The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-20 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY•)

The case of Knight v. Knight occupied the whole of
;he day.
VICE-CIIA.NCERY.—(THIS 1)A'Y•)

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR, after disposing
of the short causes and unopposed petitions in his paper,
proceeded to hear the further arguments in the petition
of Searle v. Gray, which wcre part heard yesterday in
his Honour's private room.
QUEEN'S BENCH.--(T.HIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Lord DEN-
MAN and a Common Jury.)

AUGHTERLONY V. GRENFELL AND OTHEES.
Sir W. FOLLETT (with whom was Mr. Wightraan)
stated the case. It was sin action for a breach of con-
tract, brought by the riaintiff against the firm of
Pascoe Grenfell and Sons, for the non-delivery of fifty
tons of cake copper at 851., which, it was alleged, had
been contracted for on the Gth August, 1838. The
contract was made by Mr. Short, on behalf of the
plaintiff, with Mr. Argill, who acted as the agent of the
defendant, and was for fifty tons of cake copper, At
851. per ton, to be delivered over the ship's side at
Havre or Rouen at the buyer's option, on or before the
Ist September followirg, for cash. For the defence, it
was a,ileged by the Attorney-General tb at Mr. Argil'
had no ~,uthority to make the contract without consult-
ing his prii:cipals (the defendants), and that when the
offer was matte for the copper by Short, he was aware of
the fact, arid the
t he might send in a contract subjectto
the decision of his .nrincipals. The contract, on being
shown to the defendants on the following morning, was
at once rejected, and sent back to Mr. Short's counting-
house.
Mr. Short, who negaciated the purchase of the cop-
per for the plaintiffs, was examined on their behalf ; and
Mr. Argill, who acted as the agent of the defendants,
was examined on the other side ; and the evidence as
.uto
what had occurred was of rather conflicting nature.
Lord DENMAN left it to the Jury to say yvhether
they were of opinion that Argill hind authority from.
the defendants to make the controct in qt.!
and, secondly, whether, if he had the authority, he
exercised it on that occasion without leaving any
reservation to his principals to accept or reject the
contract. e's observa-
The Jury interrupted the Learned Judg
tions by finding a verdict for the defendants.estion

EQUITY EXCHEQUER.
(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Sergeants' Inn , before Mr. Baron Alderson.)
HALL V. LAVER ; HALL V. SAWYET: ;
HALL V. VAUGHAN.
PAYMENT OF COSTS.
The case came before the Court on further directions
and petitions, and was chiefly confined to the
ch que
occu-
stion
of costs. In the course of the discussion,
pied the Court for a considerable time,
Mr. SIMPKINSON said that his client Iliad been served
with a copy of one of the petitions, in. which he was
not at all interested.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON observed that it was unne-
cessary for him to have appeared under such circum-
stances.
Mr. SIMPKINSON submitted that he was entitled to
the costs of his appearance, as the petition had been
served. It would be a matter of course in the Court of
Chancery.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON thought the practice of this
it
Court better. He lived in hopes of seeing some uni
form practice adopted in the Courts of Equity, for
wasvery desirable that in the Court of Chancery uand
ve
the Court of Exchequer there should be but one
ni-
form practice. Great inconvenience bad been expe-
rienced in the Courts of Law before alterationsd
b bad rb been
made made to render the practice more uoiform, Courts of
this
was surprised this had not been done in the
Equity ; but he was a very subordinate person in
matter, and had to wait until other people took it up.
Mr. SIMPKINSON said his client had been put to the
trouble of wading through the petition, in order 0
anlly
ascertain whether he was interested or not.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said the client of the Learned
Gent:eman certainly had been put to same trouble in
that respect, and unless he appeared he could not obtain
his costs. If people chose to serve an unnecessary
party, they must pay the costs, which he directed to
be done in the present instance.

INSOLVENT COURT—(THIS DAY).
---•--- -
William Fitzroy Scudamore, nephew of Sir Cha!les
Scudamore, whose case appeared in The Sun some time
ago, came up for adjudication.
A person named Walter said he had been deeplyad
in-
jured by a statement made by the Insolvent ;
he b
him in his custody when he made his escape. It would
appear that he had in some measure lent himself to the
escThape.
e CHIEF CostivrissioNEn could not, he remarked,
hear anything on the subject.
Walters said it appeared in the newspapers.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER—We cannot attend to what
appears in the papers.
Walters—The Insolvent made the s,tatement out, it
appeared, and I wish to contradict it.
The COURT refused to enter into the maiter, and the
case stood over for the Insolvent to fill a new balance
sheet. The Insolvent to be discharged.