The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

The LORD CILANCELLOR resumed his sittings to-day,
nd entered upon the bankrupt paper.

DEACON V. DEACON.

The question in this matter was simply one of costs.
The proceedings in the matter regarded property consist-
ing of a brewery at Portsmouth, to which Mr. James
Williamson Deacon alleged himself principally entitled.—
A Mr. Cull was appointed receiver and manager of the
property; subsequently he was removed from that
office. An application was made to rescind the order
of removal, but Mr. Cull was finally removed. It was
arranged that the receiver's accounts should be taken before
an arbitrator, for the purpose of saving the time and ex-
pense of going before the Master; and the enquiry now
was, whether the costs of the various applications to the
Court,"and of an attorney's attendance before the arbitrator,
should be paid out of the estate, or by the parties at whose
instance the expenses were incurred. His Lordship con-
sidered that the whole ought to be paid out of the proceeds
of the estate.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

BRYANT V. STORER.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat in Court
this morning, said he had received a letter from a gentle-
man interested in the above cause, complaining of a deci-
sion which he (the Vice• Chancellor) some time since pro-
nounced. If he recollected right, it was a motion made
by the next of kin of the plaintiff, an infant, praying to
have a certain portion of a fund in Court paid out; that
application was refused with costs. The writer of the
letter states that that decision was contrary to every prin-
ciple of law, equity, or justice, and that if not afforded re-
dress, it was his intention to bring the subject before
Parliament. He also adds, that Counsel have advised him
not to present a petition of appeal, as they considered
such a course would be worse than useless, the only means
therefore open to him to obtain justice was by addressing
a letter to the Judge by whom the decision was pro-
nounced. Now, said his Honour, Ido not complain of
the language of this letter, that is respectful enough, but
it is quite evident that my duty as a Judge, after having
pronounced a deliberate judgement, and made an order, is to
let it take the usual course, and I never can therefore,
under any such circumstances, interfere.
The whole morning was occupied in hearing a bankrupt
petition, arising out of some of the frauds committed by
Rowland Stephenson.

COURT OF KINGS BENCH.
POLICY OF INSURANCE-IVES V. HUNTER.

Mr. POLLOCK (with whom was Mr. CRESSWELL)
stated, that this was an action to recover a policy of insur-
ance on the ship Eagle, on a fishing voyage to Davis's
Straits in 1825. The defendant was the Secretary of the
St. Patrick's Insurance Company, a company which at
that time professed great liberality in business. This
vessel in her voyage met with very rough weather, which
carried away her bowsprit, and also received several se-
vere shocks from the ice, which strained her considerably,
and caused her to make so much water, that the crew were
obliged to pump every hour. When the vessel returned to
Hull, she was found to have broken some of her timbers.
For that damage the plaintiff brought the present action.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom wasIMr.CAMP-
BELL) contended that the damage sustained was mere wear
and tear, and only such as every vessel engaged in that
trade must expect to meet with. They also contended
that she was not in a fit state to go to sea.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff —Damages
9221. 16s. Bd., the whole sum claimed.