The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-27 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT—(TIIIS DAY).
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at "Westminster,
nrlind took appeal motions to-day.
THE BRISTOL CHARITIES.
This case came before his Lordship upon petition
ItNieg the confirmation of the Master's Report, finding
certain charities in the City of Bristol came under
the 7lst steam of the Municipal Act, and finding also
that the trustees of the other charities of Bristol would
°e proper persons to be trustees of the other charities.
rltieile LORD CHANCELLOR granted the prayer of the
"n, confirming the report of the Master.
WALKER V. FLETCHER.
tT his ease came before the Court upon two appeal Mo-.
Puns, the objeots of which were to discharge an order
°.flouticed by the Vice-Chancellor of England, by
ill 'ltch his Honour refused to dissolve an injunction -h
had granted restraining two of the defendants, Messrs e
ales, the coal merchants, from proceeding with an
wrlon-at-law' which they had instituted against the
La Miff', for the value of certain coals which had
lin lost at sea. From the statement of Mr. Richards,
-th () was in support of the application, it appeared that
fe plaintiffs Messrs. Walker and Co., were in and
ir„e7itals to 1841, the owners of a vessel calld The
• „."14er,: and Joseph Fletcher, one of the defendants
bas the registered owner of a vessel called the
The Hunter sailed in January 1841, from
nlou to Sunderland, and on the night of the 22d of
Tiat month, she came in collision D ith the Robert.
the
latter vessel sunk immediately, and the crew of
'le -Hunter abandoned her, she caught fire, and
t
bei a ely went down. On board the Robert were coals
;"ging to the defendants, the Messrs. Pope. In con-
(ll.lence of the collision having taken place, Joseph
an action
the registered owwr of the Robert, brought
411 action in the Court of Queen's Bench for the injury
ifled by the Robert against the plaintiffs. That action
aaS tried at the last Spring Assizes for Surrey, when
: verdict was entered by consent for the plaintiff
Fie as the owner of The Robert, and the damages
tire e m atestid at 5001. At the same Spring Assizes at
against the present plaintiff brought an action
r0;111st Fletcher, alleging that the Robert ran
the Hunter, and claiming damages for the
1;t 111 that action Fletcher was also successful, and
tQhe!'tned a verdict. Since then Messrs. Pope'had brought
t:Asuitill4l.:}ithiteeBtottiin°;j(nria: against the plaintiff for the value of the
and to restrain the proceedings in that ac-
snscotiilo,en had been granted which it was now
4ne arguments had not concluded when the Court rose.
THE NEW JUDGE.
in the course of the morning, Mr. Cresswell was sworn
on, lolf. his Lordship's private-room, as a Sergeant and
. the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Ills I WILSON V. TINDALL;
jrf, 4011DSHIP gave judgment in this case this an made made the following ordert—That on the first
Lacing of the case the Court, not thinking there had
doll a sufficient breach of the injunction to commit the
pose of ordered the case to stand over, for the pur-
re.,. Inspecting an affidavit from the defendant, since
iii:`"'ng which the Court considered the breach of the
i'Junction to be founded on mistake, and therefore now
eradve.red the defendant to pay the costs of this application,
thenlg it o_pen to the parties to make an application to
The
Lord Chancellor to have the injunction reversed.
`:l..clefendant. to be restrained, in the mean time, from
tionune,hinag_d tbheeencecobotaa-innteitd.oil candles for which the injunc-
w,:? Loßbsinp then proceeded to take motions, none of
"'ea possessed any features of public interest.
-
/710E-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the:VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
QUARRIER V. COLSON.
V:action
one came before the Court upon motion for an
to restrain the defendant, Captain Colson,
In Proceeding with an action which he had
Ought against the plaintiffs, the executors of the
sine Captain Tobin. It appeared that sometime
jill,ee Captain Colson and Captain Tobin met together at
Baden Baden that friendship sprung up between them,
Colson they travelleda thea Continent together, and that Capt.
V'3'soli advanced several sums to Capt. Tobin, for the
'srPose of paying his travelling expenses, and he had
o lent him money when they had been amusing them-
selves in
the gambling-houses on the Continent. On the
'`turn of these gentlemen to this country, they went
~hi accounts, and Captain Tobin gave his 1.0. U. to
'-aptain Colson for the amount due to him. That amount
had been stated variously, the plaintiffs submitting that it
ecadd not exceed 4751., while the defendant contended that
it was Sta. The plaintiffs submitted that inquiry ought
tiO take. place into the manner in which the debt had
been incurred, and offered to pay the 4751. into Court
iat consideration of obtaining the injunction ; on the
tither hand the defendant urged that the question was
"Ittirely one for a Court of Law.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted the injunction upon
"le terms of the plaintiff paying the 475/. into Court
vvithin ten days; if that was not done he should-refuse
the taotion with costs.
t, (Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
110/couß was engaged during the early part of the
"llng in hearing motions of no particular interest.

OLIVER v. LATIIAM.
The ar
.
meree eo t'ulents in this cause were resumed to-day, and
thall util'ul to the rising of the Court. The facts
appear «lien judgment is given.
oea (Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRA3I.)
tion of ihse °A any public interest came under the atten-
,ourt.

BEN'S
'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
This na QUEEN v. THE MAYOR OF LICHFIELD.
v,
:as a rule calling upon the defendant to sho 7
to hin,%''Y a writ of mandamus should not issue directed
eipail;' and commanding him to insert upon the muni-
-01 th urgess-roll of the Borough of Lichfield, the name
1\1; aplicant, George Alton.
the role annixoTort now appeared to show cause against
tisioesin. The application had been, made under the pro-
ships of the Ist Vic. ch. 78, sec: 4, and their Lord-
ei thnad held in former cases that they were to require
plea applicant to show that he was entitled to be
grant burgess-roll ; because if the rule was
151. e of
edi the Mor would be compelled to place the
tile appli ay
cant on the burgess-roll. The affidavit
atii4h a p.plicant stated that he had been for several years_
Pala ,abttant-householder of the borough ; that he had
nil 411.4. the rates made for the relief of the poor ; and
Act 4 burough-rates which under the provision of the
any tp,et Parliament had become payable by him in re-
r°1:81101 house or tenement. He also stated that he lii
r,rtlief°"ian alien, and had not received any parochial
ttp,„'/11118, or other public charity for a certain period.
Itniii,`,4tred that the Mayor, who now showed cause
revision the rule, was not the Mayor who presided at the
Ive41(t)1111,' but the present defendant believing that.
.the. re
11i c ° serious objections to the defendant's qualification
had thought, it right to oppose the motion.
hrst objection was made at the revision of the list,
that I,e 112-d then been duly 'objected to on the ground
that
e"ad been three years in arrear to a rate imposed
tthtip3`,lle Provisions of a local Act, the 46th Geo.
'it'hfield' for lighting paving, and watching the city of
rise The objection was' twice. heard before the
etise-Ors, and the majority were of opinion that the (b-
-ll the was fatal, and the present application. was now
()there
,nadir, of an appeal from that decision. The.
lag f,,Nection was, that the applicant had been receiv-
tiirctr several years relief out of the funds of a public.
that 4,°1 the town, called the 'Wakefield Charity ; and.
)rood" oection was made upon the affidavit of Dr. Har-
a dtone of the trustees of the charity. Now, with -
Core-
n'ne first objection, the 76th section of the Mu-
IN berp
oration Act provided that the party shall
apterllhayede to be placed on the burgess-roll, unless
p all such rates payable by him in re-
Iltitliti°l such premises. He submitted'that the rate in
Att, clu decidedly came within the provisions of the
the hat id at all events it must be- taken to be included in
tcihNugh rate. With regard to the second objec-
`se 4,-"ce. question would turn upon what amounted to
fund,'ell.ll,.t a alms or public charity from any borough
„ entri,„'le submitted that the charity, although no,tsine ed ,
to the charitable trustees of the borough,"
rough ,
ivithin the "meaning of the word " alms in the
had 11Aet5
"- Parliament, and it was shown that the applicant
sits(,etil for eleven years_ receiving relief from the cha-
„3el Ithe ground of his poverty. The Learned Coun-
r4-tieliulsdted by submitting that the objections he had
urged Prevail, and that the rule ought to be dis-
'
.Th
bb eCo
the c.lt'r was of opinion that the objections urged
tient Yearned Counsel against the rule were not suffi-
hnt tit ,i° justify them in discharging it. It was contended
they
le receiving
and the voter was disqualified tor non-payment of rates,
of alms or charitable relief. When
V,4,1 oried at the terms of the sixth section, the Court
b Pinion that they did not apply to cases like
it tlfdresn in either respect. In the first place,
lie not appear that' the rate for which the
Intailin.' Was in arrear, was a rate within the
g of the Act of Parliament. He was
reQuied to- Pay
poor-rates, and such other borough-
°f
ti;:s 'were directed to be aid under the provisions
"`ket• It would certainly appear as if there had
nut tit confusion in the wording of the clause,
ein,s:eY did not think, on viewing the whole of 'the
-Ile
the that they could extend its meaning to rates like
was under the consideration of the Court. The rate
net a Partial local rate, and its provisions -had
beenandoli extended to all parts of the borough,
• Inelit erefere, it could not be said that its non-pay-
tippii redered. a man disqualified. The relief which the
plibteant had received was also more of a private than a
knit e nature ; and further, was not " any pension or
woijntrusted to the trustees of the borough, " for. ith
it, appear that they had nothing whatever.to do.w!t
that the whole, therefore, the Court was of opinion
thes,"l.aPplicant was not disqualified under
.either of
iq othohJections, and his title being admitted to be good
ftb" er respects the rule fur a mandamus must be made
ate '
BA

IL couRT.—(THIS DAY.)
Isi„ ,„, THE TRIBE OF WILLIAMS.
Wulf iv illiarns, the Counsel, applied to Mr. Justice
1, . Williams,
on a point of practice in the case of W. dliam.ss
tn. e "jams, and grounded his application, which wa
named of a technical nature, on the affidavit of a witness
Williams.
xX PARTE THE COAL AND IRON COMPANY.
4Atr. ROEBUCK applied for a rule calling upon an attor-
ii
.3' of the Court to show cause why he should not de-
part up certain deeds and papers belonging to the Com-
","3', and why he should not answer certain matters
~(Intained in the affidavits. It appeared from the affidavits
at the party in question had been a Director of the
P'24lallY4 and had also acted as their solicitor on behalf
:),1 in
and his partner. The Shareholders had since
`4ollght Proper to employ another attorney, and he had