The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Firm: 9.
LLOYD V. LLOYD.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this matter,
which was argued yesterday. The question arose on the
construction of an agreement made by two families of Car-
murthenshire, in 1779, on the marriage of their children.
His Lordship, after reading the articles of agreement, said
the covenants were clearly different. One party contracted
to convey his estate on the solemnization of the marriage,
and the other when his daughter came of age, and his Lord-
ship could not accede to the argument that the covenant
by one was a condition precedent to the performance of the
.condition by the other. His Lordship was therefore of
opinion that, although the covenant on the part of Stephens
could not be performed, yet that Lloyd's family were bound
to fulfil the conditions to which they had bound themselves.
The decision of the Vice-Chancellor was therefore affirmed.

EXPARTE NEWTON IN RE NEWTON V. MANNING.
Mr. Newton appeared in person, to move, in this case,
that he be discharged from custody. He said he had come
to town from Yorkshire to prepare a petition for the division
of the fund to which he was entitled under a decree, in the
cause of Newton v. Manning ; and after consulting his
Counsel, and making preparations to return, he was arrested
by a sheriff's officer, while entering that hall with his gown
on, to save his Term as a student of the Inn. He con-
tended that, both as a student and as a suitor, he was en-
titled to protection either while attending Term or coming
from and going to his residence, and for a reasonable time
afterwards. After citing a number of cases in support of
his argument,
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion the petitioner's
case did not come within any of them. The motion was
therefore refused, with costs, but, out of indulgence to Mr.
Newton, his Lordship allowed the costs to be paid out of
the fund in Court.

VICE-CHANCERY, FEB. 9.
JONES V. LATIMER.
This cause has -been before the Court for several days
past, and was concluded to-day. The bill prayed that an
agreement which the plaintiff had signed might be cancelled.
A gentleman named Forty, by his will, in 1801, left a house
in Hollywell-street, Oxford, and the residue of his personal
estate, to his wife for life, and after her death to be divided
into three shares, of which the plaintiff Jones was to have
one, and Mrs. Latimer, the defendant's wife, another. Mr.
Forty appointed Mrs. Forty, Jones, and Wilson his execu-
tors. Mrs. Forty died in 1821, having been during her
lifetime the person who principally acted in the executor-
ship, and having given the residue of her own property to
Mrs. Latimer, whom she also appointed her executrix.
Jones then began to administer Mr. Forty's estate. In
1828 Latimer and his wife filed a bill against Wilson and
Jones for the administration of that estate, and a decree was
pronounced directing the usual accounts of Mr. Forty's es-
tate. After some slow proceedings in the Master's office,
it appeared that Jones owed a balance of 3,6001. to Mr.
Forty's estate, and in February, 1832, a notice of motion
was given for Jones to pay this balance into Court. This
led to a compromise, by which all claims as regarded both
Mr. and Mrs. Forty's estate were adjusted ; and in consi-
deration of Jones agreeing to pay Latimer 1,2001. all liti-
gation was to cease. Latimer afterwards brought an ac-
tion upon the agreement against Jones, when the Jury found
for the plaintiff. Under these circumstances the present
bill was filed, to set aside the agreem'ent.
His HONOUR, after noticing the facts of the case, said,
the matter of fact was against the plaintiff, and as the Court
had no jurisdiction to declare the agreement fraudulent the
bill must be dismissed with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FE,. 8.
ABSOLON V. BEAUNfONT.
This was an action on a policy of insurance against fire,
effected by the County Fire Office on the furniture, &c.,
of the plaintiff in his house at No. 12, Old Bond-street.
The house was destroyed by fire on the 27th of March,
1836, and the fire occasioned the destruction of several
buildings in the Burlington-arcade. The defendant pleaded
first that he had set the house on fire ; next, an attempted
fraud ; and, lastly, that he had wrongfully erected a stove in
his shop after the policy had been effected. The plaintiff
took issue on all these pleas.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on behalfof the plaintiff, said
the plaintiff was an honest tradesman, who wished to in-
demnify himself against casualties by fire, and for that pur-
pose he had effected a policy in .the County Fire Office,
which Was managed by Mr. Barber Beaumont. The mis-
fortune he had desired to guard against did overtake him,
and instead of receiving an indemnity for the loss, a most

SHERWOOD v. At‘caikr.
This was an action to recover a sum of money said to
have been unlawfully seized by the defendant at the house
of the plaintiff, in Pickering-street, St, James's. 111•Crae
was the person who actually took- possession of the box,
and he handed it over in the course of the next morning
to Rubinson, upon a promisedrom the latter to give it up
when claimed by the rightful owner. Sherwood had brought
an action against Robinson to recover the money from him,
as the person now in possession of it. The action was
tried a few days ago, when it will be recollected a verdict
was given for the defendant on the ground that the pro-
perty in the bank was not satisfactorily proved to be in the
plaintiff. A similar verdict, and 161. the same reason, was
now returned.
The Foreman of the jury said that the jury fully con-
curred with his Lordship that the conduct of the policemen
had been most reprehensible.