The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-17 00:00:00

VIOE-CHA.NCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 16.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took
motions to-day. The Court was occupied the
whole of the morning with a motion for an
injunction in the case of the Duke of Beaufort v. Sir
John Morris, to restrain the defendant from working
a coal mine in Glamorganshire, of which he w,ts
lessee, and the noble plaintiff, the lessor, so as to cause
the adjoining mine to be flooded with water.

The application appears likely to occupy the Coin t
ror a day or two.

COURT OF (217L,P.;:‘,'S BENCH, Dec. 16.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN.)
Several cases were disposed of during the morning,
which wore not of the least public interest. Amongst
them WAS a case of a bill of exchange for 231. :is. The
plaintiffs were Raker and Williams, and the case was
undefended.—Verdict for the pl iintifls. .

WHITE AND SOUTHY v. BAINBY.
This was an action for breach of certain covenants in
a marriage settlement. It appeared by the statement of
the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff,
who was a solicitor, and the defendant, who held so:ne
situation in the Customs, had been married to two sisters.
Mr. Southy and the plaintiff become trusters to the
marriage settlement of Mr. White. D.4.endant got
married in the year 1838, and at that time he was in
possession of a property, half of which was mortgaged for
500L,_ which sum the defendant agreed to pay the plain-

. _
tiff within five years, and the deed contained a covenan,
to that effect. The plaintiff now alleged that there
were two breaches of covenant ; the one, that the de •
fondant had failed to pay the 5001. within the fiveycars ;
and the other, that he had not executed a *further assu-
rance at his own expense, but sought to cast the expense
of the whole upon the trustees of the plaintiff. These
were circumstances which he (the Learned
Counsel) would not now further allude to ; but they
were such as compelled the trastees to act with great
caution, and to that end they put the matter in the hands
of Mr. Edwards. Defendant alleged that he offered to
pay the money into the Funds, to which the plaintiff was
willing to accede, provided the defendant would hod
himself liable to the consequence of the fluctuation in
the Funds. The money was so paid ; but when the
stock was sold, the Funds were low, and defendant re-
fused to pay the difference.
Mr. Edwatds corroborated CounFel's statement.

One other witness only was examined on behalf of
the plaintiff, to show what was the practice of the Courts
in reference to the mode of making conveyances, and the
plaintiff's case closed.
COUNSEL for the defendant contended that the decla-
ration had incorrectly left out the covenants, and upon
those variances his client was entitled to a verdict. lle
also raised several other technical objections.
The COURT recommended that the case should be set-

led out of Court, which was not acceded to.

The jury found for the plaintiff, for the damage con
tained in the declaration, subject to a deduction of a sum
alleged to have been paid after the action had com-
menced.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec.l6.
;Sittings at Nisi Prius in London before the LORD CHIEF
BARON and a Common Jury.)

TAPPING V. RUSSELL-HOW THE THAMES HAVEN AND

SOUTHEND RAILWAY WAS GOT UP.

This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff, a
student at law, to recover 280/. upon an account stated,
to which the defendant, who was an attorney and soli-
citor, hal pleaded that he was never indebted.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Lee appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. Boven, for the
defendant.

The action was founded upon an I 0 U for 2501.,
which was given by the defendant for money lent and
advanced to him by the plaintiff. It would appear'that
Mr. Russell was the promoter of the Thames Junction
and Southend Railway, which was proposed to run from
Southern! to join one of the main lines passing through
Essex to the metropolis, but the project met with little
or no support at the hands of the public, and the Company
organised by the defendant for carrying it out was
ultimately broken up. The plaintiff's father and
several of his friends were induced by the defendant,
and Mr. Thomas Tapping, the plaintiff's brother, who
was formerly a special pleader, but who has recently
been called to the bar, to allow their names to be placed
on the Provisional Committee of the proposed railway ;
but it was upon the express understanding that Mr.
Russell was to bear all preliminary expenses incurred
previously to the issuing of the letters of allotment. Mr.
Russ .11 was retained as engineer and surveyor, with the
usu.l staff of assistants, for the purpose of making the
customary surveys of the country through which it was
proposed the line should pass, and solicited them to take
the undertaking of two of the Provisional Committee
as security for the due payment of their expenses within
a given time after the issue of allotment; but both el
them declined this offer, and refused to proceed with
their labours unless they were immediately supplied
with funds. 74,1 r. Russell therefore called a meeting
f the Provisional Committee to devise some means to
raise the necessary funds required by the engineers
and surveyors, which was held at the Hurnmurns, in
Covent-garden ; and at that meeting Mr. Russell soli-
cited a loan of 1,0001, to enable him to carry on the
husineas of the project. The Provisional Committee,
eowever, declined to advance the money themselves, but
-orne of them promised to us' their influence with one
or two of their friends to induce them to advance him the
required sum. One of those friends was the plaintiff,
who, at the instigation of his father, who was one of the
Provisional Committee, advanced the defendant 2801.,
and the defendant gave him in acknowledgment of the
loan the I 0 ;U, upon which, the present action was
brought.
Mr. MARTIN, for the defence, contended that the plain-
tiff was one of the promoters of the scheme, and jointly
liable, with the defendant and others, to pay the ex-
penses and debts incurred by the Company. So far from
its being the case that the Provisional Committee refused
to advance funds at the meeting held at the llummums,
they agreed, or rather some part of them agreed, in-
cluding the plaintiff, his father, and brother, to raise the
1.0001. by subscriptions of 2001. each ; but this agree-
ment was not strictly carried out, and some of the par-
ties contributed more than others. One of these par-
ties was the plaintiff ; and the Learned Counsel urged
that the plaintiff and defendant must be considered in
this particular transaction to have been in the position
of co-partners, and hence the former was not entitled to
Te•over.

The Learned CouNsat called two witnesses to sup-
port this line of defence, but the t.vidence did not sub-
st•intiate the facts. One of the witnesses was Mr.
Tapping, the barrister, and plaintiff's brother, who
stated that neither himself nor his brother had anything
to do with the project in the capacity of principals. His
brother borrowed the 2802 from his father, and lent the
money to the defendant on his own account. The wit-
ness himself was retained in his capacity of special
pleader and barrister to settle the prospectuses of the
company and advocate the merits of the line at public
meetings in Essex, and ho expected Mr. Russell would
remunerate him at Christmas for these services. lie
induced his father and several of his friends to join the
undertaking, but it was upon the understanding that
Mr. Russell would pay all the expences up to the issuing
of the letters of allotment. Mr. Russell's father and
brother-in-law were upon the Provisional Committee,
b.it when the share market became depressed both of
them publicly withdrew their names from the list, and
the remaining g"ntlemen on the Committee felt it ne-
cessary to convene a meeting and dissolve the Company.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said the evidetata had en-

tirely failed to substantiate the defence, and it was his
duty to direct the jury to return a verdict for the plain-
tiff.

The jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff
for the full amount claimed—namely, 2801.
SWIFT V. RUSSELL.
GOLDSMITH V. SANE.
COPE V. SAME.

These were actions brought under similar circum•
atances to the last case, and in each of them a verdic
was taken for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

ALLEGED MURDER ON THE
HIGH SEAS.

THAMES POLICE COURT.
Yes'erdav, at twelve, the adjourned examination
of Captain Johnstone, for the murder of Uambert, Mars,
and Reason, and also for cutting and maiming several
of the crew, took place at the Thames Police-court.
The crowd outside was as great, and apparently as
much excited as on the previous occasions ; and on the
appearance of the prison van, the prisoner, who
was in it, was assailed with a perfect storm
of yells, hisses, and expressions of opprobrium. Mr.
Humphries attended to watch the case, as before, for the
prisoner. Mr. Symons, the chief clerk, took down the
depositions as on the previous occasions.
Thomas Gair was the first witness called and ex •
amined. He stated that on the Ist of November he was
put in irons on board the ship Tory, on a false charge
of threatening to take the captain's life. He remained
in irons about eleven days. On the 7th of November
the captain sent for him into the cabin. The captain
sent Julian Cordiavallo for him, and he (the witness)
went as desired, lie found Anderson, Nelson, and
William Burton there. As soon as witness went
in, the captain ordered him to go on his knees, and then
commenced cutting at him. The captain also told
French to load his pistols and fire at witness. He told
him to load and put a double charge of ball in it. The
captain said, if he did not load and do as he desired him,
he would take his life. French loaded, but did not put
a ball in it. Ho fired several times with charges of
powder in the witness's face. The captain afterwards
cut witness several times on the head, and then placed
the point of the cutlass against his side, and said he
would thrust him through. By a stagger, the captain
being intoxicated at the time, the point, of' the cutlass
went through witness's clothes, atsai gave a slight wound
in his side. He then took the cutlass, and hove it at him ;
1 it went through his clothes, and cut witness's shoulder.
lie then rose, and in doing so ordered the man French
to. fire again. French did not do so. He ordered wit-
ness on the table, and when he went on it, he took the
cutlass and pushed him off with its point, The crew
were then ordered up to pump sup. They went on
deck and manned the pumps. - Witness went also on
deck, but was not aide to do anything. In a few minutes
witness, with some others, were ordered down
again. They went down and stopped some time, but
the captain did not make his appearance. Witness was
then taken up and ?ut in iqvi again, and placed in the
,