The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-05 00:00:00

PARKER V. CONSTABLE. -JUDGMENT.

His LORDSHIP gave judgment in thi3 case, which also
came before the Court upon an appeal from the decision of
the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, lissolving an injunction. His
Lordship considered the course adopted by the Vice-Chan-
cellor correct, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

COOPER V. EUSTON.

Sir F. SI3IPKINGON applied to the Court to permit this
case to stand over till Monday, as the papers were extremely
long and he had not had time to read them.

Dir. BscruELL, who appeared on the other side, had not
objection to the application, as he could easily believe, con-
sidering recent events, that his Learned Friend had not had
time to read the papers.—(A laugh.)
The case was then ordered to stand for Monday.
SIDNEY v. RANGER.

The arguments were then resumed in this part-heard cams
and occupied the Court the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL P. THE MAYOR OF PLYMOUTH.
His LORDSHIP gave judgment in this cause. He was of
opinion that the agreement made in 1825 was void. The
grants between the Corporation of Plymouth and the hospi-
tal did not, in his opinion, differ from the Act of 1805, which
was complained of. The Corporation held their office as
trustees under the Act of Elizabeth, and it would be contrary
to their duty to allow any competition with the public inte-
rest; therefore they were not justified in making any aliena-
tion of any portion of the watercourse belonging to the
Orphan Aid, except such as remained after supplying all the
wants thereof. The ambiguity upon which so much stress
had been laid respecting the word lake was done away by
the words immediately following, which gave a perfect de-
scription of the portion of the river with reference to which
the present proceedings was instituted. Moreover, he
did not think the two corporations were capable of making
the contract which has been complained of; and he was not
satisfied by the evidence before him that the hospital had
not received adequate consideration for the sum of 1,6001.,
which they had given to the trustees. He would permit any
inquiry to be put to the Court. He would order the case to
be entered on the books, to be mentioned on the minutes on
Tuesday, the 11th instant.

THE MARQUIS OF HERTFORD v. LORD LOWTHER.
His LonDsitip, in giving judgment in this cause, observed,
that it was a matter simply between a residuary legatee and
a pecuniary legatee. Under all the circumstances he had
come to the resolution of dismissing the demurrer, but with-
out costs.

The remainder of the day was occupied in the hearing of
unopposed petitions.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Vice-Chancellor of England took pleas, demurrers, and
further directions to-day, none of which call for a special
report. _

(Before Vice-Chancellor WICIRA3I.)
IN RE ISAWETT.

Ur. ROMILLY, his reply to the defendants,
wh!ch is likely to occupy most of the. day.
Sir Richard Bassett, of the firm of Bassett, Clark and Roe,
bankers, died in 1837; the banking concern was carried on
some time under the same firm ; and now the defendants, who
claim under the separate estate of Sir It. Bassett, are brought
into Court by the surviving partners, for the debts of the
concern.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.
Their Lordships sat at the usual hour this morning.
THE MAYOR OF EXETER V. HARVEY.
It appeared by the Counsel's statement of this case that

was one which Was tried at the last Devon Assizes, before
Mr. Justice Erle, when a verdict was had for the plaintiff,
and that it was an action brought by the Corporation of
Exeter against the Messrs. Harvey, who, it was alleged had
used a portion of the Exeter Canal in bringing up certain ma-
terials for the erection of a lunatic asylum, for the building
of which they were the contractors, and for such use of the
ca:ial they became liable to the payment of certain tolls under
the Act by authority of which the canal had been made; but
these tolls the Messrs. Harvey refused to pay. The Canal
Act was passed in 1829, but a considerable portion of the
works had been made before that time, having been com-
menced in 1825. The only question was, whether the portion
of the canal that had been used by Messrs. Harvey came
within the tide-way or navigable river.
Rule generally granted.
PROTHICRO W. JONES.
This case was tried at the last assizes of Camarvon, and a
verdict had for the plaintiff, damages 231. 2s. 7d., for work
and labour done, &c. Counsel moved to have the verdict set
aside, and for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection and
the admission of inadmissible evidence. Counsel entered
into a long statement of the evidence, which involved a
rather complicated state of accounts between parties who
stood in the relative position to each other of landlord and
tenant.

Held over to consult the Learned Judge who tried the
case.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.

lIILDERTON V. SELLS.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL replied at length against a motion
previously made by counsel to set aside a judgment obtained
in this case in the last Hilary term, and on which execution
had been issued for 1981. 14s. with costs, on the ground of
irregularity. The Learned Gentleman said the object of the
rule was first to impeach the judgment and 'execution on
the ground of irregularity ; and secondly, to set them aside on
their terms. The complaint of the defendant was that a
judgment being signed execution was immediately issued
without any notice of taxation of cost being given to him.
This, in his opinion, did not warrant the application made.
The Learned Gentleman then cited a number of cases in
which similar applications had been made, wherein it had
been ruled that the not giving notice of taxation of costs
after signing a judgment was not sufficient to warrant the
the setting aside of the same on the ground of irregularity.
Mr. Sergeant SIIEE replied. He contended that
no answer had been made to the affidavits put
in by the defendant. The judgment was not complete
until notice of taxation had been given. In
many instances this was the only notice given to a defendant
of judgment being signed against him. In the present case,
his client declared in his affidavit that he knew nothing what-
ever of the judgment till execution had been served against
him. This he (the Learned Counsel) submitted was quite ir-
regular, and was a good ground why the Court should make
the rule absolute. The Learned Gentlemen concluded by
citing several cases in which this view of the completion of
judgment was held to be the correct practice, and the neglect
of which was held to be sufficient for setting aside judgment.
The COURT decided that the rule be made absolute without
costs, aud_that a week be given to the defendant to put in his
pleas.

WILMHURST V. DALY AND OTHERS.
Mr. Sergeant CHAYNEL moved for a rule to set aside a
verdict obtained at the last sittings in London, before Mr.
Justice Erle, in which judgment had been obtained against
the defendant for a breach of contract. The contract was
for the construction of a steam-engine, which the defendant
engaged to furnish for the steam •ship Novelty, then lying in
the East India Dock, at the sum of 800/. Ihe terms of the
contract were here set forth by the Learned Gentleman, which
were that the engine should be delivered within two months
after the agreement was made; that it should be executed
according to the plans and specifications produced, the same
to be approved of by a gentleman named for the purpose ;
and that 400/. should be paid in cash, on delivery of the en-
gine at the East India Dock, and the remainder in an ap-
proved bill at four months. The grounds on which the
verdict had been obtained were, that the engine had not been
constructed in time, or delivered, according to agreement, at
the East India Dock. Though the contract might not have
been literally fulfilled, it had, the Learned Gentleman con-
tended, been so virtually, and therefore the rule ought to be
allowed.—Rule refused.