent.—whether
Sir Lionel took that amount absolute, or whether it formed
part of the residuary estate of the testator.

The case appears likely to occupy some days, the principal
gentlemen of the bar being engaged in it.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
RAWLINGS V. MOSS.

The defendant again came into Court on exceptions to the
Master's report. All now in dispute was certain professional
charges made by Mr. MOss, who was also a trustee on the es-
tate. The arguments on this subject occupied the attention
of the Court throughout the day, but are entirely void of any
general interest.
His HONOUR said, as to allowing the professional charges
incurred by the plaintiffs before Mr. Moss became trustee he
had little reason to hesitate, but take other items of costs
and claims, though they were in such a state of confusion
that he could hardly hope to arrive at a conclusion on them,
he would again give his consideration.

(Sitting in Banco.)
SMITH V. HOLMES. • b t"
This was an action for false imprisonment, w-
hie „d
defendant justified, under a capias ad satisfaciendurn, „Oa;
out of the Court of Queen's Bench, to which the I?;iigau
replied, setting up certain proceedings in the Irish ivelor
Insolvent Act, and an order of the Irish Court of 10%0 the
for his discharge under that Act. To this replica* or
defendant demurred, and the cage now came on Or
ment.
Mr. V. RICHARDS appeared in support of the de°t° coil'
and reminded the Court that the question they had ~.t.a c'f
Sider was, whether the replication was a Justifies golf
capias ad satisfaciendum —was good or bad in law- 010
he contended that it was not, because the ode
had been legally and properly issued out 10,
of the superior Courts, and the proper course for' tbe,,P,,, gal
to have pursued would have been to go before a juatisteP,
show that the capias had been irregularly issued. to Pt
of doing this, however, he had brought the present seceogo
a false imprisonment;, and he contended for the de',. quer
that he bad done so wrongfully. There was a larf,,he'lasi
tion involved in this case ; namely, whether the Irw'".„rege"
vent Act could extend to this country; but for the r
he should abstain going into that point. 'tea tijol
Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., supported the replication, and c_fea
Irish Insolvent Act, which expressly prohibited the' upee:
any person in respect of- any debt from which he Illot
discharged by that Act, and, therefore, he contended
It 130
replication was good in law.
The LORD CHIEF. BARON then gave judgment•A
long ago been laid down, that in many cases o a
exempted from arrest ; but they had clearly no rig':i itieti;
event of their being arrested or their goods distraioe s,
to bring an action for false imprisonment or tresPaisd t 10;
took that view of the present case, fully convin°errelar,
the Insolvent Acts, both of England and taide.
only exempted parties who had been dischargt.otiT,
its provisions from arrest, and gave them no right wr 030(
It might be said, then," that the insolvent had r 0
against an arrest, but this was not so, for he had tilol;rats
lege and the power to apply to the court issuing Oa
have it set aside and quashed, on the ground of irre.eer
He was clearly, therefore, of opinion that the dell 01"; be ot
good; and, of course, the judgment of the Court nlo'' ,
the defendant. r
The remainder of the Court concurred in his
view of the case, and judgment was recorded accordiut'
COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS D'
REGISTRATION APPEALS. or, •
t
Their Lordships this day resumed the hearing of e Orr
peals from the decisions of the Revising Barristers. Il
case taken was that of
red 110
BARTON V. ASHLY,
which was the fifth on the list, four having been era°
on Thursday. f r 4
The appellant in this case had objected to the natil;Qt if-„(
respondent being placed on the list of voters, bu'',;tice,
represented on the part of the respondent that the
objection sent to the overseer of the parish did not con 100
sufficient description of the respondent's place of abode' roi'/'
Revising Barrister was of opinion that the notice Wil! 99°,4'7
On the part of the appellant it was represented that ;t
inconvenience had resulted from the informality, Ow. tba
in this case unimportant. A case was cited, in wb„lcons!
Court held that the addition of certain unnecessary joco;
a notice did not render the notice invalid, because 0° „
venience could result from the use of those words. '1,";
The COURT were of opinion, that though there Nva' shit
convenience resulting from the informality, that there torri,
have been, but for extra attention on the part of th;0111
seers, and that the informality rendered the notice I
though in this case no inconvenience occurred.
WOOD V. THE OVERSEERS OF WILL.-SDEN%te of
The appellant in this case had objected to the vv,rept,',
Mr. Thorne, on the ground that the description of that eto,os,
man's qualification, as given in the list of the responde,h'irtli it
insufficient, Mr. Thorne's qualification being set h;tee
being in Nearden, in the parish of Willesden, W
ought to be " Nearden Grove," &c.
After hearing Mr. Cbckburn for the appellant, and
Arnold for the respondents, gift
Their LonDsturs decided that the description peal
cient, and affirmed the judgment of the barrister.
CLERKENWELL.—(THIS DAi g;aß
John Adcock and William Delmar were charged withjh,'
the door-bell, and disturbing the inmates of Ma°°''
Newington. . (Of
Sus
A constable of the N division deposed that, onidog
night last, he saw the prisoners "larking,"‘,,ee
doors, ringing bells, and other gentleman-like practice?, in ti-„
houses at which they knocked were the most respectaloic",,
neighbourhood. They proceeded to Mr. Lebard's
they rung so violently as to terrify the inmates. nu' ifricce
until they were tired, they laughed heartily at the (l'
and alarm they had produced and then ran aliruP
police pursued and arrested them. ffr '(s
Mr. Lebard of the Manor-house said, himself ans-mna
were aroused from sleep by the knocking, which,n,hP;ills`
violence, they believed fire was the occasion of.
of late been much terrified by l practices. he rare
Mr. GREENWOOD said that form a length of time ar€,4
bitants of Woburn-square (in which he reside 071
much annoyed by this kind of conduct. The Pruictibee
now of frequent occurrence in the square, though The
repeatedly called the attention of the police to it- nnes'he
habitants of the square had complained to him, and,2l.,,ejgh
him to put it down, but he could only do so tor)ie !1.1)10
police. An officer in plain clothes was placed on t ,
but still the nuisance was continued. Gentletnen:A
were destroyed, and himself and family were f.„•
aroused from sleep -by violent ringing or knoekut°
„dal $
would fine prisoners 7s. each .
Sergeant Dyer premised to attend to Mr. Green‘vv-
remarks.

THE HOP DUTY. feo
As ACCOUNT of the DUTY on Hors of the growth ofthe til.
1845, distinguishing the districts, and the old ll°
new duty.
Districts. Duty. , 1
Barnstaple £lls 17
21/$
Cambridge 23 6 27
Canterbury
4 Cornwall
Derby
7579,',(
Dorset lO 7 19:74,z
Essex 645 6 7,1
Gloucester
Grantham ...... 53 11 ,`
Ilants
Hereford
Hertford 762 5 1,;
Isle of Wight.
Lincoln
Lynn
Oxford
Reading
6 0 193(1
Rochester
Salisbury
n' 04
Stourbridge
Suffolk
Surrey . 3 1 7
Sussex

Wales, Middle. 26 12 •
Worcester
, £288,536 10 ":„>-'"0
Old duty, at ld. 12-20 per lb 158,008 17 :// 16.43
, 1
New duty, at 3Ad. 8-20 per lb. ...
Additional duty of 5 per cent., per
Act 3 Vic., c. 17 .........

13,7382.0.2/>'
71/1
£288,536 10 _er,j,
G. F. COTTRELL, Accountant-6°34
Excise-Office, London, Nov. 17, 1845. _

~,, ---- - ci tir
ELECTION OF MASTER OF UATIIARINE ree JO'
The election of a Master of Catharine Hall, to sue; crit'',
late Rev. Dr. Procter, took place at six o'clock .°ll, Sed
morning. The choice of the Fellows fell -urn, ft 1,8101:5;
Henry Philpott, B.D. The new Master was Sem°. -„,. ie `c,
ler, second Smith's Prizeman, and a first-class Classitbeel,er
year 1829. The statutes of the College require that Av at'
tion should be commenced not later than the fourth" fe'
the vacancy.—Cambridge Chronicle. , bils oil
ELECTRIC TELEGRAPII.—Mr. COOkt Wu° duce of
cently been making experiments for carrying
t eot111( • pre
between Dover and C I • • '
a els, speaks with greet be le
„
his ultimate success. His only fear is that it Ina. 7
tb°
by the dragging of ships. f. oA l.
the t. leoce j
Wanstead Park, once the celebrated sea"•„k-tjl
Earl of Mornington, is now converted
. into a l'..
site 1"
When the whole of the brick earth is exhausted th
be covered with elegant villas.