The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-04 00:00:00

LAW-INTELLIGENCE,
CHANCERY.(THIS DAY.)
11.4HADDEN V. JENKINS.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morn-
l.u,g in this case, which was argued some time since.
he case came before the Court
upon appeal from the
decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, upon a
motion for an injunction to stay proceedings at law.
the facts stated in support of the application were,
tl!at the testator in the
eause, Thomas Warry, lent a
sbum of 500/. to the defendant Jenkins to be returned
him in a short time. Sometime afterwards
"
t nlas Warry sent a verbal direction to Jenkins
tthiGyl the 5001. in trust for Mrs. Warry ; this Mr.
n"ltis did, and the question was, whether under
thosetr circumstances the transaction was binding on
ie estate of Warry, the executors having brought an
inneettl°fl against Jenkins for the recovery of the money
and it being obvious that the question could not
settled in a Court of Law, the bill was filed in
this Court, and the injunction granted. Those points
were disposed of by Vice-Chancellor Wigram which
Were free from doubt, and which were not contested
is'
vin_this, namely, that a declaration by parole
t: sufficient to create a trust of personal pro-
yof the testator. Thomel Warry had in his
',e ."1111e declarat himself a trustee of the debt for the
tPlaintiff; that, in equity, would perfect the gift to the
ttintiff against Thomas Warry and' his estate. The
stinctions on this subject were refined, but there
was
tno difference between such a case and the present.
ile testator, by directing Jenkins to hold the money
it trust for a certain purpose, impressed a trust upon
atN.Thich was complete and irrevocable; the trans-
it lon bore no resemblance to an agreement to assign,
te\evas a clear trust, and the aid of the Court was not
essar.Y to complete it. Such being his Lordship's
oft).htihin, and corresponding as it did with the opinion
Oth e Vice-Chancellor Wigram, he could not do
must than dismiss the aeal. In doing
In be understood as not pronouncing this, he
any conclusive
io
toga non the facts of the case ; it would be difficult
Can would be the result on the hearing of the
L
at use
out as the appeal seemed to have been broughtd
missosliggestion of the Court below, it must be 's-
ix
11 Without Costs.
. 4ATTER OF SUISSE.—TDE LATE MARQUIS OF

-Alr. S HERTFORD.
,41e.aest that•IITT" ld recol-
SHARPE said the Court wou .
sometime before the long vacation a motion
late re in the matter of Suisse, the valet of the
tiered -tao stand
ace,
Hertford, and that motion was or-
at over until after Suisse had been tried
,1 "le over
Criminal Court. That trial had taken
F EICe
) and he had now to apply to the Court to ap-
-154,41t1.z.11.11, early day for renewing the motion.
the - ntaa:TT, who appeared for the executors of
for late4'Alarquis of Hertford, was instructed to ask
.ielie to answer an affidavit made by Suisse.
111,,s'e. LORD CHANCELLOR—We will take it on
g'sclay week, as that will be motion day.
HULLS, COURT.—(THIS DAY.)

HARWELL V. BARWELL.
well, was an application on be.half of Edward Bar-
f,ll the plaintiff for an injunction to restrain the de-
b.ant, Mary Barwell, the widow of the plaintiff's
rther, from roceeding in an action. at law com-
lilenoed b arnoyher against the plaintiff for 2001., the
b}
thin (n a promissory note passed to her husband
plaintiff.
hlto4r• Tuatrh whoa ppeared for the plaintiff, entered
4! 4 detailed statement of various money transac-
'Lena between the parties, who were greengrocers ;
it,?cl on the grounds upon which he rested the appli.ca-
4tnn,reh.ut they were by no means of an interesting
nis LORDSHIP saw no just grounds for the motion,
and
~,,,, accordingly refused the order.
-.AL Lo..
-rn LONDON CAOUTCHOUC COMPANY V. CARPENTER.
r,Ol this cause, which has been frequently before the
.%.11rt, the present application was on behalf of the
spiintiffs for an injunction to restrain the defendant.
a_t
tnuel Carpenter, of Birmingham, from. ma.nuf_act_u.r-
lok „
~, using, &c.,. the plaintiff's invention in India-
rubber, Webb, braces, &c.
• Ilia LORDSHIP granted the order.
C`-v VI,CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY)
- (Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR or ENGLAND.)
, Court was occupied this morning with unop-
v;:ed petitions and short causes.
- I'AIITE MARR V. THE MANCHESTER AND BIRMING.
HAM RAILWAY COMPANY.
for This was an application on behalf of the plaintiff
and
order respecting a sum of 450/., compensation
of a piece of land, pur-
eitso Interest, for the occupation
I,;lased by the Company,
for
tiff it was contended that
f the purposes of the rail-
tii4e3%,„ On behalf of the plaintiff
wi•tho'nttnpany had entered into p.ossesTsiohnisofetshseeslsaiennd
the -consent of the plaintiff.
Iva:
taken in December, 1837 ; no purchapse-m.oney
Nv-s actuallpaid, nor did the Company remain, as
to that y .
wasinn'oney, responsible to the owner.. The money
handed a very unusual an.d. extraordinary manner
and by Zer to the two solicitors of the Company,
names, ..,„,°se gentlemen lodged in a b.an.k.. in their own
ittliewcas.the'te,,s4,.ever good the responsibility mightnetbeef,
narP°nsibility of the solicitors only,
,ni. th°l`„„nri• The Company had been in possession
f.)ne 11 e„get f-r-0;
it,e V er
andsincoe the above date, deriving a
1 terestwould neither pay rent nor
f
I.)Ba4roliantentne Company relied on their own Act o
1 ; the was paid _in June,ene
had 1, L'ut the interest wasnsTinlleYrefused. h
arid "een shifted from the Company to theT solicitors,
at
iyataslasfit'eb.raoet.nlielesdogliecditoirns back to the Company, and had
the Court of Exchequer. It
A.%.Paid into the Court in April, 1839.
I:.
Ti!aCON was heard on the part of the defendants.
of " '''Nota said the case involved a vast
.number
11._PoInts, and
he must read over the affidavits leisurely.
le. sLould also like to have an affidavit as to the c. pt re-
solicitorsof he letter of the 12th of April, 1838, by the
Ills decisio°nfthe plaintiff. He should take time to give
RANGER,
On the
V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
tha
tree application of the Counsel on both sides,
till ring of this case and cross case was deferred
2d of January next.
QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY)
T THE
(Sitting in Banco.)
SOLAR LAMP—THE QUEEN V. DINNER.
in 'this case a scire facias had been issued to try the
ken
laelidtY of a pant which had been ta out the
~ endt;nt for the invention of the solar lamp by .
The
,a, . was tried - before Mr. Justice Coleridge, and the
f1,,1i,r,y foune', all tho issues but one for the Crown, thus
",';',.lig that the patent was invalid.
.s•!-‘11e ATTORMIY-GENERAL now applied for a rule
in 1 to set aside the verdict, or for a new trial, on the
FrTund that the verdict
was against the evidence.
Lue Learned Gentleman argued the question at great
rngth, contending that the defendant had made a great
TsTs on the lamps previously in use; that
specification was correct, clear, and intelligible ;
that it disclosed the whole secret of'his invention, and
that, therefore, the finding of the Jury was against
vidence, and the patent actually a valid one in law.
The COURT took time to consider.
CANADIAN THE DERBY, AND THE SUNDAY TIMES.
Ils i,
w, GREVILLE V. CHAPMAN.—LIBEL. I
as an action brought by the plaintiff, a
gentleman well known upon the turf, a member o.f.
(I.e Jockey Club, and the owner •of the horse Cana-
' littan, against the defendant, the proprietor of the
ii,utei.flo, Times newspaper, for the publication otf_n
relation him with dishonourable oondhuee lasti
Ilps'olron to the race for the Derby Stakes, at t
jissue, ai,r4,e,es• The defendant had pleaded the general
l'.f instii-eltaiol'lnalso placed on the record several. pleasb.
'01:e Lord
„jury f The case had come oAnssfoizrest7raiialld
thee
Abitiger at the last Surrey
• eu"d a verdict for
The Q the plaintiff.
on behalf of
Alefeivi .OLICITOR-GENERAL nOW moved.
why a nonsuit
*AI, luant, fora rule to show cause
be 11 d not be entered, or why a new trial shoutlrdefineoett
npnlnted, on the ground that the libel didi.ifo
it
did,
it re the character of the plaintiff at all, or
,tettleeted
ion upon it only in relation to an illegall trans-
rrwe , and one which could consequently not be
libel
114,,4 the subject •of an action. The alleged
nte'llpPeared in defendant's newspaper,
a certain
()q.,l°llin,g any names, it went on to charge _
and without
, °II with dishonourable conduct in regard to the
drtarll3' stakes at Epsom. The declaration had been
air 1,1•": 1113 in a peculiar manner : it did not set
oomu..t
1,1.4 nniendo or state of what the plaintiff.
cThe
kle4elitied as having been alleged against
tal,ratis°n, after stating. that a race for hthime.Derby
IN•hice,on
had been run at Epsom on a certaidn day,me
in
th,t 2 !3ocasion a horse called Attila had
on ,'411(1 a horse called Robert de Gorham second,° went_
to to state that a horse named Canadian had been entered
th rhn for the Derby, but had been withdrawn before
purchasere as run ; that the plaintiff had become the
tared ,of such horse after the horse had been en-
that a°r the race, and before he had been withdrawn ;
. "-(11e dtellceltlaatiirr was a member of the Jockey Club.
son , after explaining the meaning. of a per-
Ise:betting 1,000 to' 1, or to 3, against a horse,
-'lhut the libel which had appeared 'in defendant's
'iN,v7aPer, pul)lished on the. Sunday after the races.
ilia(' l'aAr,agraph complained .of was headed " the Cana-
then 1.11.jr." (The Learned Gentleman here rea
• the l„e', which stated that the writer trusted
as n, Caution doings at Epsom would .operate
a rii,-11-1(r1,11 te to honest betters, since they found that
Horsethe '"'gh rank would bet thousands against a
Purchase him, and withdraw him just beforea
Sion race' that Canadian had, on some previousoccnd
)y.,, given Robert de Gorham a lumping weighta
...stp. him, but that, since then, Canadian had been
fir that a lame excuse was better than none,
. lt,‘vithdrawing a horse the day before a, race ;
1,. and
lle p
ar araph concluded with these questions,
'Canadian lame when he entered the van? was he lame
NI ben
-he came out of the van at Epsom." The Court
oWould perceive that no name was mentioned through-
t‘tlle libel.
.A.t the tria it was proved that Mr.

Greville had betted against the horse ; that he had
afterward purchased the horse ; that the horse had
been sent in a van from Winchestor to Epsom, for
the purpose of running at the race ; that the horse
had fallen lame, and that he had been withdrawn, on
account of his lameness. Evidence had been given as
to the lameness of the horse. Now the libel imputed to
Mr. Greville that he acted dishonourably as regarded
the bets on the horse, not that he had acted dishon-
ourably in merely withdrawing him; there was no-
thing dishonourable in the mere act of withdrawing
the horse ; all that could possibly happen would be
that he would lose his chance of winning
the stakes. It was proved at the trial that he
had a right to withdraw his horse by the rules
of the Jockey Club ; and that if he had
betted against the horse and subsequently withdrew
him, he would, according to the rules of the Jockey
Club, be entitled to receive those bets. How, then,
could it be contended that the paragraph complained
of was a libel ? He had a full right not to run his
horse if he chose to withdraw him. But it had been
said that the withdrawing a horse under such circum-
stances was a dishonourable act, and on that point
he should presently contend that evidence had been
received by the Court which was not properly receiv-
able. Now he (the Solicitor-General) contended that
the action was untenable. The whole transaction was
an illegal one, and having embarked in an illegal tran-
saction, by betting at a horse-race, he had no right to
come to a court of justice to complain of any imputa-
tion cast upon him for his conduct in the course of
such illegal transaction. By the Act of 18 Geo. 11.,
sec. 11, horse-racing itself was rendered legal, but
Acts 16 Car. 11., cap. 2 sec. 3., 9 Anne, cap. 14, sec. 5,
and 18 Geo. 11., cap. 34., sec. 8, all decided that bet-
ting was illegal. In the case of Shillito and Beale, 7
Bingham, page 405, the Court had held that a horse-
race was legal, but that to bet on a horse-race was
illegal. In this case Mr. Greville betted large sums
against the horse ; the gist of the libel was, that it
imputed to Mr. Greville dishonourable conduct in
withdrawing his horse. Now, there wasnothing disho-
nourable in withdrawing the horse, and no action would
lie for any imputation on him in regard to his conduct,
in betting, inasmuch as that was an illegal transaction,
and it was the policy of the Court that all persons
engaged in illegal transactions should have no locus
standi in a Court of Justice, to complain of any mat-
ters relating to such illegal transactions.—(The
Learned Gentleman quoted several cases in support of
this position.) With regard to the admission of evi-
dence as to the withdrawal of a horse, being dis-
hourable, Lord John Fitzroy, one of the
witnesses after stating the rule of the Jockey
Club, had been asked by Mr. Thesiger for the
plaintiff, whether notwithstanding the rule, he should
not consider a person so withdrawing his horse as
having acted dishonourably. He (the Solicitor-Ge-
neral) for the defendant, had objected to the question,
but Lord Abinger decided that the question might be
put. He (the Solicitor-General) submitted that such
evidence ought not have been received. It was for a
Jury to form an opinion from the facts deposed to,
and witnesses ought only to depose to facts and not
to give opinions.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause on all the
points.—Application granted.

COMMON PLEAS.-(T HIS DAY.)

TIBBS V. BARON.

This was an action for work and labour done, the
plaintiff claiming of the defendant the sum of 1501.,
being for ten months' service, at. 101 per month ; but
the general sum of ten pounds, or one month's salary,
being only set out in the declaration as the damages
claimed. The case was tried in London, at the sit-
tings after last term, and the Jury found for the
plaintiff, 150/. ; but he could not enter up judgment
for a greater sum than was laid in the declaration,
without a special rule of Court.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD now applied for a rule to
amend the declaration, so as to give the plaintiff the
benefit of his verdict, which the Court at once granted.

BAIL COURT.-(T HIS DAY.)

BULL V. PARKER.

Mr. BYLES applied to the Court for an extension of
time to move in this case ; the motion was for a new
trial, and was to be made this morning, but the brief
in the case, and some others, were stolen, with his
outside coat, from his house that morning, and he
would not be prepared to move before Monday.
Mr. Justice PATTISON—You may be indulged
under the circumstances.—(Laughter.)

QUO WARRANTO.—THE QUEEN V. JONES.
Mr. BUTT applied to the Court on behalf of several
of the Magistrates of the county of Glamorgan for a
quo warranto against Evan Jones, Portreeve of the
borough of Neath, for assuming to give a license for
an inn and ale-house, called the Cross Keys, to a per-
son called David Thomas. The borough being too
small to be included in the provisions of the Munici-
pal Act, was governed by a Portreeve and Alderman,
and burgesses. Thomas applied seven or eight years
ago for a license to the Magistrates of the county,
which they refused, and a similar application, which
was made to them on the 2d of September, was
also refused, on the ground that the house was
not wanted, and was not of such a descrip-
tion as to call on them to grant a license,
The next day they went to Evans, the Portreeve, and
to Williams, the Alderman, who were working men,
and obtained the license from them. They did not
state that the Cross Keys was part of the borough, but
only that it was within the parish of Neath.
- Mr. Justice PArrESON—It would appear that the
license is altogether void, for they acted as Magistrates
of the county.
Mr. BUTT—They assumed that the Cross Keys
was within their jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—I think the proper course
to take would be to apply for a criminal application,
properly so called, but you may take a rule in the first
instance.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.

TINDAL .5.78 D ANOTHER V. BELL AND ANOTIIER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs for
injuries done to a vessel of theirs by a collision in
the British Channel with a vessel the property of the
defendants. The case had been tried before Mr. Jus-
tice Wightman at the last assizes at Bristol, and a
verdict was found for the plaintiffs in the sum of 256/.
for the damage they had sustained.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS now applied for a rule to
show cause why this verdict should not be increased by
a further sum of 1241. It appeared that after the colli-
sion the Captain of the plaintiffs' vessel found it necessary
to employ a steam-tug to tow her up to Bristol. For
this service the master of the tug claimed salvage of
160/. To this claim the plaintiffs objected as unrea-
sonable, but offered 201., which was more than the
usual amount of hiring. The case was brought before
the Court of Admiralty, who awarded the proprietor
of the steam, tug a salvage of 45/. The legal expenses
incurred by the plaintiffs in taking the case before the
Admiralty amounted to 1241.; and this was the sum
which the Learned Sergeant sought to have added to
that previously awarded by the Jury. The expense
thus incurred, he contended,,was fairly chargeable on
the defendants, as the exorbitant claim of the proprie-
tor of the steam-tug had been resisted for their bene-
fit, inasmuch as they would have been chargeable with
the amount.
The COURT immediately granted the rule.