The Express.
London, England, 1864-06-27 00:00:00

IDQUITY COURT&—Jura 25.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)

ME V. BUILIVISTZE.
This was en appal hum the Water of the Bolls, and was
segued sane little tine since. The fame were that in the
year 1864 die wellaeown John Sadleir conveyed to the
plaintiff certain Irish estates as security for advances, Bod-
kin to receive the mute as long as he paid 3,0001. a year,
end Mr. Kennedy was appointed receiver to pay that sum,
and bend over the surplus to Badleir, the legal estate being
in a prior eanambreocer. Sadler was then share-
holder, director, and chairman of the London and
County Bank, and so continued until his death
in Febniery, 1866. In 1855, being In debt to the bank
in 100.0001., and wanting to borrow 96,0001. more, the beak
consented to advance it on the security of various large
estates in Ireland, the particulars of which he profaned to
furnish ; but he gave no notice of the plaintiffs mortgage.
In July of that year 15,0001. was advanced to &Moir, and
in August he executed twenty deeds whereby he conveyed
to trustees on trust to sell and enure the debt to the
bank. Mr. &VMS, the solicitor to the bank, discovering
the plaintiff's mortgage, Sadiron snared him that it was oral
y
a collateral security, and that it would be released, which
was done in considenition of a substituted security, which
turned out to have been forged. The bank sold the antes,
and the proceeds were applied in discharge of their debt ;
and the forgery was afterwards discovered, and the plaintiff
filed this bill against the bank to recover the money so re-
ceived by them, and the rents of the estate between the
time of mortgage to the bank and the male of the estate. The
Master of the Boils held that such money represented the
sante, and was impressed with a trust for the plaintiff,
who was eetitied to recover, and to an moment of the
mots. the Home of Lords having previously decided that
the release was void.

Mr. W. M. James end Mr. Bailee appeared for the
plaintiff. The Attorney-Geriend, Su Hugh Cairns, and
Mx.Sorsg? for tee beak.

The Loid Chancellor now said that the House of Lords,
having decided in favour of the bank, the release in ques-
tion had no operation, by reason of the fraud of Sadleir.
The Master of the Rolls seemed to have thought that that
gave the plaintiff a right to follow the money into the hands
of the beak, but no such consequence followed. The facts
did not appear to have been accurately stated to his honour.
The bank boos fide received the money, having no notice of
the fraud. The plaintiff admitted that he could not follow
the estate, and had no claim against Messrs. Beckham,
but asked to have paid to him mosey boot fide received by
t►e bank ; he might just as well ask for payment from
ffedleit's wine merchant or tailor. Them was no possible
:elation in which the 'Uinta stood to the bank to entitle
him to recover any portion of the mosey ; the decree mast
be reversed, and the bill dismissed with costs. As to the
roots, it did not appear that anything had been received by
As bank which the plaintiff could claim.

JACKSON V. THE DUKE Or_

This alas was an appeal from the Master of the Rolls as
• motion to diesel,. an tojanction granted to restrain the
building or cominuing to erect • wall on the site of the
defendant's stables near Spring-gardens. The Abater of the
Molls and the Lord Chancellor had both personally inspected
the premises ; the adjoining hones, alleged to be demigod
by the obstruction of ancient lights, being now used as a
ashop.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Deane appeared for the appellant;
Mr. Holihooes and Mr. Fischer for the plaintiffs.

11[;lordshipirrw;Sidthat although be had inspected the
premises, be was obliged to do so in consequence of the
same proceeding having been taken by his honour, but it
was not clear that it was a coons which a judge is equity
ought to adopt, bemuse be might decide on something not
before him in evideoos. There was some difficulty as to
the jurisdiction for injunction in cases like the present, and it
was evident that the cases before Lord Eldon were not accu-
rately reported, for Lord Hardwick was said therein Where
Lid down ruler, which be did not lay down, as to injury,
and the remedy by injunction, In this case his (the Lord
Chancellor's) opinion was that at present there was not
sufficient material diminution of light to call for the inter-
formica of the court ; although it might be that hereafter
the countiog-house, where the obstruction was complained
of, might be used for purposes requiring more light, such
as by a jeweller or alk-mercer. There was no case his lord-
ship could find applying to a future injury. The uijunc-
tion must therefore be dissolved without prejudice to any ap-
plication by the plaintiffs, the defendant not to move to die.
miss the bill for want of prosecution without leave of the
court • the order not to be drawn op until Thursday neat,
is order that couusel might search for authorities.

Before
TC1:1110 O. TERM.

&t)

The object of the plaintiff is this suit wee, it will be re.
membered, to obtain an iajanotioa restraining the de-
fendant' from infringing his patent for the manufacture of
paraffin oil, from Boghead ood, shale, and bituminous
substancea The court, having heard the widows of
several scientific and other triteness, made a deem 'rut-
in an injunction and directing the maul amounts, in the
terms of the prayer of the bill ; and from that decision the
defeodante had gives notice of their intention to appeal.
The Attorney-Gemeral, Q.C., IL P., this morniog moved
on behalf of the defendants to stay all proceedings under
the decree pending the
Sir Fano, ; Mr. W. W. Machismo,
Mr. Chance, Mr. W. Dowsing Bruce, sod Mr. Antos also
61,17
for the defendants. Mr. Cr.,., Q.C., Mr. Benin,
(7111. P. ; Sir Hugh Came, Q.C., Y.P. ; Mr. Mad-
inat* Q.C. ; Mr. Webiftv, Q.e. ; Mr. Kanithe. and Mr.
Lawlor., were for the plaintiff.
The Vice-Chatirellor, being of opinion that he could not
now interfere, as suggested by the defendant's counsel, with
the progress of the east, refused the =Woe, with meta.