The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-23 00:00:00

JI:DCIMENT.-COLLINS V. ARCHER.

His HoNowt also gave judgment in this case, in which a
Mr. Goddard, the Rector of the parish of Castle Eaton,
in the year 1811, charged the rectory for a valuable
consideration with an annuity of 5501., and he also de-
mised the rectory for the better security of this annuity for
the term of 99 years. In the year 1814, he also made a
demise to the defendant Archer, of the glebe lands belong-
ing to the rectory, and also the tithes of certain lands
which were the property of Archer, and in his
occupation. The present bill was filed for the satis-
faction of the arrears of the annuity out of those tithes,
which were, as the plaintiff contended, due from the de-
fendant in respect of his lands. The defendant, in his
answer, insisted that he was a purchaser for valuable con-
sideration, without notice of the prior charge created by
Mr. Goddard. His Honour was clearly of opinion that
such a plea from a person standing in the situation in
which Archer did, was of no avail, and the Court was
fully borne out in that opinion by the case of Wilson
and Lamb. That being the opinion of the Court
the only question was, from what precise period
the account should be taken of the tithes due from Archer
to the plaintiff. In a case of this nature a Court of Equity
and a Court of Law had concurrent jurisdiction, and in-
asmuch as in a Court of Law the plaintiff would certainly
recover the arrears of those tithes for the period of six
years back, so his Honour thought iu Equity he was en-
titled to recover them from the same period, and ordered
the a:count to be taken from that period.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
nrJuNCTION.—ILLIOTT V. TME GOVERNOR AND COMPANY

OF TYE BANE OF I' LAND.

Mr. Wlnnam applied for a special injunction to re-
strain the defendants, the widow, and two of the legitimate
children of Colonel Murray, together with the Bank of
England, from disposing of 21,000/. Three per Cents.
Colonel Murray, by his will, made in the year 1511, di-
rected the residue of his estates to be equally divided
among his legitimate and illegitimate children, and in pur-
suance of that direction a sum of 21,000/. was invested
in the 3 per Cents. as the residue of his estate. In the
year 1827 Colonel Murray's widow became desirous that
the whole of this 21,000/. should be placed under her
controul, to which the executors ultimately agreed, pro-
vided Colo❑el Murray's two natural children should be
connected with her in that trust, which was complied
with, and the fund was transferred into their names
where it remained standing. At the latter end of the last
year notice was given to the executors that it was the
intention of the widow and the two legitimate children
of Colonel Murray to sell out the fund, and make other
use of it. In consequence of this a distringas was laid upon
it. On the 16th of the present month the whole of the
plaintiffs received notice that it was the intention of the
defendants not to allow the distringas, to prevent them
fro►n transferring the fund, which they should immedi-
ately proceed to do, unless prevented by the injunction o,
the Court. In consequence of this, the plaintiff's illegiti-
mate children filed their bill, asking the Court for its in-
junction. All the facts the learned Counsel had stated
were supported by affidavits.

His lioNouit thought the clients of Mr. Wigram enti-
tled to the injunction, upon the facts he had stated, and
accordingly granted it.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
OWEN V. MILDMAY.

The plaintiff in this case is a silk-mercer, in London,
and the defendant a clergyman, holding a living in the Isle
of Wight. The action was brought to recover the suns of
9/., the balance of an account for goods sold in the year
1820. The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations.
In support of the plaintiff's claim, evidence was adduced
to prove that repeated application had be4n made to Mr.
Mildinay for pa►ment, and also that lie had paid part of
the account within six years of the action being- brought.
Lord TENTERDEN held, that if part of a debt was paid
within six years, it was an acknowledgement sufficient to
deprive the party of pleading the Statute of Limitation.

A verdict was consequently returned for the plaintiff—
Damages 9/.

NUTTING U. NICHOLSON.,

This was also an aefon to recover a balance of accounts.
The plaintiff is a button manufacturer, and at defendant's
request supplied a quantity of buttons to a regiment of
Local Militia, of which Mr. Nicholson was captai❑ and
adjutant. The defendant pleaded the general i,sue, and
also the Statute of Limitations. It was proved, however,
that the plaintiff had within six years paid 10/. on account,
and, therefore, according to the decision in the preceding
cause, could not take advantage of his plea.—Verdict for
the plaintiff.

number of other causes were disposed of during the
morning; those that were not undefended did not possess
the least public interest.

MONDAY.

lIORDLR V. NORCOTT.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was an action
brought by his client, who was a professor of music, and
who also taught dancing, against Dlr. Norcott, an attor-
ney, for having seduced his client's wife.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da.
wages, 500/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
DOUNSFIELD AND CO. C. WIGHTMAN.

This was an action on a bill of exchrtnge for 50/., dated
the 23d of April, 1828, and drawn at three months.
Serjeant WILDS stated the ease, which was after-
wards detailed in evidence ; he said the only question the
Jury were to try was, whalier the defendant had given
authority to have his name put on the bill, which the de-
foolant then denied.

The evidence adduced on the trial proved that authority
was given to a Mr. Syki s to use his name on the bill,
which afterwards got into the plaintiffs' hands.
There being no witness, s fur the defence, the Jury im-
mediately returned a veidict for the plaintiffs—Daulage.
1 ls.