The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, July 30.1
(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR and tho MASTER OF TrIZ ROL! 3.)
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUITORS,
This case came on again to-day pursuant to appointment, upon
the ; etition of thirty-two solicitors of the Court, complaining of
the course pursued in the office of Master Lynch by his chief clerk,
and praying that the Court would direct inquiry into the subject,
and if it should think necessary, that it would remove the chief
clerk from his office. The petition. which wit have already given
at length, among other things stated :
" That in the month of December, 1843, Andrew Henry Lynch,
Eiq. , one of the said Masters in Ordinary, appointed Thomas
Whiting, who had then been copying or junior clerk in the office
of another of the said Masters for more than ten years, to be chief
clerk of him the said Master Lynch, and in the month of June,
1844, the Lord Chancellor was pleased to order that the salary of
one thousand pounds, provided for persons filling the said office of
chief clerk, should be paid to the said Thomas Whiting, since
which time the said Thomas Whiting has annually received such

salary.
"'That notwithstanding such appointment of the said Thomas
Whiting, and such receipt by him of the said salary, he has never
performed, or in any imnfier attempted to perform, and does not
now perform, the important duties belonging to the said office of
chief clerk to the said Master Lynch, but that such duties have
been ever since his said appointment performed by, and the same
are now continuing to be performed by, Edward Wright, the junior
or copying clerk in the said office of the said Master Lynch, who
is not himself qualified, according to law, for the office of such
chief clerk, and by such means the duties of chief clerk to the
said Master Lynch are, in fact, performed by a deputy and an un
qualified person. And the said Thomas Whiting has evor since
his said appointment performed the duties of copying or junior
clerk, and no other duties, in the said office of the said Master
Lynch, and the petitioners believe that the said Thomas Whiting
is, in fact, incompetent to discharge the duties of chief clerk to the

said Master.
" That the petitioners are advised, and humbly submit to the
Lord Chancellor, that an office of so much trust and importance
as that of chief clerk to one of the said Masters ought not to be
executed by deputy, and that to permit the same to be so executed
would be establishing a principle injurious to the interests of the
suitors of this Court, and contrary to the true intent and meaning
of the said Act of Parliament, and would have the effect of de.
priving the said suitors of the security intended to be given to them
by the said Act for the performance of the duties of the said office
by persons possessing the experience and legal attainment indispen.
sable fur the efficient discharge thereof; and the petitioners, in
their character of solicitors of this Honourable Court, and also as
representing the interests of the suitors of this Honourable Court
confided to their care, feel aggrieved by the premises."
Mr. ROMSLLY, with whom was Mr. R. PALNIER, appeared on
behalf of the petitioners, and contended at considerable length
that from the time of Richard 11. to the present, the clerks of the
Masters, and the Masters themselves, were under the control and
jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and that the Act of William
IV. did not remove that jurisdiction. By that Act it was, among
other things, enacted tnat no person should be appointed to be chief
clerk of any Master in Ordinary of this Honourable Court unless
he ►hould have been admitted on the roll of solicitors or attorneys
in one of the Courts of Westminster Hall, for not less than five
years, or should have been a junior clerk in the office of one of the
said Masters for a term of ten years. Now, it was clear by that
clause that the Master was forbidden to appoint any person to the
office unless he should have been a solicitor for five years, or a
junior clerk in the office of one of the Masters for ten years; and
by the 21st section it was clear that the duties of chief clerk could
not be performed by deputy. That was also clearly proved by a

great number of authorities.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that he did not understand
it was contended on the other side that the duties could be
performed by deputy, but what was said was, that the Master had a
right to allot the duties as he thought proper among his different

Pieria.
Mr. Ron mut' admitted that, but denied that the office o
chief clerk could be' performed by the junior clerk. It perhaps
might be convenient that he should now state what sort of order
they proposed to ask. It W 33 intended to ask the Court to direct a
reference to the three senior Masters of the Court of Chancery, to
inquire into the practice of the chief clerk's office in the particular
circumstances of the present case They proposed he should make
an order that the three senior Masters should report what were
the duties performed by the chief clerk, and what duties were per.
formed by Mr. Wright, and also to inquire under what circum-
stances the office of chief and junior clerk were held in the office
of Master Lynch, and to state special circumstances.
The l'iliseea of the RotLs—What ultimate order do you ask!
Mr. ROMILLY—That no person should be permitted to perform
the duties but the chief clerk, and that if it was shown that he was
not competent, then that the office should be declared vacant. He
did not propose that the Court should do anything in the first
instance.
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired by what tenure the chief clerk
held his office ?
Mr. RC:WILLY observed that that was not stated. There could
be no doubt that in the present instance there was some arrange-
ment between the senior and junior clerk. It was clear that Mr.
Wright, who performed the duties of chief clerk, was not qualified,
but that he would be in two years and a half.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if it was suggested that Mr.
Wright was to have the office at the termination of the two years
and a half?
Mr. Rostmcv—Nothing of the sort ; it was clear, however, that
some arrangement existed, and the Master himself also appeared
to take part in it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I suppose the Master takes that species
of interest which will show to the Court that he is correct.
Mr. Romn.Lv said that was a matter that it behoved the Court
to inquire into.
The Loan CitasteeLLoa was in hopes that it was unnecessary to
go further into that part of the case, as he felt convinced that, upon
any intimation from the Court of its opinion, Master Lynch would
act upon it.
Mr. STUART observed that nothing could be said against the
course pursued by Master Lynch, and he was sure that any sug-
gestion of the Court would be instantly adopted by him.
Mr. ROAIILLY would not press this part of the case further. The
Learned Counsel then contended he was entitled to the order he
eels ed. The petitioners, he could assure the Court, had most un-
willingly brought this matter forward, hoping that some legislative
c.-tactment would have taken place upon the subject. His instruc-
tion s were to avoid as much as possible anything like personal ob-
serva,lons upon any one. As to Master Lynch, he was sure all
he had ,lone was bona fide and with the best intentions.
The LoWD CHANCELLOR said that no person had ever performed
the duties Master snore eff,ctively than Master Lynch.
!qr. R. pat,aser followed on the same side as Mr. Romilly.
Mr. STUART .`Ppeptred for Master Lynch, who had been served
with a copy of the petition, and said the charges contained in it were
grave ones, if they were proved to be well founded. He had been
charged with appoini`i3le a person to the office of thief clerk in
his office who was in.' mpetent to perform the office, and that
he had allowed another individual to perform the duty who
was legally disqualified. 'Those were grave charges. He denied
tLe whole of that cha.rge in the petition on the behalf
of Master Lynch, and asserted that nothing was more
calculated to lower the character of the profession of the
law, and the officers by whom it was administered, than
to present petitions containing allegations that had no
foundation in fact. On the part e, f Master Lynch, he contended,
that he had full power to discharge a:I the clerks in his office when-
ever he pleased ; and that there was co foundation whatever for
the statement that had been made on the other side,
that the Master could not discharge his chief clerk. The
Master held his office by the appointment of the Mi-
nister of the day, and the Master's chief clerk held
his by the appointment of the Master. No authority had been
brought before the Court in support of that proposition, that tended
to exalt the office of chief clerk of the Master into a judicial
office. The Learned Counsel then proceeded, at con.
siderable length, to contend that the allegations in the
petition that Mr. Whiting was incompetent to perform the
duties were wholly unfounded,' and that the Master
had the right to apportion the duties of the clerks in his office as
he thought right, and he had an absolute discretion on the subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was most important that the
Court should know what were the duties performed by Mr.
Whiting.
Mr. STUART said that he performed the duties allotted to him
by the Master. He had a second affidavit, filed by Mr. Whiting,
in which he stated the duties that he performed.
Mr. Rommcv observed that that affidavit had but just been filed,
and he understood it had been made in consequence of something
that fell from the Court in the course of the morning.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know whether Mr. Romilly
desired to answer the affidavit P
Mr. Romitax observed that some of the duties stated in the
affidavit to be performed by Mr. Whiting were the duties of chief
clerk ; he would prefer therefore that the matter should go on.
Mr. STUART then proceeded. It was admitted that the duties
were excellently well performed, but it was said that one of the
duties that ought to be performed by Mr. Whiting was performed
by Mr. Wright. Now was that, he would ask, any ground for
presenting the present petition, containing the absurd and improper
allegations it did, and bringing forward Master Lynch before the
Court as a criminal, bound to answer these allegations ? As to
the inquiry it was proposed to make before the three senior
Masters of the Court, he contended that no ground had been
shown for that inquiry. He denied altogether any irregularity in
the office of Master Lynch, for if there was he would not be en•
titled to that high character which all accorded to him. He asked
the Court, therefore, to dismiss the petition in justice to Master
Lynch, and in justice also to the suitors. All the charges made
in the petition had been disproved, and were totally unsupported by
evidence. If such petitions were sanctioned by the Court, they
would greatly deteriorate the office of the Masters, and tend to
defeat the award of justice to the suitors.
The arguments not being concluded at the rising of the Court,
the further consideration of the case was adjourned sine die.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not go on with the case
to-morrow, as other business stood for disposal. His Lordship had
intended to have closed his sittings to-morrow, but as the Master
of the Rolls had been good enough to say, if the parties wished to
go on with the case he would attend another day, he (the Lord
Chancellor) would consider in the course of to-morrow which day
could be appointed. The regular business of the Court, hewevcr,
would terminate to morrow.
Mr. Campbell has to follow Mr. Stuart on behalf of Master
Lynch Mr. James Parker and a gentleman behind the bar have to
tie heard for Mr. Whiting; Mr. Romilly will have to reply ; and
the great probability is that the arguments will be resumed in Mi-
chaelmas term.
The LORD Cu itarcELLoa, before he rose, stated that after the
House of Lords was prorogued, he would hear any cases that
pressed in his private room.

SECONDARIES' COURT, July 30.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAML.)
110VG11 V. DIiNGATE.

Love, Law, AND filvsic.—The plaintiffs in this case are
coffee. house keepers, in the Waterloo-road, and the defendant a
chemist and druggist in the same place.
Mr. CROUCH appeared for the plaintiffs. He said that they were
single women, and kept a coffee-shop called the Phrenological
Coffee-house, which was frequented by the defendant, and in the
course of two years ran up a score of 81. There was also a charge
for a phrenological bust, the defendant, no doubt, wishing to study
the science, and discover where the " bump" of " confidence" was
situate, and whether it was developed to any great extent in the
plaintiffs. The defendant had made a set-off against the rump steaks
and mutton chops, of medicines. The bill appeared to him t) be one of
the most impudent which could have been concocted, and consisted
of almost every article which a chemist and druggist's shop could con-
tain, and it really appeared as though he had copied the catalogue
throughout. The following were a few of the items :—Salts,
senna, herbs, castor oil, pills, lozenges, honey, borax, lip.salve, lina-
ments, lotions, plasters, gargles, jalap, sulphur, and pills in a great
variety. There were " night" pills and "steel" pills at tour shil-
lings a box. He supposed they were required to line the patients
inside, or they could not by any possibility have survived such a
drenching and bolusing. The bill had, by these charges, been
raised to 111. 4s. 5d

The witnesses for the plaintiffs proved that the dinners, &c.,
were supplied, and as to the physic, they positively denied having
had it—they would have beep afraid to take any pills from him,
and consii:ered him such a simple man that he could not make up
any thing.
For the defendant it was shown that he had advanced a large sum
of money to plaintiff's mother and brother, and that the elder
plaintiff hid signed an " I 0 U" as security, and that a set.
tletnent was come to that the whole amount should be paid
at IL 6s. pet month, but at that time no notice was taken of the
present demand as a claim, but that it was mentioned as a proof of
the intimacy and used as an argument to show that the defendant
was i.nder obligations, and ought mot to be so urgent for the settle-
ment. The delivery of some medicine was proved.
Mr. Caoucm, i❑ reply, contended that there had been a little love
affair between the parties, but that defendant was a mere cupboard
lover He also urged that the bill for medicine could not be
maintained, for physic was not taken in partnership.—(Laughter.)
Verdict for the plaintiffs for the fell amount.

ASSIZE TINTTELLIGENCE.
HOME CMG' U.l7l—Lewes, July 30.
CROWN COU RT—( Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)
John Swinard, 23, was indicted for bugiariously and
sacrilegiously breaking into a certain chapel, called St.
Leonard's Chapel, in the borough of Hastings, and steal-
ing therefrom a quart of wine, some silver monies, and
other articles, the property of the Rev. Charles William
Leslie.
The prisoner pleaded guilty en Thursday to the charge
and the circumstances of the case appear to be of a most
extraordinary character.
It aepeared that on the 21st March, in the present
year, a lady of colour, the wife of a gentleman of fortune
residing at Hastings, was interred in a vault under some
pews on the east side of the chapel in question, and it
seems that a rumour had got abroad that a quantity of
valuable jewels and other costly articles had been
buried in her coffin. The chapel was left safely secured
on the night of the 24:h March, but on the sexton going
the next morning a most extraordinary scene pre-
sented itself. The hassocks that were in the chapel had
been pull-el to pieces, the coverings and cushions had
been torn off the pews, and the vault in which the body
had been deposited was foul,:d to have been forcibly opened.
Upon going into the vault it was found that the
lids of the leaden and wooden coffin had been
wrenched off and broken to pieces. The body had
been lifted up, and a pillow placed over the face of the
corpse. Ttai, clothes were pulled up and turned over the
middle, and the person of the deceased exposed. The
remainder of the appearances that were observed are not
of a nature to be detailed, and it will be sufficient to
state that the conduct of the depredators appeared to
have been of a most d'sgusting character. The head-
dress of the deceased, which was a shawl, edged with
lace, was totn from her, and rent in pi, ces, and was
found lying outside the vault. The prisoner Swinard, it
would appear, was taken into custody with one or two
other persons shortly afterwards, and when before the
magistrates he made a statement admitting that he
and another person who was committed with him for
trial, were guilty of the effence. The Grand Jury,
however, as there was no evidence to corroborate his
testimony, ignored the bill against the other prisoner,
and Swinard was therefore the only person charged.
From his confession it appeared that he had heard that
the " black lady" was buried in her jewels, and a silver
crown and watch, and all the jewels she had got ; and on
the Sunday before the chapel was broken open, he saw
the other prisoner, and they talked about this matter, and
eventually agreed to try if they could not break open the
lady's coffin, and steal the valuables they expected to
find there, and they made arrangements for that pur-
pose ; and on the night the robbery was committed
they proceeded to the chapel, taking with them a pick-
axe and two crow-bars. They got to the chapel about
twelve o'clock at night, and having clambered over
the wall, they proceeded to the side door, and after
some trouble they succeeded in forcing it open, and
made their way into the chapel. 'flit y first pulled down
the boxes that were fastened against the walls to
receive contributions from the congregation, and took
out the money that was in them and divided it, and
then went to look for the grave of the black lady. They
pulled up the boards under several pews, but for some
time they
.were unable to discover the vault, but at
length, seeing some new nails, it gave them a clue to the
spot, and they forced up the entrance into the vault and
jumped in. Before this they had lighted a candle they
found in the chapel, with some lucifers they had brought
with them ; and by the aid of its light they searched
about for the coffin, and having found it, they forced off
the wooden lid and the leaden one, and got to the
corpse. They then searched the coffin for valuables, but
did not discover any, and upon this, according to his state-
ment, they were very sorry for what they had done.
The prisoner then described the beastly acts that were
committed in the chapel, and which are alluded to above.
The prisoner, when arraigned, as is before stated,
pleaded Guilty, and
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL sentenced him to be trans-
ported for fourteen years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
Richard Jarvis, the bank clerk, who was pursued to
France by John Forres. er, the officer, upon a warrant,
charging him with having stolen an Exchequer-bill for
200/., the property of the Governor and Company of
the Bank of England, wa; brought before the Lord
Mayor for final examination.
Mr. Weir, of the house of Freshfield and Co., soli-
citors to the Bank of England, attended for the Bank,
and Mr. Nobler appeared for the prisoner.
The following evidence was added to that which was
reported upon the former examination.
Mr. John Tilbury, one of the cashiers of the Bank of
England, stated that he kept the book called the journal
for Exchequer Bills in the Treasury-office at the es-
tablishment. That book contained an account of all the
securities paid into the Bank on the Ist of April, but
there was not in it any entry of any Exchequer-bill for
that day, of the amount of 2001., neither had the pri-
soner paid in that sum on that day. It was witness's
duty to make up the daily total of Exchequer. bills, and
the total on that day did not comprehend the 2001.
Exchequer-bill. The totals of the Exchequer-bills
deposited every day were compared every Saturday, and
on the Saturday following the Ist of April, witness
found, upon examining the totals with the previous, that
they agreed, but, if credit had been given for the Ex-
chequer-bill in question, in the prisoner's book, they
should not have agreed, to the amount of that bill.
Mr. George Grosvenor, clerk in the bill-office of the
Bank of EnOand, produced the Bill-office Journai. It
contained an entry in the prisoner's hand-writing of a
200!. Exchequer-bill, to the credit of Alexander Wilson
(the bill in question), but in the totals book that sum
did not appear. Both of the books were in the prisoner's
hand-writing.
Mr. llobler cross-examined the witnesses, but their
testimony remained unimpaired.
Mr. Weir having stated that the case was completed,
The LORD MAYOR desired to' know whether the soli-
citor to the prisoner had any answer to make to the
statement.
Mr. Hobler—l have no answer to make here. What-
ever answer I make shall be made in another place, if
your Lordship should determine to send it elsewhere.
The prisoner was then committed for trial.
The unfortunate man seemed to labour under severe
illness ; and his character and habits having been known
to have been, up to the time of this charge, irre-
proachable, was an object of general commiseration.
John Davis, a seaman, was charged upon the follow-
ing occasion :—A policeman stated that he heard a band
of music on Tower-hill, and upon going to the place
saw the prisoner pulling about a girl, who was endea-
vouring to get away from him. The prisoner had at
the time a pistol. in his hand, and witness heard the re-
port of it, and saw that a boy who stood near him was
wounded in the arm, The boy was taken to the hospi-
tal, where the injury he received was pronounced to be
dangerous.
The LORD MAYOR— Did the boy say anything as to
the person who committed the outrage ? Witness—lle
said the prisoner was one of the persons who were con-
cerned. A man named Radford afterwards came to the
station-house, and stated that he was the man who had
discharged the pistol.
The LORD MAYOR—And where is that man ? Wit-
ness—The inspector discharged him.
The LORD MAYOR—You say the man declared that
he was the person who fired the pistol? Witness—
Yes, my Lord. But the inspector refused to take the
confession as he was not seen to fire the pistol. He,
however, promised to attend here.
Radford then stepped forward from the crowd behind
the bar, and said he was the individual who had made
the confession.
The LORD MAYOR having directed that Radford
should be placed at the bar with the other prisoner,
asked him what he had to say? Radford—l was with
Davis on Tower-hill, and the band was playing up, and
we had a woman with us. Davis had a pistol in his
hand, and I laid hold of it without knowing whether it
was loaded or not, and off it went in my hand.
The LORD MAYOR—Let both prisoners be remanded
until the boy, if he should recover, be able to attend.
Davis lingered in the bar in the hope that bail would
be taken for his appearance, but
The Loi) MAYOR put an end to the expectation by
stating that the lives of people were not to be endan-
gered with impunity either in jest or in earnest.
The prisoners were remanded.
A boy named Thomas Brudenell, pot-boy to Mr.
Richards, of the Ship Tavern, Lime-street, was charged
with having robbed his employer.
Mr. Richards having had reason to suspect the
honesty of the prisoner, who had been in his employ-
ment about three months, he marked four shillings and
sixpence, and put the money in the till. The till was
in the bar, to which there was an inside door as well as
two outside doors, which witness locked every night
before he went to bed. On that morning he got up
at an early hour, sat on the cellar stairs, and soon heard
a noise in the bar. Upon going towards the bar he saw
the prisoner climbing ovac the top of the pair of doors,
and told him that be had been suspected for some time.
Ile replied, " Oh, Sir, I have taken but a few coppers,
and I hope you will forgive me." The prisoner then
took out of his pocket two shillings and twopence-half-
penny in copper, which had been all marked. There
was other property belonging to the prosecutor al.
found upon the prisoner.
A policeman stated that he found in the prisoner's
box some silver and copper, and brandy, screws of to-
bacco, &c., &c.
The prisoner—l am very sorry for it. I own to taking
the cigar. I have no father, and lam sorry tor it.
Committed for trial.

FREE TRADERS' CLAIMS.—The free trade corn.
mittee of this *owe have been enabled to send in about 200 new
claims Mr cosuaty votes, in South Lancashire, North Cheshire, and
the West Riding of Yorkshire. Of this number, 106 are for
South Lancashire, and the remainder for the other places. In
Manchester the new claims for South Lancashire, sent In through
the free trade committee, amount to more than one thousand!—.
Belton Free Press.
THE LATE FATAL DRAT ACCIDENT IN BETHNAL-
qes Ns.—Tuesday Mr. Baker held an inquest at the London Hos-
pital, on the body of David Roberts, aged forty, a labourer in the
employ of Messrs. Whitbread and Co., brewers. Particulars of this
case have already appeared. On Friday evening deceased was
riding on the shafts of a dray, which Robert Kirby, now in the
above hospital with a broken thigh, was driving along the Cam-
bridge-road, near one of the arches of the Eastern Counties Rail-
way. The noise of a down-train frightened the dray.horses, and
they started away. Deceased jumped off and, trying to stop the
horses, got entangled in the traces, was thrown down, and one of
the wheels passed over the upper pait of his body, causing injuries
of which he died in that hospital on Saturday last. Kirby was also
knocktd down, and his thigh fractured by the same accident. His
recovery is uncertain. Verdict, " Accidental death."
FAT AL STEAM EXPLoSitm— ftle-d,tv afti•rno,n
a man named Samuel Norcott, aged 45 years, an engineer's assis-
tant, expired in Guy' Hospital, from the effects of the severe in-
juries he had sustained by being scalded by the escape of steam on
board the Wasp, a Richmond steamer, under circumstances already
narrated in this journal.