The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. THE BISHOP OF CHESTER.

In Hilary Term last, a rule was granted by the court,
calling on the Bishop of Chester to show cause why a
writ of mandamus should not issue, commanding him to
assign two pews in the new church at Blackley, in the
parish of Manchester, to Mr. Thomas Travis. Mr.
Travis claimed the pews in question in lieu of two pews
which he alleged that he was entitled to by prescription in
the old chapel of Blackleg, now pulled down, and he sup-
ported his claim by affidavit that the new church was
erected on nearly the same site as the old chapel. The
court said the question of prescription could only arise
where the new church was on precisely the same site as
the old one; and, looking at Mr. Travis' affidavit alone,
without reference to those filed on the part of the bishop
in answer, that fact was not established, but, on the con-
trary, it was sworn that the church was built on nearly
the same site, an expression so ambiguous as to deprive
Mr. Travis of any right to be heard, and therefore that
the rule must be discharged with costs.—Rule discharged
with costs.

ROLLS' COURT-WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10.

RYVES r. THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON

The bill in this case was filed by Lavinia Jannette Hor-
ton Ryves, the wife of Anthony Ryves, claiming, under a
will of his Majesty George I 11., da'ed the 2nd of June,
1774, a legacy or sum of £15,000, bequeathed to the
Princess Olive, the daughter of Henry Frederick Duke of
Cumberland. To this bill the Duke of Wellington, as
the executor of his late Majesty George IV., who took
possession of the assets of his father, put in a demurrer,
insisting that the claim was barred by the Statute of
Limitations, passed in the 3rd and 4th William VI., c. 27.
They also insisted that a petition of right ought to have
been presented to his Majesty George IV., in his life-
time, and that the plaintiff could not enforce a claim in
the absence of the personal repesentative of his Majesty
George 111.

14l r. Kindersley considered that the claim could not
have been enforced during the life of his Majesty George
IV. The petition of right was nothing more than act of
grace and favour, and the Crown could not be cited to
prove the will. He insisted, therefore, that the Statute
of Limitations did not apply in a case when there was no
person in existence who could be sued adversely.
Mr. Turner replied.
Lord Langdale postponed his judgment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.---FRIDAY.
(Sittings in Banco.)

WAT,STAD v. SPOTTISWOODE. RAILWAYS. IM-
PORTANT JUDGMENT.--The Lord Chief Baron pro-
nounced the judgment of the court on an action brought
by the plaintiff against the defendant as one of the pro-
visional committee on the Direct Birmingham and Oxford
Railway Company, to recover the sum of £7B 15., the
amount of deposit paid for shares allotted to the plaintiff
in that company. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit.
The jury returned a verdict in her favour, subject to the
opinion of the court above as to some of the pleas. A
rule had been granted for a new trial, or to show cause
why a nonsuit should not be entered. Cause had been
shown against it, and the rule fully argued, and he (the
Chief Baron) had now to state that on the second count,
namely, for money had and received, the judgment of the
court was in favour of the plaintiff. It appeared that the
company failed before any scrip was is-ued. and therefore
the answer of the secretary on that point was sufficient
and proper evidence to go to the jury. The jury found
that the company was at an end, and the court were of
opinion that ;was a proper finding. There was another
question raised—viz., whether the company were entitled
to a claim of 2s. 6d. per share for expenses. Now, the
provisional committee stated that it was intended to raise
a company for a specific purpose, but if their scheme was
not carried into execution, no such claim as set up could
be maintained, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to
recover on that point also. The judgment of the court

June 16, 1846.

was in favour of the plaintiff on the second count, and
therefore there would be no new trial.

The effect of this judgment establishes the right of the
allottee (the plaintiff) to recover the full amount of
deposit.

COULTAS v. BOWES CLERK.—On Friday, in the Court
of Common Pleas, Mr. Sergt. Talfourd showed cause in
this notorious case against the rule nisi for a new trial,
but the Court, after haring him, decided upon granting a
rule for another trial.
—_ -

An attorney has just been discharged from custody cy
order of Mr. Justice Wightman, on the ground that when
arrested he was discharging his duty to certain clients in
the Gloucester county court. The learned judge said the
privilege claimed was not for himself, but his clients.
NORTH WALES CIRCUIT.—(Before Lord Denman.)—
Montgomeryshire, Monday, July 13, at Newtown ; Me-
rionethshire, Thursday, July 16th, at Dolgelly ; Carnar-
vonshire, Saturday, July 18, at Carnarvon ; Anglesey,
Wednesday, July 22, at Beaumaris ; Denbighshire, Sa-
turday, July 25, at Ruthin ; Flintshire, Wednesday, July
29, at Mold ; Cheshire, Saturday, August 1, at the Castle,
Chester; Chester and City, the same day, at Chester.
IMPORTANT DECISION : A THREE-POUND WEIGHT
ILLEGAL.—Mr. Maude, the stipendiary magistrate of the
Manchester Borough Court, reputed a very able lawyer,
has decided that inspectors of weights and measures are
not legally bound to stamp three-pound weights. The
consideration of the subject arose on a summons at the
suit of certain shopkeepers against Mr. Mellor, inspector
of weights and measures, at Manchester, for an alleged of-
fence, under the statute of the sth and 6th Wm. IV., cap.
63, sec. 29, as being guilty of a breach of duty in refusing
to stamp a three-pound weight tendered to him for that
purpose. On Wednesday Mr. Maude delivered judg-
ment, showing that, according to his interpretation of the
acts of Parliament, the legislature had intended that
weights which were copies of the model or standard
weights should alone be used, and that to the verification
of such weights the inspectors should be restricted. In
reply to a question from Mr. Harding, who appeared for
the complainants, Mr. Maude said, " I have decided that,
in my opinion, the inspector is not authorised to stamp
any weights of which he has not, for such weight, brought
to him a copy. Therefore, of course, the result of that is,
that there is no conviction of Mr. Mellor for breach of
duty." It appeared from what subsequently fell from
higherNlr.
iant
oarnd
ear ptpheaa w
tl t
heilquestion l
upersotbi
oanb b
my
aye
be madedec
decided
da
without possibility of cavil.