The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-18 00:00:00

HALL V. HALL.

Mr. BICICERSTETH proceeded with this part-heard mo-
tion, which was likely to occupy a considerable portion of
he day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
INIUNCTION.-ELLIS V. WEBBER.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL applied, at the sitting of the
Court, ex-parte, for an injunction to restrain the defendant
Webber from setting sail out of the port of Exeter, or any
other port in Great Britain or Ireland, to any place be-
yond the seas, in a ship called the Rose. In February,
1627, the plaintiff, Hannah Maria Ellis, became possessed
of 16 shares in the ship in question, and the defendant,
together with another gentleman, were entitled to the re-
maining shares. The defendant, Webber, acted as the ship
husband, and received and paid all charges. The vessel
had been several voyages, by which great profits had been
made ; of those profits he had rendered no accounts to the
plaintiff. Webber was about to sail another voyage in the
course of 10 days, and the plaintiff, considering herself to
have a lien on the ship in respect of the profits of her
shares, had resorted to the only means left her for the pro-
tection of her rights. Miss Ellis was not aware, till the
Ath of this month, of the intended sail of Webber, imme-
diately upon ascertaining which every diligence had been
used by her.
The VICE •CHANCELLOR, after some little hesitatiwn,
granted the injunction.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
THE KING V. 110DGYINSON.

This was an appeal under the Hawkers and Pedlars Act
The defendant had been in the habit of purchasing harm
or yeast at different times, and selling it at Nottingham to
such persons as were in want of it. He was convicted
by the Quarter Sessions. It was now contended, in sup-
port of the decision, that yeast was not included in the ex-
ceptions of the Act which were allowed to be so hawked.
The Court decided that the conviction of the Quarter
Sessions was improper.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Tim KING V. PETO.
Mr. Baron Boworn came into Court this morning,
and after hearing a few motions of course, he was joined
by the other Judges, when
Sir Cu As. WETHERELL resumed his argument in sup-
port of the objection to the jurisdiction of the Court raised
yesterday by the Solicitor-General. The Learned Coun-
sel after alluding to the enormous mass of affidavits and
pleadings, which he described as being sufficient to paper
every room in the Custom-house, not even excluding the
long one—said, he would draw their Lordships' attention
to what he considered the principal point in this import-
ant case, viz. the construction of the statute of Henry
Eighth. That statute certainly gave every facility of
defence to an individual sued be the Crown, but
it never intended to give two separate and distinct modes
of defence to the same cause of action. It was absurd to
suppose that a Crown debtor had one defence at law and
another at equity. When a party was sued he must at
once set up his defence, and if he can show any cause in
bar of such action, he is entitled to the benefit of it, but if
he fail in so doing, he has no right under the statute to
ap-
peal to the equitable jurisdiction of this Court.
Mr. KNIGHT.—If not under that statute, I shall be able
to show he has such a right.
Sir CHARLICS WyruaßELL—l am glad to hear you say
so, but I must deny it. Mr. Peto's Counsel now say,
oh, we have only failed in our legal defence, we don't
mind that, as we have an equity defence to make. If this
is a proper construction of the Statute, what becomes of the
most eminent lawyers that ever walked Westminster Hall?
Where is the value of the opinion of the Scarletts of former
day,—(Great laughter)—or Pepys and Knight, of the
present day? He was willing to acquit Mr. Peto of any
fraudulent neglect, he was willing to acquit him of any
neglect whatever, and suppose that he had, to the best of
his ability, performed his part of the contract in .1 most
honomrabie manner. He would eves go farther, and sup-
pose the falling down of the Custom-house was purely ac-
cidental, yet still he must contend that, under the terms
of the contract entered into by Mr. Peto, he was liable to
the Crown for the full penalty of the bond.
Mr. Baron VAEGIIAN—The only ground pleaded on the
trial by Mr. Peto in justification of breaking the contract,
by not driving the piles into a bed of gravel, was that
there was no bed of gravel to be found, which was nega-
tived by the evidence, and the Jury found on this issue for
the Crown.
Sir C. WETHERELL-Exactly so, me Lord, and the
present proceeding is One of the utmost importance to the
public, not as it regards this particular case, but if allowed,
it goes to introduce another practice in all cases where the
Crown is concerned, by letting in a new species of juris-
dictiota. The Crown would never be able to make any
judgment it obtained available. If this proposition is to
be supported, there is not a public officer, from a
Receiver-General down to the lowest officer who gives a
• bond, but what, it he should be sued for the penalty,
and a verdict given against him, would turn round
and say, why I have failed in my legal defence, but I have
a good defence at Equity, and will file a bill in the Court
of Exchequer against the Crown or against the Attorney-
' General. If, as he before said, this practice was to be
established, it would render all judgments obtained in a
Court of Law unavailable amd nugatory, and the Crown
debts must he continually locked up. The Lear ned Coun-