The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-02-29 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

*—
BUNN V. LIND.—On. Tuesday, in the Court of Queen's
Bench, Mr. Bunn recovered £2,500 damages from Jenny
Lind, for breach of her contract to sing at Drury Lane.
The Commissioners of Stamps have stated that proxies
used at a general meeting of a charitable institution are
liable to a stamp duty of 30s.
VINCENT HIGGINS AND SONS V. DUNLOP WILSON.—
This case, in which it will be recollected the question was
" course of nost," has been on appeal in the House of
Lords. Their lordships, On
mi.:2ursday. confirmed the ver-
diet, in favour of the plaintiffs.
A weekly paper says, that the question M td the dtliAr•
mation of Dr. Hampden is to be carried by petition to the
&nue of Lords. Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Baddeley have
r--commended this course, as no appeal will lie from the
Court of Queen's Bench either to the Eschequer Chamber
or to the Priv Council on the present question.
The case of Pilbrow v. the Atmospheric Railway Com-
pany,—an action brought against the Earl of Besborough,
the Earl of Essex, and others, to recover £15,000 for the
exclusive use of a patent,--occupied the Court of Com-
mon Pleas on Monday and Tuesday. The defence was,
that the invention was useless, and Pilbrow knew it to- be
so at the time of the contract. Several scientific men
disparaged the invention, and Mr. Cooper, of King's
Co;lege, designated it " the egregious mistake of an in-
genious
man." The jury found for the defendants—
thereby pronouncing the invention useless.
Dr. Addams has been called on by the bar of the Civil
Court to apologize for some expressions derogatory to
them, which he used in the case of " Geils v. Geils, tried
in the Ecclesiastical Court. By the advice of his friends,
Dr. Addams disclaimed any idea of treating the bar ge-
nerally with disrespect, but he declared that the language
found fault with was provoked by the offensive language
of the opposite counsel, and that he considered himself
fully justified as far as regards them personally. The
apology was accepted, but the bar declared that the prac-
tice of an advocate drawing pleadings, allegations, &c.,
which had been practised by Dr. Addams, was unpro-
fessional.

L +Nv OF GARDENS.—Some parties, when leaving the
p!ae finding they could not remove the trees and shrubs,
have cut them down ; but they were actionable ; for the
law prohibits waste, with any malevolent intentions. The
decision Riven in the case of Buckland v. Butterfield es-
tablishes this point; for "a tenant is liable to pay for the
waste if he cuts down or destroys," &e. And it has also
been decided by Lord Denman; Mr.'lustice Littledale,
and Mr. Justice Parke, that-a tenant could not remove a
border of box, planted in the garden by himself, but that
it belonged to the landlord, in the absence of any agree-
ment made to the contrary. In the course of the argu-
ment, the counsel for the tenant asked, " Could not the
tenant retnoveflowerswhichhe had planted in the around ?"
Mr. Justice Littledale instantly said, " No." We think
all our floricultural readers will agree with us, that if this
is the law (which it undoubtedly is), the sooner the law
of tenant-right is altered the better.—From the Midland
Florist.

A LAWYER'S WILL.—It is an extraordinary circum-
stance that the Vice-Chancellor's Court, London, has
been occupied by a question arising out of the will of Sir
David Pollock, late Chief-Justice of Bombay ; and that
the subtlety to be solved was, whether the learned knight
intended to bequeath one-eighth or seven-eighths of his
estate to his six sons and one daughter. This ambiguity
the Vice-Chancellor solved by saying that the six sons
took one-eighth each, and not as was contended on the
other side; that they were to 'divide one-eighth amongst
them. The words of the will are these :—" And as to the
rest of my estate, my will is, thatt he same shall be divided
into eight parts, one of such to be the property and to be
paid over to my six sons, and one other such part shall
be paid to my daughter, Julia Louisa Pollock, on her
attaining her age of twenty-one years." The will clearly
says that the six sons were to have one part amongst
them, but Sir David no doubt meant that the six sons
should have six parts.