The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-28 00:00:00

MEYNELL V. SIIRTEES.

The further arguments on this part-heard appeal were
resumed and occupied his lordship the whole day. The
case came before his lordship upon appeal from the
judgment of Vice• Chancellor Stuart dismissing the
plaintiff's bill, but without costs. The bill was filed by
several of the directors of the Stockton and Darlington
Railway Company against Mr. Surtees, who was the
purchaser of certain lands in the county of Durham
from a person named Ord, the object of the bill being
to obtain the specific performance of an agreement
alleged to have been entered into by Mr. Ord with the
Derwent Iron Company, whose interest the plaintiff
now had, to grant to the plaintiffs way leave over the
lands in question, upon which a railway had been con-
structed, the defendants contending that no binding
agreement had been entered into, and that before the
completion of the possession the offer of Mr. Ord had
been retracted.

(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)
LORD KENSINGTON V. BOUVERIE-JUDGMENT.

The Lords Justices gave judgment to-day on the case,
which was argued sometimes since. The case came be-
fore their lordships upon appeal from the decision of the
M:ister of the Rolls, affirming the certificate of his chief
clerk, finding that the property enjoyed by the present
Lord Kensington was not chargeable with the arrears
of interest of the sum of 20,0001. raised upon it by the
late lord. The late Lord Kensington was entitled to
considerable property in the neighbourhood of Kensing-
ton, called the Kensington Estate, subject to a mort-
gage of 6,0001. to Lord Braybrooke. By his marriage
settlement he was entitled to charge the property to the
extent of raising the sum of 20,0001. That sum
had been raised by the late lord, and the benefits to
be derived from it, together with the interest, had been
assigned by him to the defendant. Upon the late lord's
death there was a considerable arrear of interest which
the defendant claimed from the present noble possessor
of the property ; that claim was resisted by him on the
ground that he could be only called upon to pay the in.
terest since his father's death, and he filed the present
bill for the purpose of redeeming the mortgage for the
20,0001. upon the payment of that sum and the interest
since his father's death. The Master of the Rolls made
a decree in favour of the, claim of the present Lord
Kensington, and hence the present appeal.
The Lords Justices, after going at some length into
the case, stated their opinion to be that, although the
income derived from the Kensington estate was not
sufficient to pay the interest on the mortgage of Lord
Braybrooke, and the 20,0001. raised by the late Lord
Kensington, still that in the interest of the latter sum
there was a charge upon the corpus of the estate, and
must be paid by the present possessor. Their lordships
therefore would make a decree for the redemption of the
mortgage for 20,0001. upon the payment of the interest,
elirecting at the same time an account to be taken of the
interest due upon that sum at the time of the death of
the late Lord Ken sington.

Counsel were requested to draw up the decree and
submit it to their lordships on the next day they sat.
Their lordships will sit in the Privy Council to-morrow.
In the Rolls and Vice-Chancellors Kindersley and
Wood's Court nothing of interest occurred.
The Vice-Chancellor Stuart did not sit to-day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Alderson,

Platt, and Martin.)

The court was occupied to-day in hearings upon the
special paper, but ,up to the time our report was des-
patched nothing of general interest transpired.
_

Baron Parke sat at Nisi Prius in the Lords Justices
Court. The case of Berchi v. Maple, which was partly
heard on a previous day, being an action for trespass on
trover, was resumed, and was expected to occupy the
attention of the court during the whole of the day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco,_ before Lord Chief'Justice Campbell,
Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Erle, and Mr.
Justice Crompton.)

IN RE ---, AN ATTORNEY.
Mr. Lush applied for a rule calling on an attorney,
residing at Grinstead, to deliver his bill of costs, his
receipts and payments, and pay over the balance relative
to the following transaction —The applicant, an illiterate
man, applied to the attorney to raise him 4001. to pay
off a mortgage of 3001. and interest. The attorney
raised the money, and paid off the amount and interest,
and an application was made to him by applicant for the
balance, which was at first met by a variety of
excuses, but subsequently he was paid 20./., the
attorney promising to render an account. After
that applicant called on him and told him he must have
501., on which the attorney told him it he would accept
a hill for 501. he would get it discounted. On the bill
becoming due he applied to the attorney, and rem n-
strated with him for not having rendered him an account
when he paid him 6/. Some time after applicant received
a letter from the attorney appointing a time for the set-
tlement of the account, but instead of making out a pro-
per account, informed the applicant that with the 501.
bill he was indebted to him 401., and obtained from
him a promissory note for that amount. The 501
bill applicant considered was given in settlement of his
account, but at the end of last year to his great surprise
he had suddenly put in his house executions for the 501.
and 401. bills, and the whole of his furniture sold.
Rule granted.

GILLESPY V. THOMPSON AND OTTERS.
Mr. Watson Q.C., showed cause against a rule ob-
tained last term for a new trial on the ground of the
verdict in this case being against the evidence. The
action, which was tried-• at the last assizes at New-
castle-on-Tyne, before Mr. Baron Parke, wa
an action upon a charter party. The vessel in
question, about 460 tons burthen, was to load a cargo of
coals at Sunderland, to proceed to Constantinople for
orders, and deliver her cargo at Varna, or some other
port in the Black Sea. The vessel being three masted
was obliged to have her larboard shrouds and backstays
loosened to take in her cargo, and was in that state
taken into the roadstead to be put all atant, with a part
of her crew and a number of lumpers on board, and a
pilot, who at the time was intoxicated, when a gale
came on, and she was driven on shore, every soul on
board, except one, being drowned. The declaration
stated that the defendant wrongly and improperly sent
the vessel to sea, in an unseaworthy state as regarded the
vessel and crew, whereby she was lost, which the de-
fendant by his pleas denied.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., having been heard in support of
the rule,
The Court directed its discharge.

THO3IPSON AND OTHERS V. GILLESPY.

This was a cross action for the freight, and the point

reserved for their lordships' opinion was the sailing of
the ship. Mr. Baron Parke, at the trial, held there
had been no sailing within the meaning of the charter
pasty, and it was contended by the defendant that the
taking the vessel into the roadstead was not a sailing,
but that she was removed there to get her all right,
and procure a crew with which to sail. The bill of lad•
ing had not been signed.
The learned counsel had not concluded their argu-
ments when we went to press.