The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-08 00:00:00

Whittaker and Co., Ave Maria-lane.

TO BOOKBINDERS AND STATIONERS.
ITANCOCK'S PATENT CAOUTCIIOUC
or INDIA-RUBBER BOOKBINDING.
The Trade are respectfully informed that Mr. William Hancock
has granted LICENCES to Messrs. WILLIAMS, COOPERS,
ItOYLE, and CO., West Smithfield, and Messrs, GROSVE-
NOR, CHATER, and Co., Cornhill, to use this much-improved
method of BINDING BOOKS; on application to whom, or to
Mr. Hancock, Gla,shouse-yard, Aldersgate-street (patentee,)
specimens may be seen and orders received.
Mr. W. Hancock has commenced proceedings by scire facies to
repeal C. Nickel's pretended Patent, alai the trade are cautioned
against receiving licences from him or from any other persons ex-
cept those whom W. Hancock has authorised to grant the same, as
they will thereby render themselves liable to the penalties for in-
fringing W. Hancock's Patent, which he will feel bound to enforce.

EAST INDIES.

CALCUTTA. •
SUPREME CCURT, TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1837.
EDWARD WHITE V. WILLIAM LYALL AND OTHERS.
Complainant is one of the executors of James Napier
Lyall, deceased ; defendant is parteer in the firm of Lyall,
Matheson, and Co. The bill was filed for an account.
The Advocate-General and Mr. Clarke for the elm-
plainant, entered into the facts of the ease,!as they appeared
in the argument on the caveat, before Mr. Justice Grant,
in chambers. The Learned Counsel argued that defen-
dant's reluctance in giving up the will, together with there
appearing a sum of only 1,6001. in England at the credit of
the estate, subsequent to the time that McKensie, Lyall,
and Co. had paid by instalment 60,000 rupees to Lyall, '
Matheson, and Co., in liquidation of the amount due by
them to the testator, compelled Mr. White to file this bill.
Mr. Prinsep and Mr. Cochrane, for Lyall, Mathetlp,
and Co., insisted that Complainant had been tan precipi-
tate. The first application for the blivery of the '.71'.1 was
on Sept. 19th ; on the:ll:it defendant offe-eji to give up the
will. The caveat was argued on th:: 29th ; the bill filed the
same day. There was therefore evidently no delay as to
giving up the will, that couldtuttify the imputation of a
fraudulent intention. It is positively denied that the ac-
count had ever been applied for, while on putting iu the an,
swer the account was admitted to be correct, and
proceedings would have terminated if deteudam.ts had con-
sented to pay their own costs, The L°-arced Counsel ar-
gued that where A party never --‘:.nands an account but
rushes into equity,
and don -finds the account correct, it is
the rule that he 5h.:.11 pay defendant' ^oat -

s costs. -
Mr. Leith and 'Mr. Grant, who appeared for Mr. Robert
Lyall and Mr. Wm. Lyali, were stopped by 'the Court,
their Lordships being satisfied that the parties were en-
titled to their costs.
Mr. Advocate-General replied at length, insisting that
the conduct of. defendants compelled the complainant to
file the hill, and that the costs should fall on the parties
who had occasioned them. The late hour at which the
argument terminated compels the reporter to be brief,
and will not admit of further notice of the Learned Ad-
vocate's reply.
Chief Justice--What do you ask for, Mr. Advocate-
General ?

Advocate. General—We ask to dismiss the bill, and be
paid our costs.

Mr. Justice Grant—Did you ever hear of a case where
Int was allowed ?

Advocate-GeneralWell, my Lords, if I cannot have
that, I will ask that all the prayer of the bill be carried
into effect.

Chief Justice—This is a novel and extraordinary pro-
ceeding. Mr. Advocate-General says at the end of a long
argument, first, let the bill be dismissed, aad he be paid his
costs ; secondly, if he cannot have that, let the whole prayer
of the bill be granted. I apprehend this is a most novel
proceeding. In the opening this was stated to be a ques-
tion of costs, and the • whole answer has been received as
true. This, of itself, is prima facie ground for believing that
the bill was unnecessary. It is quite clear that the bill must
be dismissed ; but is the party who files it to have his costs?
Circumstances may occur to induce a Court of Equity to allow
costs where a party asks to have his bill dismissed, but it is a
very unusual proceeding. Now, what are the circumstances
here ? James Napier Lyall went to England in 1835.
On the 19th of September, 1836, accounts are received
of his death ; on the same day Mr. White, who was largely
indebted to the estate, applies for the will on the 22d of
September ; the will is given up ; the caveat is entered on
the 22d, overruled on the 30th, when Mr. NVliite became
fully armed, and could have taken out a probate, and ob-
tained an account. But whit does he do ? He does not
wait for the hearing of the caveat, but on the day before the
hearing lie files this bill, which he now applies to have dis-
missed. The bill (which must have taken aline time to
prepare) charges fraud throughout in the strongest terms,
and is put upon the file before the complainant dernanilede7 en
an account from the defendants. And now that the bill has
been filed, the answer of Lyall, Matheson, P".u. Co. is not
impugned. The result 14 that, tb-e defendants have
acted honestly and fairly ; that they have most properly
disposed of the funds of- testator as his agents ; and
instead of a large 5"..-airemaining in their hands, it is shown
that the sue:. is a small one, and that invested. The com-
Plai7.ant asks for his costs, because, as lie says, the conduct
of the defendants rendered the filing of the Bill necessary.
I am of opinion that the defendant's conduct as to the caveat
was improper, but it is not without excuse, considering the
circumstance of Mr. White being largely indebted to the
estate. But what excuse is put forth for filin; this bill ?
It has been hurried on before asking for account or explana-
tion. It is not a light matter that fraud should be charged
so indiscreetly against these defendants, and they have done
right, as any person in their situation would have done, in
coming boldly before the Court, to deny fraud upon oath,
and they have done so most satisfactorily. We are of
opinion that this Bill must be dismissed, and that the com-
plainant do pay the costs."

UNIVERSITY AND CLERICAL

`iNTELLIGENCE.

UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM.

FIRST AND SECOND PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF

B. A.-MICIIAELMAS TERM, 1837.

Class I.—Brereton Dwarris, Henry Robert Watson.
Class 2. Wade Hodgson, Thomas Charles Thomp-
son, Percival Spearman Wilkinson.
Class 3. —Edwin C. L. Bleukinsop, Meredith Brown,
Charles Robinson, John Henry R. Sumner.
Class 4.—John Brooksbank, William Greenwell.
Class s.—John Frederic Bigge, George Clifford Guise.
Charles Saltoun Jones, Arthur Erle Welby.
TEMPLE CHEVALIER,)
THOMAS W. PEILE, EXAMINERS.
JOHN THOMAS,
The llon. W. G. Grey, youw.-,est son of Earl Grey, has
been admitted a student of this University.
On Wednesday, Oct. 25, George Clayton, son of the R^v.
John Havton, Curate of Ryhopo, was admitted as a Barring-
ton scholar.

The following books have been ptes.mted to the University
Library by their respective authors :-13y U. \V. Benson,
Esq., " The Ichnography of Whitby Abbey." By John
llogg, Esq., M. A., Norton, " A Notice of Two Roman Li-
scriptions, relative to the Conquest of Britain by the Emperor
Claudius Ctesar."