The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-27 00:00:00

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, SEVEN o'CLOCK.

The Gazette was not published up to this hour.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 26.

LEAR V. LEGGITT.

This appeal was heard, the question being whether
a legacy given with a declaration that the bequest
should be void if the legatee aliened it, had been
forfeited on his becoming bankrupt; and whether his
assignees, or the parties to whom it was given over
by the will, were entitled to it. The Vice-Chan-
cellor had decided that the alienation, by means of
the bankruptcy, not having been by the act of the
legatee, but by the operation of law, the legacy was
not forfeited.
His LORDSHIP decided that the operation of the
bankruptcy, by which the assignees had become en-
titled to the legacy, was not such an alienation as
had been contemplated by the provision of the will,
and that therefore the legacy was not forfeited. He
therefore dismissed the appeal with costs.

RIVER IVEY NAVIGATION.
Mr. PIIPYS moved to dissolve the injunction
granted in this case, to restrain the owners of mills
upon the stream from drawing off water from the
river. The affidavits on the part of his clients stated,
that they had made no encroachments, and that
they► had only exercised the right which they and
their predecessors had enjoyed as long as the river
had been navigable. They were entitled to certain
small payments from boats passing up and down the
river, by way of remuneration for the trouble occa-
sioned by their penning the waters of their respec-
tive dams so as to afford a water-way for the
passage of crafts. This they stated they were
willing to continue to do on having the same pay-
ments made to them which they had been accustomed
to receive.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, after hearing the
matter discussed at great length, was of opinion
that the demand made by the owners of the mills
was lawful and reasonable, and he therefore directed
the injunction to be dissolved, the millers under-
taking to pen up the waters so as to preserve the
navigation on receiving the customary payments.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jinx 26.
Eliza Charlotte Hamilton, describing herself as a
widow, came up on her petition to be discharged,
and was opposed by Mr. Scargill, a solicitor, and
creditor, in person.
The insolvent was of rather interesting appear-
ance, and shed tears when ordered into the box.
Mr. Scargill proceeded to address the Court. He
said he had no wish to impede the insolvent's dis-
charge, but that he was desirous of knowing the
nature of the debt due to a Mr. Henry Symonds.
The insolvent said it was for money lent in de-
fending a suit in the Court of Chancery. The debt
had been contracted in 1828 and 1829, since the
death of her husband, and she had never lived at
the rate of .500/. a year.
Mr. COOKE—There is a sufficient fund in Court
to pay Mr. Scargill. The Learned Gentleman then
proposed Mr. Symonds and Mr. 'Wells as assignees.
Insolvent—l wish Mr. Wells to be my assignee.
Upon being asked by the CIIIEP COMMISSIONER
if she had any furniture of her own, she replied in
the negative, and said she had resided at Mr. Wells's,
Little Ealing, in ready furnished apartments.
Mr. Scargill had no further questions to ask, and
the insolvent was declared entitled to the benefit of
the Act.