The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

xr7,
;1/ -*

\ `\:,t:r

COURT OF CHANCERY, MISCH 16.
RHODES V. WARBURTON.
This was a bill filed to establish the fact of a partnerahtlr' citiSAI:CV
between the late Dr. Warburton and Moses Rhodes, in car—
rying on business as keepers of the lunatic asylum known by
the name of the Red House, at Bethnal Green.
His LORDSHIP gave his judgment, stating the facts of the
case, and observing, that the sole question between the parties
was whether there had been a partnership which entitled
Rhodes to a fourth share of the profits of the establishment, or
whether he was merely entitled, as Dr. Warburton alleged in
his answer, to a quarterly payment, to be calculated on the
amount of the receipts exceeding the expenditure. Conceiv-
ing that there was nothing to establish the prajer to enforce
an account of the partnership, his Lordship's opinloi was
that the bill ought to be dismissed ; and conceiving, more-
over, that the idea of establishing a partnership on the strength
of the notice was an afterthought of the plaintiff. his Lord.
ship also thought that the bill must be dismissed with costs.

PREROGATIVE COURT, MARCH 16
WEBBER AND OTHERS V. BARROW.

This was a suit respecting the validity of the will of Miss
Jane Anne Barrow, late of Orchard-street, Portman-square,
who died on the 14th of April, 1836.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, on the part of the executors, contended
that the deceased was a person of sound mind, and quite ca-
pable of making her will, but admitted her memory was much
impaired by her great age, viz., 77 years.
The QUEEN'S ADvocA TE, for Colonel Barrow and his chil-
dren, contended that the deceased was a person of very weak
end imbecile mind. That she had always been so treated and
considered by her sister, her family, and friends. They did
not mean that she was decidedly intestable, but they contended
she was incapable of making a will without assistance.
That Court took time to consider its judgment.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, MARCH 16.
Samuel Brown Harper wa opposed by Mr. James Peters,
a jeweller, at Cambridge. He was supported by Mr. Cooke.
The insolvent, a young man, was described as an under-
graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge, and an author ; his
debts were somewhat considerable, and he had been engaged
in bill transactions. His insolvency was ascribed to the com-
mon cause, of his expenditure exceeding his income, in the
shape of an allowance from his father. It appeared that for
about 1,2001. of bills which a gentleman named Plumer had
paid, the insolvent had received from, he said, a money-lender
about 4001.
Mr. Peters was rather surprised at such a statement.
Mr. Commissioner Maims was not at all surprised, after
the cases that had occurred in that Court.
The insolvent admitted that in about two years he had up-
wards of 300/. wcrth of clothes. Mr. Nugee was one of his
tailors.
Mr. Peters was any ions to know what bad become of his
wardrobe, and the inscivent said he had " worn them out."
lie had not pawned any, but had parted with some for a dog
at Cambridge.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS---Are we to understand, Sir, that
in two years you have worn out r;early 300/. worth of clothes?
—( A laugh.)
The insolvent said such was the case.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS—And do you mean to say that
you have not pawned any, and only have the clothes allowed
you by the Court?
The insolvent declared that be had none reserved. From
his examination it was elicited that he had about two hun-
dred books at Cambridge, some plate, furniture, &c. ; some
books he had sold at Cambridge, others he had pawned in
London for 101. He also received 301. on plate, and other
sums he had received from the same source.
Mr. Commissioner Hams said the case resolved itself into
an account of the pawnbroker's duplicates ; he should require
evidence on that point before he would discharge tho insolvent_
The case stood adjourned for that purpose.