The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY—Nor. 25.
In thi CLOUGH V. BOND.
enttea7., which was not conclude 1 yeAerday when
hid .0 ress, the LORD CHANCELLOR r ostponel his
gnietat, ntil he had examined the pleadings and evide❑ce.

Thig TAYLOR V. BAILEY.
404 -Wag an appeal from a decree of the Vice-Chaicellor
to 11:Point of practice as to the regularity of an answer
T, 'Lk together with a demurrer for want of parties.
Tr
1-4 question having been argued,
a TOED' CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment.

17-IIOE-CHANCELLUR'S COURT, Nor. 25.
ALLEN V. BALL.
An,irr• JACOB applied for an injunction to restrain the de-
y ant from selling the hay and straw grown upon land
'ell at had been leased to the defendant from year to year
on
try, vi• per annum. According to the custom of the coun-
try' tenants from year to year ought to consume all the
in and straw grown upon their land for the benefit of the
tenure, and the surplus should be taken at a valuation by
nin-coming tenant.
zot a 'lr KNIGHT, for the defendont, stated that this was
a tenancy from year to year, sinceit was expressly
pgoreed that the defendant should not be interrupted in his
soilasessina for two years. The defendant denied having
any hay or straw before he had received notite to quit,
"sin denied haling any intention to do so.
The further hearing was postponed until Monday next.

'OURT, OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Ifor. 35.

Lord WILTON V. CHAMBERS.
DEITMAN delivered judgment in this case. This
bag a MOtiOII to set aside a judgment and other securieties
43: the defendant to the plaintiff, for business done as an
trlttorney by,
the latter for the former. The ground of the
oiell°a was, that at the time the business was done the
rrailetia. Was not lawfully entitled to practise as an attorney.
nbquestion depended on the 31st section of the 37th
°l-ge 111., cap. 20. It appeared that Mr. Wilton had
e 0-1 adnaitted many years ago to be an attorney of this
uct, and for some years he regularly took out his certifi-
cate.
He then ceased to do so for three years. At the
eV Of that time he obtained a rule for his re-admission to
e c°1415 of the Court. Again he ceased to practise. The
question under these circuinttances was, whether he could
w'!aja practise upon merely taking out his certificate, and
,thout. in the first instance being re-admitted.—The Court
'ade the rule absolute.
WYATT V. FOCHFORT.
h Sir W. FOLLETT showed cause against the rule which
TV bee, obtained to set aside the verdict in this case.
tie!: was an action for criminal conversation with the plain-
ti wife, and the Jury had given a verdict for the plain-
` 15..,1
--"aalages 230/. The rule had been obtained on the
tutu] that these damages were excessive. The Learned
470.5 el contended that the Court had no power to set
de such a verdict, unless it clearly appeared to be a per-
',e.t.a° verdict, in which the damages were inordinately too
'"fie.
Mr. KELLY, in support of the rule, insisted that the da-
agea were excessive, for that there was no evidence that
the defendant had any knowledge whatever, when be corn-
Witted the adultery, that the female was a married woman.
Rule discharged.
TAYLOR V. DEVEY.
.Wasord DENMAN delivered judgment in this case. This
„ an action to try the right of the parish of St. Bride to
Vtia through the plaintiff's house on the days of the annual
perambulation of the boundaries. It was clear that such a
'tglit did not exist, except with respect to houses situated
?a the boundary-line of the parish. On all the authorities,
Judgment must be for the plaintiff.

BAIL COURT, Nor. 25.
OTHO, KING OF GREECE, V. 'WRIGHT.
st. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL inquired whether his Lord-
. "IP Was prepared to give his decision relative to the applt-
eatio
11 he made a few days since, that the plaintiff be al-
wed his costs in opposing the rule obtained by the defen-
dant, calling upon him (plaintiff) to give security for the
ecists in the cause ?
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said, that with reference to the
question whether a plaintiff was entitled to his costs under
%eh circumstances, it appeared that contrary opinions had
y been entertained, and conflicting decisions given by the
"dges. Under all the circumstances, he (Mr. Justice Lit-
tledale) was of opinion that the rule obtained by the defen-
(lett ought to be made absolute in general terms, and that
Plaintiff was not entitled to his costs of opposing it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—His Majesty most respect-
1411Y submits to your Lordship's decision.—(A. laugh.)