The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY).

ROLLS' COURT.
'LORD DURHAM D. 'MARQUIS 01, LONDONDERRY.
The bill in this case was filed by Lord Durham, for the
purpose of compelling the Marquis of Londonderry speci-
fically to pe►for►n the agreement entered into between h►m
and a gentleman of the name of Dunkin. It appeared
that Mr. Dunkin was the trustee under the, will of a ged-
tlea►an named William Dawson Laumbton, who was pos-
sessed of large estates in the count}, of Durham.
By his will, Mr. Dawson Larnbton directed his trustees to
sell parts of his estates, in order to raise the sum 0f20,0001.,
but with respect to his mansion-house and the lands ad-
joining, the testator directs them to he left open till Lis
eldest sou (a lunatic) attained the age of 25. Upon the day
the eldest son attained 23, Mr. Dunkin entered into an
agreement to sell part of this property to the Marquis of
Londonderry, for the sum of 21,0001., and on the part Of
the Marquis a deposit was paid of 2,1001. Mr. Donlie
gave up possession to time Marquis, who resold the greater
p irt of this property to Lord Durham, for a sum of
16,0001, this was paid by Lord Durha►] to the Mar-
quis of Londonderry, but in consequence of the Marquis
not having pail his purchase money to Mr. Doukin (lie
disputing the right of Mr. Donkin to give a title under
Mr. Lambton'a will), Mr. Donkin refused to make the
necessary conveyance, and under these circum►tances the
present bill was filed.
Mr. I'llerzzasTrrir and Mr. STEVENSON appeared for
Lord:Durham, contending that the Marquis of London-
derry could, not dispute the title of Mr. Mukha, as he had
actually sold part of the very property in question to Lard „

Durham under that title. - -
Mr. Tixt4rr and Mr. LOTAT were Counsel for the
Marquis of Londonderry, and considered that as the eldest
son of the testator was a lunatic, for the distribution ut
whose property a bi.l had been filed, Mr. Dunkin had no
authority to make the sale in question without the
authority of the Court.
Mr. PEMBERTON appeared for Mr. Dunkin, wLo wss
ready to act as the Court might direct.
The MASTER of the ROLLS (if the Marqiis of London-
derry did not admit the acceptance of the title) could do no
more than direct a reference to the Ma.ter, for the pur-
pose of inquiring whether or not the title had. been ac-
cepted by his Lordship.
After some further diseassion, it was agreed to take the
proposed reference, subject to a communication being made
by the Marquis of Loudsnderry's Counsel to his Lordship.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
BRIEN V. NOEL.

Mr. KNIGHT, at the pitting of the Court, requesteJ

•
his Honour would be good enough to allow this
satin to be called on for the couveuieuce of Sir
Edward Antrobus, who was iu attendance under a sob-
pone, duces tecum, to produce a mortgage deed. That
deed being is Sir Edward's poisessiou, as mortgagee, he
objected to produce it, stating that as a mortgagee he wa•
not bound to do so. Such being the objection taken by Sir
Edward, the clients of Mr. Knight had adopted the pre-
rent course. It was not the intention of the Learned
Counsel to argue the point, but merely to submit it fur thf
consideration of the Court, in the way he had done, walk
this observation that he did not conceive a witness having a
deed or mortgagee could effectually protect himself from
its production by- the course pursued. by-Sic Edward
Antrobus.

Te Vera• CUA NCIELLoa apprehended that it was s
clearly settled point that no party could call upon a mort-
gagee to produce his deed without paying off his mortgage.
The SOLICITOIC-G EN MIA L recollected a case similar
to the present, in which Lord Kenyon said to to the mort-
gagee in possession of the deed, " There my good fellow*
sit down on the box which contains your deed, and don't
stir from it till you go ont of Conrt."

The VICE-ClaliceLcoa had no power to compel Sir
Edward to produce hit deed.
Sir Edward Antrohus shortly afterwards left the Court
with his deed safe in his own possession, unexplored by
the prying eyes of his opposing parties.
The Court proceeded with causes.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

DALY V. /MATTER.

The plaintiff in this case_ is a partner is a banking
establishment at Paris, and brought the present action to
recover 315/. 16s. the amount of a promissory note, of
which the defendant was an endorser.—After several wit-
ne.set had been examined, a verdict was returned fur the
plaintiff, subject to a special case.

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY).

CORN EXCHANGE.

WEDNESDAY, NIAKCH s.—There are *Mall supplies of
al descriptions of Grain, and not much Flour. The
finest Wheat is very scarce, and maintains its late. prices ;
other kinds are very dull in sale and rather cheaper. Bar-
ley is inactive from Monday's terms. Beans and Peaa
support their former prices. Oats find few buyers to-day,
but they cannot be reported any lower. Nu alteration in
Flour.

♦RRIVALS.
Wheat. Barley. Oats. Flout.
English ..... 1,750 qrs. 5,100 qrs. 2,700 qrs. 2,800 mein%
Irish 250 I --- 4,200 -.
Foreign - -