The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-27 00:00:00

HANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.)

AMBLE V. TEBBUTT.
The arguments in this case, which were part-heard yester-
day, were resumed to-day. The case came before the Court
upon an appeal motion from the judgment of the Master of
the Rolls, granting an injunction restraining the defendant,
Mr. Tebbutt, from receiving the rents of certain leasehold
property, the right to which was claimed by the wife of the
defendant under her marriage settlement. From the state-
ment of the case it appeared that Mrs. Tebbutt had at the
time of her marriage, in the year 1826, upwards of /2,000
in 3 per cent. Consols, which was vested in the names of
trustees for her own use and benefit. The deed by that
sum was vested gave Mr. Tebbutt the.powcr
appointment
over all or any part of that sum ;
tnere was a roviso that
if he should die without !nue, and without appoinpting, then
the property was to go to the defendant, Mr. Tebbutt. With
the consent of his wife and the trustees, Mr. Tebbutt sold out
the stock, with the proceeds of which he speculated in the
funds, and with the produce of those speculations he purchased
leasehold property to the value of 27,0001. and upwards.
Sometime after the marriage disputes atising between Mr.
and Mrs. Tebbutt, the latter carried away from the house
of the defendant the chest containing all the foreign
securities of which Mr, Tebbutt was possessed, and also ap-
plied for and obtained an injunction against her husband, re-
straining him from receiving the rents of the leasehold, on the
ground that their purchase was, made exclusively for her be-
nefit. The object of the present motion was to discharge that
order,

The arguments had not concluded when our Re

sorter le

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR was occupied the whole
morning with short causes and unopposed petitions.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. NUMPTIRETS,
In this case a rule in the nature of a quo warranto had been
obtained last term, calling upon the defendant to show by
what authority he exercised the office of one of the Aldermen
of the Corporation of London for the ward of Aldgate. The
facts of the case, which have been already before the public,
are briefly as follow:—.In the month of November, 1836, a
vacancy having taken place in the office of Alderman of the
ward of Aldgate, Mr. David Salomons, a gentleman of the
Jewish persuasion, offered himself as a candidate, and was duly
elected. According to the bye-laws of the Corporation, the
person so elected was bound to present himself to the next
Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen ; and the next Court
having been held on the 3d December following, Mr. Sdlo-
mons presented himself, and claimed to be admitted. He was
thereupon required by the Court to take and subscribe the
usual declaration, in lieu of the sacramental test, which he
nTlected or refused to do, and the Court declared the elec-
tion void, and issued a new precept, upon which the preseLt
defendant, Mr. Humphreys, one of the Members of Parlia-
ment for the borough of Southwark, was elected to the office,
which be had since held.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was heard on Wednesday last at
considerable length against the rule, and the Court had pc.st-
poned the further hearing of the case till this morning.
Sir FREDERICK PoLuoca. now appeared in support of the
rule. Ile denied the right of the Court of Aldermen to re-
quire of Mr. Salomons to make and subscribe the declaration
in question. The words of the Act 25th Charles 11., were,
" upon making the declaration he is to be admitted," and it
was clear from this, that Mr. Salomons had the power of
making the declaration at any period during the sitting of the
Court at which he was admitted. It was the duty of the
Court to admit Mr. Salomons in the first instance, and then it
rested with him to do what the Act required of him. On the
grounds, therefore, that the Court had no right to call upon
Mr. Salomons to make the declaration, and that they hsd
prematurely issued a precept for another election while the
office was full, he submitted that the judgment of the Court
must be for the Crown.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL was heard in reply, and the Cour
:ook time to consider its judgment.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Nothing of public interest occurred in this Court.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

ALEXANDER V. BONHAM.
In this case, which was an action of covenant, the Court
were occupied until our Reporter left, in hearing arguments
on a demurrer to the defendant's plea. The question related
to certain building lands held by the defendant under lease in
Brompton, Middlesex. The case involved no point of public
interest.