DIGESTED ItEl'Ottf OF LAW PROCEEDINGS.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
THE Arromeer-GENERAL v. Witsms.—The Lord Chancellor gave judgment in this ease, which related to the admission of certain persons to be trustees of the I lampstead Charity. Sir Thomas Wilson, the Lord of the Manor of Hampstead, claimed fines to the amount of 5,6001. on the admission of the trustees, and had instituted proceedings at law to enforce the payment of the money. An injunc- tion had been obtained in this Court to restrain him from continuina' the suit at law, and the present application was to dissolve that injunction. The Lord Chan- cellor now decided that the injunction ought to he dissolved, on condition that Sir Thomas Wilson should not sue out execution upon any judgment which he may obtain in the action at law, and subject to the future orders of this Court upon the question. (Nov. 21.) WELLESLEY V. Wettsster.—This was a motion to dissolve an injunction by which Mr. Long Wellesley, as tenant for life of the celebrated Wanstead estate,' was restrained from cutting down sonic ornamental timber at preient standing in Wanstead Park. Mr. Horne, in support of the motion,' contended that the in- junction ought to be dissolved, as the character of the grounds was entirely altered by the demolition of the noble mansion which had formerly stood there, and, as in fact there was no reason why any timber should' be retained for mere orna- ment, all the land basing been applied to agricultural purposes. The Solicitor- General opposed the motion, on the ground that the domain yet retained its ori- ginal character; that the park was walled round ; that there were yet two houses On the estate, which the timber in question ornamented; and that Mr. Wellesley, as tenant for life, had no right to the timber which served to adorn the residences of Sir Thomas Tompkins and Mr. Marsh, who both resided at Wanstead. The Lord chancellor took time to consider his judgment. His Lordship observed, at the beginning of the discussion, that he had been informed that the painful dis- sensions which had so long existed between the parties in this cause were finally concluded, as Mr. Wellesley had agreed in the appointment of the guardian who had been named by the Master. Mr. Horne, who has all along been counsel for Mr. Wellesley, said that he hoped and believed that all differences between the parties were arranged for ever. (Nov. 21.)
MeNuizamet v. HULLETT.—The occurrences out of which this proceeding arose, . have, under different names, occupied a very considerable portion of time in the Courts of Equity in this country, and have been often detailed at great length. The main facts of the present ease are very briefly these. In 1818, the French Government undertook to pay to the King of Spain a large sum of money, which the Spanish King transferred to the defendant for the satisfaction of such persons as may establish their claims upon time fund. The funnel itself was before distri- bution seized by the Cortes, who authorised the plaintiff on other accounts to draw upon the defendant bills to the amount of 80,0001. whichthe latter refused to accept. An action was commenced against him in consequence, and afterwards a bill filed ; to which the defendant pleaded, that it was not competent for any authority in Spain (consistently with the principles either of the general national law of Europe, or the particular municipal Constitutions of Spain) to alter the original destination of the fund. This plea was allowed by the Master of the Rolls, by whom the case was heard ; and from his judgment came the present appeal, The Lord Chancellor now decided, that the plea was bad in substance, as a law changing the destination of the fund in question had been passed by a competent legislative authority in Spain. To inquire into the propriety of an act of the Spanish Legislature, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery here; which could only carry into effect upon this subject the laws of Spain relating to the point, and which were actually in existence. The plea must therefore be disallowed. (Nov. 2-1.)
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
CARTER AND WIFE V. DRAPER AND LEE.—Mr. Horne, in proceeding to state the plaintiff's case, complained that it had been represented in the newspapers, that the question in this case was who should be found entitled to the one-eighth of two third,' of 51. The learned gentleman did not say that this statement was arithmetically incorrect—only that it was an uncandid way of representing the merits of the case. Mr. Solicitor-General, who conducted the defence, made a regular calculation, from which it appeared, that the personal estate which was to be administered by the High Court of Chancery amounted to the sum of II/. 5s. 3d. The plaintiff Jane Carter's share of this was no less than eighteen shillings and nine-pence and a farthing; which sum, added to another suns which she demanded, left upon her own showing, a balance of 11. 15s. 5i4. due to her: and for this sum had the present bill been filed. The learned Solicitor-General said, that the miserable wretches whose names appeared as plaintiffs had been in- stigated by an attorney named Leek, who hoped to be able to obtain his costs out of the attorney of the opposite party. The Solicitor-General hoped that the Vice-Chancellor would dismiss the bills, and make Leek pay the costs. His Honour dismissed the bill, and promised to make Leek pay the costs, if the plain- tiff's counsel could, on making inquiry, find any authority to convince him that he had power to do so. The case occupied the whole of Wednesday. (Nov. 2.1.)
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IN BANCO.
THE KING V. W. A. RORECKER.—Judgment was prayed against the defendant, who had suffered judgment by default, on an information charging hint with having in Februrary 18'28, entered into an agreement with one Hungerford Lut- teral, for the payment by Lutteral of !300/. in consideration of the defendant's procuring him an appointment to an office under the control of the Lords of the Treasury. It appeared from the affidavits, that the defendant received the money from Lutteral, and procured him a situation in the chief office of the Coast Guard Service ; but that Lutteral was soon dismissed from the situation, on the ground of his being above age at the time of the appointment. He then remonstrated with the defendant, and wanted to get back his money ; but did not succeed. It appeared that the appointment was procured in the following manner. Mr. Cauty, the auctioneer of Pall Mall, applied to Mr. Pemberton, a clerk in the Treasury, requesting him to procure the situation for Lutteral. Mr. Pemberton, in compliance with this request, applied to the Secretary of the Treasury, and obtained the nomination. Mr. Pemberton and the Secretary, denied, by affidavit, any participation or knowledge of the money part of the transaction. The de- fendant urged, in mitigation, that he handed over the 300/. to another person, from whom he got 201. for his trouble in conducting the negotiation. The Attorney-General said, that the name of that person, as stated to him was Earle, and that he was not connected with any of the Government offices. The I I e- fendant is a very poor man with a wife and eight children. Mr. Justice Bailey said,—" I am by Ito means sure that we have the most criminal party before us." Mr. Justice James Parke thought the affidavits for the prosecution unsatisfactory. Mr. Pollock, on the part of the defendant, undertook that he should make the utmost exertions to bring the It' great offender " before the Court. And the case stands over for that purpose. (Nov. 23.)
COURT OF KING'S BENCH..
PRIVATE MADHOUSES. THE KING V. THOMAS SHARPLESS.111e defendant ap-
peared on the floor, having suffered judgment to go by default upon an indictment under the 9th George IV. ch. 3-1, for having received into his exclusive care and maintenance an insane person without first having an order and certificate signed by two physicians or surgeons, in terms similar to those required on the admis- sion of an insane person into a hemmed house. The Attorney-General, who
conducted the prosecution, said, that as the present was the first case which had occurred under the new act, and as the defendant had acted not front malice or neglect, but through ignorance and inadvertence, the Commissioners of Lunacy did not press for a severe sentence upon the defendant. He was accordingly dis- charged, on entering into his own recognizances in 2001. to come and receive judgment when called upon, an event which Mr. Justice Bayley said should never happen, if the prisoner conducted himself properly for the future. His Lordship intimated at the same time, that as the public had by the present proceedings ample notice of the state of the law upon the point, any persons hereafter offend- ing in this particular would be severely punished on conviction. (Nov. 26.) FAIR V. ELPHINSTONE.—The conditional rule for a mandamus, which had been' obtained in this case, was made absolute to-day. The writ is to be directed to the Supreme Court of Bombay, directing the Judges to take the depositions of some persons residing in India, who are to be examined as witnesses on the part of the defence. The action is by the Editor of the Bombay Gazette, against the Governor of Bombay, for illegally sending the plaintiff out of that colony. (Nov. 26.) THE KING V. WESTON HATFIELD,—All absolute rule was granted for leave to file a criminal information against the defendant, who is the proprietor of the Peterborough, Bed/brd. and Huntingdon Gazelle, for having inserted in that paper, imputing to Mr. Mande, the Town Clerk of Huntingdon, that he had been guilty of packing a Jury in a trial which had taken place. (Nov. 26.)
Lord Tenterden has been indisposed during the week.
LIBEL. ON THE LATE LORD MAYOR. THE KING V. HENRY THWAITES, On the 10th of July last, an article appeared in the Morning Herald. stating that a large house in the iron trade had borrowed 100,0001. of the Bank. The late Lord Mayor, Alderman Thompson, supposing that the paragraph alluded to the house of Thompson, Forman, and Co., of which he is a member, proceeded to in- ' dict the proprietor of the Herald, as an action could not be conveniently com- menced at that period of the year. The Attorney-General this morning applied for further time to plead to the indictment. The Attorney-General took occasion to say, that the author of the statement did not mean to allude to the house of which the Lord Mayor was a member ; and the learned gentleman added, that,for his part, he could not see how it could injure any man's credit to have it known that he was able to borrow 100,0001. of the Bank of England. After a few more observations, Mr. Brougham stated, on behalf of the prosecutor, that he was satis- fied with the apology which had been made; and that the defendants should hear no more of the matter. (Nov.27.) 'file KING V. JoNes.—A conditional rule had been on a former day obtained for leave to file a criminal information against the defendant, a magistrate of Car. marthen, on the ground of his having, by threats and promises, endeavoured to effect the compounding of a felony. Cause was now shown against the rule ; ;- and upon a full hearing of the whole case, the Court discharged the rule, with costs. The 'Judges present declared that the conduct of Mr. Jones in the dram- stances was not only pardonable, but praiseworthy. (27.)
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
NIVTIBTZ v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEum.—The Courfaave judgment In this case, deciding that the will of Mr. White had been properlynod sufficiently executed within the spirit of the statute of frauds. The testator having drawn and signed the will with his own hand, carried it, about five months before his death, to two of the attesting Witnesses, but did not at the time state the nature of the instrument which they attested. Three months after, he took it to the third wit- ness, whom he acquainted that the instrument was his wilt. This the Court held to be ts sufficient compliance with the provisions of the statute of frauds, of which the object was to guard against the conveyance of property by instruments not in accordance with the wishes of the owners. (Nov. 25.)
Previous page
