The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-18 00:00:00

'ALKEITH CORN MARKET.—Jan. 12.
Wheat. Barley. Oats. I tease.
64h :12s 4d Ms Od
55. c 0.1 :10s (Al 22s 8,1 41s Od
41s Cd 23: Od 125 Cld 4Cs Otl

sEti.cr ,:t
on I
Third

Be2ns.
51., 0,1
41 Od
40, Od

MEETINGS OF CREDITORS TO-MORROW.
S. P. It. and P. Rice, warehousemen, Finsbury
J. Shotten, job-mater. Lamb's Conduit-street 1 1

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jlm. 17.
SAWYER V. BIRCHMERE.

In this case a bill was filed for the administration of the
effects of a person named Clear, of Leatherhead, who died
in 1314. The bill was filed in 1825, and under the deno-
mination of Smith v. Stone, a decree was obtained, through
which the property was ultimately distributed among seven
perions who appeared to be the sole next of kin. It has
since turned out that there were five other persons who
could establish their title as next of kin, and the present bill
was filed by them to have the other legatees declared trus-
tees for the distribution of the money they have received
among all who are entitled to it. The matter was argued
before the present Master of the Rolls, who dismissed the
bill with costs, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Sir W. flonNE supported the appeal.
WYGRAk supported the decree of the Court. below.

The Low) CIIAN.GELLOR directed a copy of the decision
of the Master of the Rolls to be handed up, and took time
to consider his judgment.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 17.
EVANS V. TAYLOR.

•
This was an action of trespass, brought by the plaintiff
to try a disputed right of fishing in a branch of the Severn.
The plaintiff claimed a right of several fishery and a right
of free fishery.. At the trial. of the cause before Lord
Denman at Gloucester, among other documents produced
to prove the right claimed by the plaintiff was a survey,
brought from the office of the Duchy of Lancaster. No
Royal Commission, authorising the survey, was produced ;
but it was contended that it came from the proper cus-
tody—that it was made at the public expense—and re-
lated to land then part of the lands of the Crown, and
that having in this manntr a public character, it was
properly receivable in evidence. Lord Denman, however.
rejected the evidence, and the defendant had a verdict,
A rile had sim:c been obtained to set aside the verdict and
have a new trial.

The CounT took time to consider the question.
Mr. Justice Littledale was again absent from indisposi-
tion, as wore many members of the bar, and several cases
were, therefore, necessarily postponed.

BAIL COURT, JAN. 17.
TILE KING V. THE CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL.

Sir Wu-11Am FOLLETT moved fora ?mandamus, direct-
ing the corporation of Liverpool to pay to the Rev. Mr.
Moss, Lecturer of St. John's Church, in that town, his
usual annual salary. The Learned Counsel said, i❑ the
second year of the reign of Gco. 111. an Act was passed,
authorizing the corporation of Liverpool to build additional
churches in that town, to appoint ministers to those
churches, and to pay their salaries out of the funds of the
corporation. Mr. Moss, some years since, was appointed
Lecturer of St. John's, to apist the minister, and was re-
gularly paid his salary until after the passing of the Muni-
cipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill ; it was now with-
held, on the ground that the Act of George the Third, only
gave authority to the 'Corporation to pay the minister, and
Mr. Moss was not minister, but lecturer.
Mr. Justice- PATTISON—Tuke a rule to show cause.
itulu