The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-22 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

WYNNE V. HEMINGWAY.
This action arwe out of the same transaction in Tr
spEct of which an action was tried a few days ago, t
Guildhall, but the parties were reversed.
Mr. lirtowLEs now applied for a rule so show ca, u
why the trial in the present action should not be pc .t
poned until Monday next, on the ground that the
fendant would then be able to disprove the testimor
which was given at the former trim!, and which induc.
the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, who is ti
now plaintiff. The present action was on a bill
exchange for 2001., drawn by a person named Aspia
on Hemingway, and banded to Wyuuo on his making
loan to Hemingway for that amount, in respect of II •
horse Etches. Hemingway, was committed for perju
in the to/ tiler action, but he had sinco obtained info
'nation which he believed would give a positive eentil
diction to the evidence adduced by Wynne.
The LORD CHIEF PARON inquired whether •tb
Learned Counsel was prepared to bring the money 'tilt
the court?

Mr. KNOWLES replied in the affirmaiivo.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Take a rule; and if tt
motley is paid into court perhaps the opposite p art
m ill be satisfied. I have always some reluctance. i
granting rules unless good grounds are urged for (loin
eo, because generally rules seldom coat less than 151..
Mr. Baron PARKE— That very much depends upon th
length of the affidavits.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Yes; but generally t
expense is very considerable.—Bale granted.

SHERIFFS' COURT,-(
THIS DAY .
(Before Mr. W. BURCHELL.)
ARCHBUTT V. NICHOLSON AND ANOTHER,--IMPORTA: S
QUESTION UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CONSOLID
TION ACT.

The plaintiff in this action is the landlord of premi BF
in Halkin-terrace, Belgrave-iquare, and the defends ►n.
are the assignees of a bankrupt named Wakefield. 'EL
action waq brought to recover the value of cer Uzi
fixtures alleged to have been illegally seized by the .d 4
fendants.

It appeared that the bankrupts had obtained an orch
from the Court of Bankruptcy, under the Bankruptc
Consolidation Act, which authorizes the assignees t
take any goods and chattels on premises occupied by
bankrupt, and to sell the same for the benefit of the ore
ditors with the consent of the owner.
Mr. EvAris, the plaintiff's counsel, contended that tb
Act did not give the assignees any right to sell fixture
which certainly were not goods and chattels.
The defendants pleaded the order of the Court as t
the entry of the premises, but suffered judgment to go b
default as to the seizure of fixtures.
Mr. SIMON, for the defendants, said that the
.•nai ti 1
had been a mortgagee in possession, under a bill of sal
and the new Act gave a power to the Commissioners
order the sale of any property left in the possession,
control of a bankrupt, by which the creditors or th
public might be deluded into the belief that it belon ger)
to the bankrupt, but the defendants had been advise'
that they had no right to seize fixtures, except such
portions as were tenan'ts fixtures.
their liability Mr. EVANS, in reply,
whole of the fixtulredsc
jmu
idt gt
emd e rt,
htsubmitted that by sufferink
faourl tdaasmtaogtehsef
hfirx
thetu r fixtures, theyova
lbad f trlb
The jury gave a
verdict for 26/., the suta claimed by
the plaintiff.

WEBSTER V. LYNE.
This was au action brought on a mortgage for 3331.
There Was no defence, and the jury gave a, vardica
the amount.

PORPA V. ZUCCANI ADMOR, &C.
This was an action brought to recovtr the Eum
301. Defendant pleaded that he never was executor
the person named in the declaration.
who appeared for the plaintiff, sand it
was not nDu Ne
materielAx,
that the defendant had not been ailting
ll
under a will, if it could be shown that he had in tal
way interfered in the administration of the estate aulft
effects of the deceased, and in this case it could be a eeu
that the defendant had done so, and he was, therefore,
liable, as he had not pleaded that he had administered
the whole of the estate.
Defendant was called, and admitted that the dew 0011
was his brother, and that he had died at sea. Dec( lit!
had been in partnership with another person, and Pd;
(witness) had advanced money for that purposes 8/la.
after the death of his brother had wound up the Pa":
nership accounts, but he denied that he knew of any -Pri
vate estate and effects of his brother.
Mr. DUNCAN said that he would call the plaintiff.
Plaintiff was accordingly called, but could not do-
eikr
that there had been any property belonging to the
ceased in the hands of the defendant. A not
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that defendant couim
be the administrator to the joint estate, and the Oro
cluing therewith to arrange with the creditors did n°
render him liable in this action.
Mr. DUNCAN said he had acted upon his instructi°6
but after the evidence it was useless to proceed.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

MANSION-HOUSE.—(THIS DA
Alderman Sir John Key sat 'to-day for the lArd
Mayor, and heard a summons tikyn out by Mr. Jaw!!
Alfred Temple, sharebroker,
of No. 5, Royal Each oc'
buildings, against Mr. Francis Worrell Stephens, c
broker, of No. 3 also in the Royal Exchange-buildinga'
Mr. Edward Hodgkinsun, solicitor for the complain:
unt, said that Mr. Stephens was a member of the SO"'
Exchange, and Mr. Temple, one well known as share"
broker in the City. Some differences bad arisen b.gt;
tween them upon monetary matters, and
were instituted both in the Court of 1:t
eoi.quer and in the Lord Meyor's Court. Wb,
Mr. Temple was proceeding, on Saturday
bet
between the hours of three and five, to see a Ineinged
of the Stock Exchange, he met Mr. Stephens, who °we
the strongest exprepsione, of a moat onwarant.