The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-15 00:00:00

MOR NING SUN

LAW INTELL IGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY. Jan. 14.
IN THE MATTER OF FOWLER.

- .
case came before the Court upon petition, pray-
ing the confirmation of the Master's Report. The luna-
tic, who was the rector of Rampton, was entitled to the
tithes of that parish. The Commissioners under the
Tithe Commutation Act had offered the Committee of
the lunaticy 300/. a-year.in lieu of the tithes. Upon this
offer being made a reference was directed to the Master
to inquire whether it would be for the benefit of the lu-
natics' estate to accept that offer. The Master had re-
ported that it would, and the confirmation of that report
was the object of the present petition.
His LORDSHIP made the order as prayed.
IN THE MATTER OF TIIE nEnwlck HANK.
In this case a fiat of bankruptcy had issued against'all
the partners in the Berwick bank, and that fiat had been
directed to the Bankrupt Commissioners of Berwick.
There had, however, arisen the difficulty with respect to
those Cotnmissioners, that three of them were interested
parties. Such being the case,
Mr. JAMES RUSSELL applied to-day for the appoint-
ment of three CommiSsioners in their room.
'rho LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not, for the
sake of one ease alone, appoint three new Commissioners
who would be perpetual. The parties must either go to
Newcastle, which was only 63 miles distant, or they
must apply to the Court of .Review for a new fiat, di-
rected to new Commissioners. There could be no doubt
that the adoption of sueh a course would be both incon-
venient and expensive to the parties, but the Court could
not help it. It was clear to his Lordship that the present
system was bad, and must be altered.

WARD V. AMAGER.
The further arguments in this case occupied the Court
the whole morning, and not having terminated when his
Lordship rose, will be proceeded with to-morrow.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 14.
ALLEN V. COSTER.
Mr. ROGERS appeared for the petitioner, and stated
that the petition prayed for payment of certain funds
held in trust for the petitioner. The petitioner was en-
titled to a moiety of the principal, but in drawing up the
petition he (Mr. Rogers) had omitted to state it. The
petition stated the will of the testatrix, by which she
gave the sum of 6,0001. New Four per Cents., the divi-
dends to be paid to George Allen and his wife, to be
applied by them to the maintenance of their two chil-
dren, George Allen, the younger, and Elizabeth Allen,
until the said Elizabeth Allen should have attained the
ago of 21 years, and at that period this fund was to be
distributed equally between them. His Lordship would
recollect that an 'order was made in this case, ap-
pointing Mr. Underwood as guardian to these chil-
dren. It appeared that the last dividend had not
been received in consequence of that application.
From several orders made and obtained in this
case, the fund had from time to time been reduced,
and these costs had been placed to the separate accounts
of these infants, and although the infant Elizabeth Allen
had had a large amount placed to her account, still it
would be found to exceed by 201. only the account of her
brother, George Allen the younger. It appeared that
one sum of 1701. Bs. Id. was paid for the costs of the ap-
plication to discharge this young man from his first ap-
prenticeship, which application was granted, and in
consequence he was apprenticed to another master. It
appeared that this sum was placed to the separate ac-
count of the petitioner. Then there was another:sum
of 501. which was paid by Mr. Underwood to the former
master of the young man for his past maintenance, and
subsequently there was another sum •of 35L, making
851., placed to the separate account of George Allen the
younger ; and 301. was placed to the separate account of
Elizabeth Allen, making a difference of only 20/. The
only other sum is that of 210/, for the costs of inquiry
with reference to the marriage of Elizabeth Allen when
an infant. These sums carried up, the result appeared
to be, that 2201. was carried to the separate account. of
the brother, and 240/. to the separate account of the
sister, in point of fact making only the small difference of
2C/. He (Mr. Roger) should therefore hope that his
Lordship would think that as each had received nearly
the same amount out of the fund, there might be properly
made an order for the reeeipt of the moiety of the •whole
fund left to George Allen the younger.
His LORDSHIP asked upon what ground the-order was
to be made ? This was a case at which he looked with
the utmost possible anxiety. He had never seen a case
which so strongly called upon the Court to refuse the
payment of this moiety. On what ground was it to be
paid to this young man; for, according to the intention
of the testatrix—which intention had been attempted by
certain parties to be frustrated—it was that this moiety
should not be paid to this young man until his sister was
of the age of twenty-one years, and then to be paid to
him. Why should it not still be paid to Mr. Under-
ood ? His Lordship had become more intimately ac-
quainted with the circumstances of this case, and he felt-
that protection should be given not only to the young
lady but also to the young man himself. He found him
out of employment, and diminishing the fund he had, and
living upon those who were striving all • in their power
to cause him to live respectably.
Mr. ROGERS said he had discovered that it was the
intention of all parties that he 5h0t3114430 placed in a rtt-
spectable house of business in London'.
His LORDSHIP said that was verydesirable, in ord4
t 9 rescue him from a connection which had bet,tv so cul-
pable with respect to him. His Lordship would be very{
glad to attend to anything for his benefit ; but in the
meantime, the income must be paid to Mr. Underwood
till after the„yQung man was of age. His Lordship could
not help saying of Mr. Underwood, that he had never
met any person in whom he had more cause for reliance.
Mr. ROGERS applied to his Lordship for an order for
Mr. Underwood to receive the unpaid dividend.
His LORDSHIP expressed his hope, that what was done
for him would be with the protection of the Court. He
should be sorry to cast the least imputation on any per-
son, but he never saw a case which required so much
protection. The order might be made.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 14.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

CASSIDY V. CIFFORD.
In this case Mr. Bethell made an application for
an injunction to restrain the defendant from nego-
tiating a bill of exchange for 3,6941., dated July
24, 1841, before the month of July, ' 1842 ; and
also to restrain the defendant from prdeuring a
fiat of bankruptcy to be issued against the plain-
tiff, by reason of his not having paid the ae2a
bill previous to the time mentioned. It ap-
peared that previous to the month of Jialy, 1841,
there had been several money transactions between
the plaintiff, who was a clerk in a public office, and
the defendant, who was a surgeon. The defendant
had, it was stated, advanced to the plaintiff from time to
time certain sums, at an interest of 20 per cent. In the
month of July, 1841, the defendant had determined to
bring those transactions to a close, and he then
sold to the defendant certain stock and railway shares
for the sum of 3,6941., which was made over to the plain-
tiff by a bill ofexchange, payable in three months. Accord-
ing to the statements made for the defence it appeared that
the bill had been given on condition that it should be
renewed from quarter to quarter, leaving the plaintiff
twelve months to meet the bill.

There being some doubt as to the nature of the agree-
ment between the, parties, and as to the interpretation to
be put upon the plaintiff's bill,
'HS HONOUR said that before he came to any decision
he should read over the bill, and he should then make
the order he should think fit.

(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
PING V. CHUCK.
The bill was filed in this cause by one of the execu-
tors and trustees of certain property against the residu-
ary legatee, his assignees, the claimaints on the
trust fund, and the personal representative of the person
•NV h o was the plaintiff's co-trustee and co-executor. The
bill prayed an account and atiminstration of the estate.
The statement of the facts ran to great length, and was
not of a nature interesting enough to admit of its pub!:
lication. The principal question raised was, as 'to the
right which one of the trustees had to be reinibui'ed for
certain sums alleged to have been' expended' by him in
repairs on the estate.
His HONOUR decreed the usual inquiries in such cases
to be made, and reported by the Mtmerovith liberty to
state special circumstances. • •
WESTON v. P ACRE
The defendants in this cause were the assignees of a
bankrupt. The object of the suit mats to obtain the
usual decree in favour of the plaintifAyis equitable mort-
gagees. It appeared that in the year 1834 a lease of
certain houses, of which the bankrupt' had a long lease-
hiviltvierest, was deposited with the plaintiffs, as a se-
curiftfor a balance of their account. They had advanced
ilrionS' Sums in the course of their dealings as bankers
with the defendants. In the arrangement which was made
between the assignees and the plaintiffs after the bank-
ruptcy, it was agreed that the latter should repair some
of the houses, and repay themselves out of the rents of
those houses. That arrangement had been carried into
effect, and the plaintiffs claimed to be allowed for the
payment they had so made. The only question in the
ease was that which should come before the Master as
to what was due for principal and interest. Some dis-
cussion having taken place between the Counsel engaged
joarthe point of receivership and other particulars, his
'Honour, directed the case to stand over to Thursday next,
with liberty to present a petition if necessary.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAX.)
PERKINS v. BRADLEY.
His HONOUR was engaged nearly the whole morning
in hearing this part hearecause. At the close of the ar-
guments, his Honour requested to be furnished with the
pars, and said' he should take time to consider his
judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 14.
THE QUEEN v. THE JUSTICES OF 'WARWICKSHIRE.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been instructed by
certain parishioners of Birmingham and Edgbaston to
apply to the Court for a rule to show cause why a writ
of certiorari should not issue, directed to the Justices of
Warwickshire, and commanding them to bring up a cer-
tain county-rate, made by them upon the town of Bir-
mingham, for the purpose of ascertaining its legality.
The affidavits set out that under the provisions of the
Municipal Regulation Act, the sth and 6th of William
IV., in the last clause but one of that statute
her Majesty was pleased to grant a charter to the town
of Birmingham, and one of the consequences of
that charter being granted was that the charges
for the town were immediately taken out of the
county-rate, and contained a power of levying a
borough-rate in the nature of that county-rate.
The town might be called upon to contribute to certain
expenses, but there was a clause in the Act, which ab-
solutely exempted it from all liability to a county-rate
as such. Their Lordships were aware that a doubt arose
as to whether the clause in the Act, enabling the Crown
to grant such a Charier had or had not such difficulties
interposed in the way of suchEivileges conferred, quoad
hoc, as to render it unavailing. There was a diffi-
culty in setting the Corporation in motion, and pending
the doubts that existed, the rate-payers of Birmingham

operation.lverea Their dvisedtopay tilo uwgehr -er at
probably
e which 1
by the Town Council of Birmingham, after they had
waited a sufficient time to get the Charter into regular
Lordshipse "borough-rate
the difficulty was, that the Municipal Regulation Act re • -
aware was
mad
that
, quiredtbat the choice of Magistrates of the Town Council
was to take place at a certain period of the year, under
the authority of a Mayor and certain assessors, and inade
no provision for the appointment of these officers imme-
diately. The Town Council existed until the regular
time had arrived which was required by the. statute.
. The difficulties and legal ObjectionS in thc way of. a
t borough rate, being made under such a Charter, it being
admitted that the Charter-was valid for all other pur-
poses, came under the discussion of the Judges in . the
case of the Manchester Charter; and the majority of the
i Judges, assembled in the Exchequer Chamber, were then
of opinion that the. Crown had the power to grant such
a Charter. Upon that, the parish officers, who had
been advised not to act under the clause of the
Municipal Regulation Act, were obliged to ac-
quiesce in the decision of the majority of the
Judges, and to make arrangements to pay the
sums demanded under the- authority of the Chamber and
the Act of Parliament, and they had done so. But not?
withstanding that, the County Magistrates had, lie pre-
semed, under a notien'that the Charter was not valid, or
that the House of Lords might disturb the decision of the
Exchequer Chamber,' thought fit to impose a county
rate on the town, that was to say, in the county-rate
made they had included the town of Birmingham.
Therefore, the inhabitants of Birmingham, in their re-
spective parishes,,, were liable to pay a double rate, one
made by the Town Couneil, and the other by the County
Magistrates. They had no menus of bringing the ques-
tion of the rate made by the Town-Council before their
Lordships, and; indeed, they had acquiesced in it : and if
the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber be
correct, there could be little doubt upon the subject.
Lord DENMAN said it was clear the question was one
which must be discussed. The certiorari might go to
bring up the order for making the rate, and then the
parties could show cause upon affidavits, setting forth all
facts, or at once agree upon a case to be placed in the
Crown paper.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no objection to such a
course.
Lord DENMAN presumed there had been some commu-
nication with the county authorities, and that there was
no wish on their part to to oppose the discussion of the
question.
Mr. HUMPHREYS said the Solicitor-General was on the
otherside, and thought it better not to show cause against
the rule in the first case.
Lord DENMAN—Then if the parties are agreed let the
case be putin the Crown paper.
DANIEL V. BARRY AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought against the defendants,
Barry and two others, for selling a vessel for a certain
price, and falSely describing her as fit to be on Lloyd's
register, class A. 1., for ten years, knowing her not to be
so fit. The case was tried before Lord Dnman at the
last sittings at Guildhall, and the Jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff, adding that they acquitted the defendants
of all fraudulent knowledge, which was tantamount to a.
verdict for the defendants. Certain questions were put
to the Jury by the Learned Judge after they had deli•
vered their verdict, as to whether they believed the de-
fendants had any knowledge of the vessel being what "she
had been represented, and: their answers generally were
that there was no evidence before them on that point.
Mr. CRESSWELL now moved for a rule to showcauie
why the verdict should not be set aside, and .a new trial
had, on the ground that the Learned• Judge should have
put other questions to the Jury, but . •
The COURT, after hearing the. Learned Gentleman's
arguments, thought there were no grounds for disturbing
the verdict.
THE QUEEN V. THE VISITING JUSTICES OF THE BANWRI.I.

LUNATIC ASYLUM.
In this case a rule had been obtained, calling upon the
Visiting Justices of the Ilanwell Pauper Lunatic Asylum
to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue,
directed to them, and commanding them to admit the
Rev. Francis Tebbut into the said asylum, to perform the
duties of chaplain, and to pay him the arrears of the
salary due as such chaplain.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. White-
burst) now appeared to show cause against the rule. The
application stated that Mr. Tebbut had received'the ap-
pointment of Chaplain, and had obtained the license of
the Archbishop of Canterbury ; it then went on to state
that he had been removed from that office, but without
going into the peculiar facts or circumstances which led
to his removal, it was contended that the appointment wax
in fact:virtually in the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
that he was the only party who had the power to
remove the Chaplain. Before he called their at-
tention to the appointment he would -observe, that
he should have no difficulty in satisfying their Lordships
that the whole control over the asylum was vested in the
Visiting Justices, and that they had power not only to
appoint the chaplain and other officers, but to renJove
them as • they thought proper. In the month of July,
1839, Mr. Tebbut was elected to the oflit4•6l*
ou
chaplain,
"As ng ye lithitO
with a salary of 1501. per annum. In tllgletter of Mr.
,occ
in 'n .rrhti
occurred thee.iors,
lo n"
14
aTreebbut i
jieiln
et.d
reptoly, confide
recognising the right •of theo
,Ipistie
to' make- it. The license of': t Yi*ting es
he .. krchb. Op :..of
Canterbury cottlil not constitute his right, .b‘a,use. he
did not obtpn it till January, 1841 ; and on th€lBth of
May :they came to a resolution that Mr. Tebbetiwatrnot
a fit person to fill the . office, and' removedl iiittO The Learned Gentleman then referred to the ternislottihe'
of Parliament, which VOilleAtight of appbinfhifiE
removal of all the officers .td-the Visiting Jtiitlarn •,.
tamed the analogous' case of chagains of gaOIN-44rAt %,..,''
mated that the rule ought to be discharged, With: .Cag, '
Mr. Sergeant'll.u.comnE, in support of the rule, con-
tended that --they must, when the whole facts Of the
case were before them, make the rule absolute. The
Visiting' JustieeSi had, he contended, most tuiproperly
taken the law into their own hands. In the month of
February they called upon Mr. 'rev:at to resign his
appointment, and he expressed b. 5 perfect readiness to
do so, but he had a wife and five children depending on
him for support. 114 was then allowed to go on till the month of May, when in the absence
of
Mr. Tebbut tk-ey passed a resolution dismissing
him from .
, tlie establishment. Now Mr. Tebbutt,
up t 9 • `.Lee present moment, held the license 'of
ti, 'Archbishop of Canterbury, although applications
1... ad been made to his Grace to revoke; it, or at least 'to
confer a license upon another clergyman ; and, under
these circumstances, he submitted that Mr. Tebbut was
the legal clerical attendant upon the Institution,
and could not be deprived of it without the
interference of the Archbishop of Canterbury. For
all their Lordships knew a claim to the appointment
might be properly set up and sustained by his Grace, or
by the incumbent of the parish in which the Asylum was
situated. The incumbent was instituted into the cure of
all the souls 'within his parish, and the Asylum contained
upwards of 900 patients and 100 officers, from whom the
incumbent was entitled to receive certain fees and emolu-
ments, and any interference by that Court would go to
deprive the incumbent of the parish of his temporal
rights. The Visiting Justices required that Mr. Teb-
but should enter upon a book the result of his spiritual
ministrations to the patients—that book was to be' sub-
mitted to Doctor Connolly, the medical attendant, who,
after making his comments, was to submit it to the Vi-
siting Justices. Mr. Tebbut was startled at the novelty of
such a proposition, and did not think he was justified in
doing so, and that, he believed, constituted the ground of
Mr. Tebbnt's removal. With regard to the clause giving
the parties the right to remove officers or servants, he
contended that the chaplain was not a servant or officer
.within the meaning of that clause. There was no in-
stance in which laymen, could assume the right of
dictating to the chaplain the spiritual duties he
was to perform—that was matter of a purely
ecclesiastical - character, and was within the pro-
viriCe of the Archbishop's incumbent only. The Learned
Gentleman then observed that he would notweary the
Conrt by referring to the manner in which his client
had been obstructed in the discharge of-his .spiritual
duties.,.._ When. he _went round to .the different.patients
end left tracts ff - ti ^ -eligious im-------

Mr. 5erge44,4.9-,c9m." had op yeferredle two or
three pag%tjittpee::::l,,Why, twits 'distinctly stated
that his cpdlitloUild SergeantWdamslit the desk
cthinneilemi the -nervice; -und Tit ittct ilisehttrging mil -the
duties of the chaplain.(Lakightet.) After some further
observations, the Learned Counsel submitted, that the
rule in this case ought to be made absolute.
• The *Conrt„took time to consider its judgment.
COURT OF :EXCHEQUER, Jan. 14.
!UPSON V. CUBITT.
Mr. .B. ANDREWS moved to set aside the verdict in
this case, which at the trial which was heard before
Lord binger at the sittings after last term,
was found for the plaintiff, with 500/. damages.
The facts of,. the case as stated by the Learned
Counsel were these :—The defendant was the eminent
builder, and ;had entered into a contract with certain
parties, members of the 'Clarence Club, to repair their
Club-house, and amongst other things he' wig
to repair the gas apparatus. He, not being a
gas fitter himself, employed a person named
Bland to execute that part of the work. In the
course of the repairs, certain of the members deter-
mined to light a figure , which stood on the
grand stair-case. This was a deviation from the
specification under which the defendant was working,
and the order for it was given direct to Bland. In order
to light the figure, a pipe was to be carried through a
room on the landing, and from thence to the figure. It
was carried up so far as the room on the landing', but was
not finished on the 19th November, when the gas was
first lighted. Upon that occasion it was sworn that the
son of Bland had properly stopped the pipe, and no ac-
cident occurred. The gas was again lighted on the follow-
ing day from four o'clock till eleven, the youpger
Bland was on the premises, and offered to put out the
gas, but the butler of the Club said he understood )16w
to manage the apparatus, and he would do it. About
nine o'clock the servants had gone through the
room in question, and gas was escapinff, but
at that time, though the smell was offensive,
no explosion took place, although a lighted
candle was carried through. The plaintiff and hia
wife, who were servants of the club, had been spending
the evening out ; they came home at onci.o'cloCk,
and having occasion to pass through the room in ques-
tion' a violent explosion took place, and both plaintiff
and his wife were much injured. The Learned Counsel
now contended that the defendants were not liable, as the
pipe which' caused the explosion was not any put
of the work for. which they had contracted, and as he
thought the verdict was in some measure against the
evidenee.,le would take bis rule in the alternative, either
for a nonsuit, a new trial, or arrest of judgment.
Vule granted.

nnct lett tracts tbr their religious improvement, he was
followed by Mr. Sergeant Adams, who took them away
itgain. -• •
Mr. *tiviutatzinT did not think his 4:Atfriend
was, juitifieti • in-entering into these stnt .- which
were distinctly-dosied;
hrtiqpr Ilaleonibe is-apblogising
for not referring to that part of the case.--(Laughter.)
Nrr_ SiartrPsant rt 1-4,Chiii lea hnel

MORNING SUN

THORNTON r. CHARLES.

This was an action for the Value of a quantity of tal-
low, which was tried before Lord Abinger, at the Lou-
don Sittings atter last term, when his Lordship non-
suited the plaintiff:
Mr. RICHARDS now moved for a rule nisi to enter a
verdict for the plaintiffs. for 837/. under the circum-
stances. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Thornton and West, are
large dealers in tallow as well as other things; in 1840 they
employed Smith and Marshall to sell for them 300 casks
of the best St. Petersburgh yellow candle tallow.
Smith and Marshall were also the brokers of the de-
fendants, and of the 200 they sold to them 50 casks
to be delivered between the Ist of September and the
last day of December. They sold the whole 200 casks
to three parties, none of whom were known to the plain-
tiffs. The tallow was put at their order on Sept. 14,
when the defendants objected to receiving it as their
stock was large, and the broker said he would deliver it
to other parties, and give them theirs after. They be-
came bankrupt soon after, and the plaintiffs finding
by their books, to whom the tallow was sold, brought
their action, although none had, in fact,' been delivered
to the defendants. The Learned Counsel contended
that- the delivery to Smith and Marshall was
in law a delivery to the defendant, as that firi.n.was act-
ing as. the agent for them as well as the plaintiffs.
The COURT had never heard such a proposition before,
but as the case was one of much importance, they would •
~,..rant a rule ; and as the facts were all agreed on, it had
better be turned into a special case.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 13.
CRAWIHAY P. THOMPSON AND OTHERS.
This action, it will remembered, was tried at the Lon-
don sittings after last term, before the Lord Chief Justice,
and was brought by Mr. Crawshay, the ironmaster,
against the defendants, Alderman Thompson and Messrs.
Foreman, his partners, on the ground that they had im-
properly marked their iron with the letters " %V. 0." in
an oval, in order that it might be taken in the Turkey
market for the iron of Mr. Crawshay, hich bore thev
mark of " W. C." in an oval.
The evidence showed that the two marks, although dis-
tinguishable, might be mistaken the one for the other ;
that Mr. Crawshay had been in the habit of so marking
his iron for a number of years ; that his iron was known
at Constantinople by that mark, and highly estimated ;
that Alderman Thompson had used the mark " W. 0."
at the request of a house at Constantinople, which, at
the same time, begged that the letters might be perfectly
distinct.
The Jury, the case having occupied the Court nearly
three entire days, found a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA now moved fora rule to show cause
why that verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground of misdirection, and of its being
against evidence. His Lordship had left two questions
to the Jury—first, whether they were satisfied that there
was in the defendant's mark such a close resemblance
to the plaintiff's mark as in its own nature was calcu-
lated to mislead the unwary, and injure the sale of the
plaintiff's goods. If it was not a mark to impose on
those who had some little skill in the commodity, and
would take ordinary care, then the plaintiff' could not
recover ; and, secondly, what was the intention of the
defendant in using the mark complainel oft Was it
for the purpose of supplanting the plaintiff, or done in
the regular course of trade, an .1 in the execution of foreign
orders sent to their house? Because it seemed to him that,
unless there was such a fraudulent intention existing,
and proved to their satisfaction, the defendants would
not be liable. He (Mr. Sergeant Shea) submitted that
the question was improperly left, as on this declaration
it was not necessary m prove that the defendants had
used the mark with the intention and for the purpose of
supplanting the plaintiff, and passing off their iron for
the plaintiff's iron ; but that the substantial part of the
allegation was made out if it was proved that the defen-
dants, having received orders to mark the it iron in a way
so nearly resembling the plaintiff's mark that they knew
it was calculated to pass off for the iron known in the
Turkish market as (W.C.) the plaintiff's. That was suf-
ficient, what( ve,. the motive was, and the intention of
supplanting the plaintiff was not material to the question.-
His Lordship also omitted to read the notes which had
passed between the parties, and in which Alderman Thom-
pson was informed of the injury the close resemblance to
the plaintiff':; mark was doing to the plaintiff. That no-
tice was a most material point, for after it had been given,
Alderman Thompson had persisted in using the mark.
The Lord Chief Justice had certainly told the Jury that
a man who used the identical mark after notice was lia-
ble ; but whether the fact of a man persisting to use a
mark that he had used innocently was actionable, was a
que,tion for after consideration. He (Mr. Sergeant
Shea) submitted that, in point of law, there was no dis-
tinction between a fac-simile and so close a resemblance
as was calculated to deceive. The- same reason that ren-
dered it unlawfid to use a file-simile made it unlawful
to use a mark that was calculated to deceive.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought it must be a.s-
surned here that this mark was calculated to deceive,
otherwise the defendants were not boundsto obey a notice
that the mark they were using might deceive the plain-
tiffs customers. The questions were, was the mark cal-
ciliated to deceive, and was the act done fraudulently ?
Mr. Sergeant SHEA further observed that the Jury
wished to give a qualified verdict, but that the Solicitor-
General had objected to their stating their reasons, and
his Lordship said he could not have them without the
consent of both parties ; whereupon the Solicitor-Gene-
ral said that he did not wish them given, and the verdict
Was taken for the defendants generally. Now, the very
objects the Lord Chancellor had in view, in directing this
queition to be tried, had by that course been frustrated.
If the reasons of the Jury had been given, the view they
had taken of the matter would at once have been seen,
and the object of the inquiry satisfactorily answered.
The Learned Judges having consulted together for a
abort time,
The .Loltl) CHIEF JusTrcE said the question was one
of great complication and importance, and the rule should
be granted on all the points, in order that the matter
might be fully discussed.—liule granted accordingly.
BULMER AND ANOTHER F. GILLMAN.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict which had been found for the
plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial had.
The cause was tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the
Middlesex sittings after last term, and was brought by
the plaintiffs to recover a sum of money for work and
labour done, as Parliamentary agents, in carrying a
Bill through the House of Lords for improving the city
of Norwich. The Learned Counsel moved on the ground
of misdirection.—The Court granted the rule:

BAIL COURT, Jan. 14.

THE QUEEN V. TILE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF MAR-

WICII. ANDA M rg.

Mr. Burr applied to the Court for a rule nisi, calling,
upon the Mayor and Corporation of Harwich to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding
them to adopt measures to secure the payment of 1,3001.
to the late Town Clerk of the borough, as compensation
for the loss of the offices which he held under the Corpo-
ration. The circumstances of this case hare been fre-
quently before the public.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS granted a rule nisi.
TTIZ QUEEN r. THE SLIEFFIELD, ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE,

AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. CROMPTON applied, on the part of a Mr. Shaw-
cross, for a rule nisi calling upon the Company to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue to the Sheriffs
'Of Lancashire to empanel a. jury to assess the amount
of damages done to the property of the applicant by the
defendants. The applicant was a bleacher, and, in the
course of his business, had occasion to make use of a
stream of water miming through his property. In con-
= sequence of the works of the Company in the neigh-
bourhood, the water had become deteriorated and unfit
for use.—Application granted.
COA.TSWORTH V. OLDAHRE.
This was an action brought to recover 301., the price
of a horse. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the
Favourite, Maidstone coach, and the defendant a saddler,

residing on Finsbury.-pavement.
Mr. PASIILEY having opened the pleadings,
Mr. PLATT addressed the Jury for the plaintiff, and
said that the parties had agreed in the
first place to an exchange of horses, that after-
wards the, defendant told the plaintiff that he did not
wish to exchange, but that he would purchase the horse of
tie plaintiff; an entire horse, for the sum of 301 to which
plaintiff agreed. The horse was delivered over to the
defendant, and had remained in his possession ever
since, and this action was brought to recover the price
of it. What could be the meaning of the defendants
in paling fd. into Court, he (Mr. Platt) was at a loss to
conceive, nor could, he understand the meaning of the plea
which had been put upon the record.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to call witnesses
to prove his case, who were cross-examined by Mr. Pear-
son, with a view to prove that the horse was unsound.
At the conclusion of the case for the plaintiff,
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS asked Mr. Pearson, who ap-
peared for the defendant, if he could contradict the evi-
dence as to the bargain.
Mr. PEARSON said hewas not in a condition to do so; and
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 241.

ADMIRALTY COURT, fan. 13.
TILE VERNON.

The Vernon, an East Indianian, of .1,000 tons burden,
with sixty hands on boar&on her voyage from London
to Calcutta, came into collision with a brig, the
Alsen, a foreigner,-.• of 200 tons, from Nantes to
Christiansand, in , Norway, on the 13th of August
last, at half-past ten P.M., off Dungeness. The brig was
on a starboard -tack, and the Vernon on a larboard.
They struck—'the brig's rigging and her cutwater were
damaged ; :die floated for about two hours her crew
were savedf and she sunk. These facts were admitted on
either sia, and they only were admitted. Every other
paint wttSdisputed, and whatever was alleged on the one
sale wr,stoutly denied on 'the other. " The wind was S.
by E.A says the brig's'erew. " No, it was S. by half W.,"
SillAWfW the Vernon's man. " The night was very dark,"
againsays the brig. " No ! objects were visib'e at a dis-
tame," replies one of the Vernon's. witnesses ; and the
slistle between " very" dark and " rather" dark was
strongly insisted upon by Counsel. The Master of the brig
lays to the master of the Vernon—" You ought not to
Aye put;-your helm down ;" and lie rejoins, "You had
tfie Wind free; and you should have kept your course. If
jayott had mit Ittlfed, and crossed our bows, we should have
joissed. free." And thus, on every question of fact and
- 1 a navigation, there was difference of opinion and eon-
. ,Etradiction of evidence. The Vernon had a pilot on hoard,
and the legal
point as to his
decision of the liability Court, instead of her
k).
6s,owners, necessarily awaited the
3t Sind, of Captain Stanley Clerk a.ndChapotmainit
ryas Ellaerabsys,isttew(-10,
14 brothers of the Trinity Ifollsei hx.lvir
'll as to the liability of either of them:
1.1.- • pr. LIISHINGTON left to the Trinity Masters the follow-
-4 jug questions:—" Was the Alsen
Al.sen orthe
was Vernon to
-
blame ? If the latter was, was the:p of she had on board
' in fault, or were her officers- and'i w alone in fault, or
did they share the wrongful act bet een them ?"
The Trinity Masters held that no blame attached to
the Alsen; that the Vernon was.aione in fault; and that

Olt fault mild 13! exclusively attributed to her pilot,
giving his orders.
The legal point was reservA. It turns on the jurisdic-
tion of the Trinity llouse to grant licences to pilots

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jun. 13.
George de Vipont, an elderly man, was opposed by
Mr. Cooke on the part of Messrs. Carlisle.
This case was before the Court on several occasions,
and formed a striking example of the much " hard
swearing," as it is termed, committed in this Court.
The opposition was for a collusive arrest, which it was
positively sworn had nut taken place.
It appeared that the insolvent, who had been a hosier
at Clifton, near Bristol, had been taken in execution at
the suit of a person named George Palmer, for an alleged
debt of 71. I3s. Palmer, who is a smith and dealer in
marine stores, in Long-alley, Moorfields, was to-day
examined respecting the debt, which he swore was owing,
and he produced an account-book. He denied, on Ins
oath, that he had seen the insolvent in Whitecross Prison
since the 3d instant. He likewise denied that he was
with the insolvent yesterday.
Mr. COOKE repeated the question, and said he would
give a chance to recal his words,
Palmer, who had put a bold front on the matter, paused
Mr. COOKE told him he should call the officer of the
prison to show he was there.

l'almer still paused, and, on being pressed, said, " I
cannot deny but I was there.
The COURT indignantly dismissed the petition, and
Palmer, who seemed unmoved at the exhibition, left the
Court.