Star.
London, England, 1830-08-03 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF CHANCERY—(MONDAY).
RUNGATE V. GASCOTNE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-dry in this case.
The only point which the case involved for the decision of the Court
was a purely technical point of practice—namely, whether the de- j
fendant's plea of title to the property in question ought not to be
dismissed foe insufficiency, inasmuch as he had, by his plea, set up
a different title to the plaintiff's, whose title be took no notice of in
his plea, it being his duty to traverse that plea according to the prat.
tice of the Courts. His Lordship was of opinion that the defend.
ant's plea could not be sustained, and he should therefore 'overrule
it. confirming the judgment of the Vice. Chancellor, to which this
was:an appeal. He would not, however, give costs.
His Lordship was occupied the rest of the day with bankrupt
petitions of no public interest.
ROLLS COURT—MONDAY.
This was general petition day, before the Master of the Rolls.
ATTORNET.OZNIRAL V. WINCHISTER.
The object of this petition was to obtain a refaence to the Muter
for him to determine what proceedings should be adopted to protect
the interests of a charity to which the Corporation of Winchester is
a trustee. The charity in question was founded in the year 1030,
under the will of a person named Richard Budd, who bequeathed
a rent charge of 301. to the poor of Winchester. The land on which
this annuity was steured,was the manor of River,in Sussex, to which
Lord Egremont set up &claim, in opposition to the cbarity.A similar
line of conduct, in conformity with his Lordship's example, was
pursued by other individuals connected with the manor of River.
Under those circumstances the petition was filed. In addition to
a direction of law proceedings, it prayed that, until the question
at issue with Lord Egranont should have been decided, the super.
Sums funds of another charity, called that of St. Jobe, dub the
hands of the Corporation, should be applied to the purposes of
Budd's Charity.
The petition was granted.
IN RR Alit NAVIGATION.
In this case it appeared that, in conformity with the ptovisions
of the Act of Parliament under which it has been incorporated, the
Aire Navigation Company for 7001. a portion of land
from an individual named for the purposes of their canal.
They also agreed to build a bridge over the canal, connecting the
land on each side of it. This was commuted fora sum of 3001. to
be laid out in the purchase of other land which lay contiguous to
the vendee's estate. In the fulfilment of this compact, certain ex.
pence' beyond the 6001. were incurred, and the question in the case
was, whether these should fall on the Aire Company, or on Dobson.
According to the 29th clause of the Aire Company's Act, that body
is directed to pay all the cost and expenses of purchasing land for
those upon whose estates it should infringe.
Mr. TINNY, for the Company, in the present case, submitted
that this was not a ease contemplated by the Act, and that his clients
should only be deemed liable for the 6001. given in lieu of the bridge.
Mr. PRIRSERRON appeared on the other side.
His Howoun sold ise abseil coesidie the 7001. sad 5001. as one
sum given tor the vight Is the land. Part of this had been ex.
pendia...44n trbszshosee sf ceseigesps Lab. The expenses of this
upon the Company. The Act should be be.l

! neficially ccnstrued for those alto were compelled to leave their
land. " Vnu must, therefore, pay, Mr. Tingley ; and the Company
k SO rich :I at it don't signify any thing to them."

SIIEPUERD V. tiIIEPHERD.
• A respectable nonprofessional individual took occasion
in the course of the day to address the Court in reference
to this ca..r. He said that the plaintiff in it was a poor woman,
who had intrusted her cause to an attorney, to whom she
had. from time to time, advanced all the money, amounting
•to 6111. of which she was mistress. He gave her hopes eon-
, stantly that her case would be brought to a decision, and had
I mentioned to the speaker himself, last May, that the ease had
been set down for hearing, and would come on in a few days. He
i (the speaker), having suspected the truth of this statement,examined
the list at the Register's office. and found that the representations of
the attorney had been false. The consequence was, that the poor
woman's bill was dismissed, with costs, to the amount of 1201. and
she was thrown, by her own brother, the defendant in the case, into
prison. She had applied to several attorneys to investigate the cir-
cumstances of this transaction. but they had all refused to interfere.
Mr. Spence and Mr. Barber, of the bar, had told him (the speaker)
that, in their opinion, the plaintiff bad a good cause. Under
these circumstances he took the liberty of submitting the case to his
Honour's consideration.

His Howoun said that, as a man of sense, he (the individual)
must be aware that he was then pursuing a course quite incompatible
with justice, when he advanced such weighty charges against ano-
ther perron in his absence.
To this the individual answered that lie had in vain applied to
different attorneys, in order to bring the matter regularly before his
Honour, and a fund of 6001. in stock, which gave rise to the ques-
tion of law in the case, was in a few days to be made away with Ir.
retrievably.
His Horrourt said, he could not hear him then; he had very
good advice (alluding to Aleuts. Spence and Barber,) and should
pursue the course to which he should be directed.
Will your Honour grant an injunction ?
The Master of the Rolls would not hear any thing further.
ROBERT T. WALKER.

In this case his Honour gave judgment. There were two points
at issue: first, whether the share of a trust fund devised to a felon,
previous to the expiration of his term of transportation, should be
forfeited to the crown. This point his Honour decided in the af-
firmative. The second question was to this effect :—A fund com-
posed of personalty, and from the sale of realty, is divined in trust
for certain specific purposes. Some of these fail, was the surplus
en created to be taken from the realty alone, and so go to the heir at
law ? Ills llonour thought that the two species of funds from per.
sonalty and realty should contribute pro rata, and the proportions to
go accordingly to the personal representatives and heir at law.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

STAFFORD, JULY 31.
Imam v. wEsu.

This was an action of breach of promise of marriage. The de.
fendant, in and prior to the year 1828, was an assistant to Mr.
Birch, a medical man residing at Barton Underwood. The
plaintiff at that time was housemaid in Mr. Birch's service. The
defendant paid such marked attentions to her as to attract the notice
of Mr. Birch, who several times spoke to him on the subject. The
defendant declared his intention to marry the young woman, and
some time after he had quitted Mr. Birch's service he wrote a letter
to her, in which he expressed his determination of making her the
matron of his family. Some time after writing this letter, the de-
fendant fixed the time and place for the celebration of the wedding.
The defendant did not keep his appointment, but, without assigning
any reason. or offering any apology, broke off the engagement, and
afterwards married another person.
A witness said, she believed that since the defendant broke off
with the plaintiff, she bad got another sweetheart; but she was not
"positive sure."
Verdict for the plaintiff, Damages, Thirty Pounds.

DORCHESTER, Jvt.w SO.
Thomas Bowtiny, aged thirty-live years, was placed at the bar,
upon an indictment which charged him with having, on the 18th of
March last, assaulted Muter Jeffrey Foot, son of the Rev. Lundy
Foot, and put him in bodily fear, and then feloniously robbed him
of a pair of shoes and a little basket. The prosecutor, a boy about
ten years of age, of the most graceful behaviour, and full of intelli-
gence, deposed, that on the day laid in the indictment, be was walk-
ing towards his father's house at Longbred, carrying a little basket
of flowers in his hand, when the prisoner seized him, and presented
something like a pistol to his head, and threatened to murder him
if he made any resistance. The prisoner then took his little gloves,
and wrist-muffs, and shoes, and was in the act of stripping off his
coat when he was alarmed by the noise of a cart coming in that
direction, which induced him to go away.
The prisoner was found guilty.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT-MONDAY.

James Coombes, whose case was originally heard in March last,
and adjourned, was brought up for judgment.
It appears that the insolvent, who had been in business as a
saddler, some time back disposed of all his stock in trade, • con.
siderable part of which he handed over to his nephew, with a
view of raising money to take him and his family to the new settle.
ment at Swan River, whither the latter, consisting of a wife and
children, have actually sailed, without, perhaps knowing, from
the circumstance of their having been en board, why he had not
accompanied them in their voyage, which was only prevented by his
having been awkwardly arrested when the vessel was preparing to
get under weigh. The case was adjourned in order that the insol.
vent's nephew might give up the property. This, however, had
not been done, and the Court therefore sentenced the insolvent to
ten months imprisonment from the date of filing his petition.
William Francis, late of Brixton, Surrey, wheelwright, was
opposed by Mr. COOKE on behalf of Messrs. Thorpe.
Mr.Woonnorrn supported the insolvent. It appeared that he
owed three years' rent to the Rev. Shaw Brooke, of Eltham, in
Kent, for which he distrained the insolvent's property. The distress
bad been paid out by the insolvent's son and a person named Smith,
partly in money, and the remainder by a joint bill of exchange.
John Smith being called and examined, stated that he was a
'farmer living at Eichorn), in Kent. He recollects the distress put in
by the Rev. Mr. Brooke, on the insolvent's premises. He paid 361.
in part, and joined in a bill of exchange. He assisted the insolvent,
because things were bad at that time.
The CHIEF Commtssionza—Farming business I hope is
better now.

Witness—lt a ould be so if the landlords would lower their rents.
The CHIEF Constissinwart said that the landlord having made
a distress for three years' arrears of rent instead of one, after the
insolvent had been arrested at the suit of Messrs. Thorpe, he could
not support the levy,uoder the 31st section of the 7th Geo. IV, which
enacts, " That no distress or distresses for rent made and levied,
after the arrest or other commencement of the imprisonment of any
person who shall petition the said Court for his or her discharge
from such imprisonment, according to this act, upon the goods or cf.
feces of any such person, shall be available for more than one year's
rent accrued prior to the execution of the conveyance and assign.
meat of such person in pursuance of this act, but that the landlord,
or party so whom the lent shall be due, shall and may be a creditor
for the overplus of the rent due, and for which the distress shall not
be available, and entitled to all the provisions made for creditors by
this act."

Mr. COOKS observed, that the assigned' might bring an action.
Mr. WoonnorrE said, no improper motive couldbe attributed
to the Hey. Mr. Brooke.

The Cum'. Costurseroxin said, it was Imperative that the
reverend gentleman should be insetted in the insolvent's schedule as
a creditor, as he could not receive beyond one year's rent.
Mr. COMM said, it would be necessary to see the last receipt,
and prayed the Court to adjourn the case, and to order the attend-
ance of the reverend gentleman.
The Cum/. Coremisatoxza.—Let Mr. Brooke, °this attorney,
attend to explain this matter.
Richard Hooke, describing himself as a general merchant, was
opposed by 111 r. Nicholls, for Samuel Isaac Brie, a liamburgb
merchant, and other creditors, and Mr. Barry for Mr. Isaac
Elm.

Mr. Coma supported the insolvent.
The Catzr Commissioata, observing that the insolvent had
taken the benefit of the act in 1826, said that the onus was upon
Mr Cooke to show that the ihsolvent had bronght himself within
the 64th section of the act. . . .

Mr. Cooxe then proceeded to examine the insolvent sot to the
nature of his transactions subsequent to his former discharge, and
whether he had dealt in accommodation bills, when it appeared he
bad been a bankrupt, which fact not having been recorded upon the
petition, the order for hearing was dismissed, 'kith liberty to pe-
tition de nova