The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Nov. G.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. CLAPHAM.
Mr. Rolt, on the part of the respondents in this ap-
peal, said he was instructed to support the application
of the appellants for a hearing by the full court.
The Lord Chancellor did not think it a case of such a
nature that a hearing by the full court was indispensable.
Ile had consulted th Vice-Chancellor Wood, who heard
the information, and his honour had expressly said that
the application of both plaintiffs and defendants for a
hearing by the full court could not make any difference.
Mr. Rolt having then intimated a wish for some
delay,

His Lordship said the hearing might stand over for a
week, to give the parties an opportunity for preparing
their cases.

SHERWOOD V. VINCENT.

This is an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor
Wood, made on the hearing of exceptions, and which
dismissed the plaintiff's bill. The parties are solicitors,
who were at one time partners, and the question at issue
is, whether a sum of 8001., brought into the business by
the plaintiff as capital, ought to be repaid to him, or re-
tained by the defendant according to an agreement under
which the plaintiff's son was taken into the business of
the defendant. The Vice-Chancellor Turner, at the ori-
ginal hearing, sent a reference to the Master, who found
that the 8001. had not been left with the defendant in
the manner and for the purposes ho alleged ; but on the
hearing of exceptions to the report, the Vice-Chancellor
Wood examined the defendant in court, and, on hearing
his statements, made the order of which the plaintiff
complained. Since that time the plaintiff alleges he
has discovered evidence to prove that the statements of
the defendant in the viva voce examination were untrue,
and he asks for a re-examination, and for permission to
bring evidence to rebut the assertions of the defendant.
Mr. Willcock and Mr. Terrell were heard for the
appellant ; Mr. Rolt and Mr. C. Hall are for the defen-
dant.

Further argument to-morrow.
DIVISION OF BUSINESS.

The arrangements for tho hearing of appeals being
concluded, the following notice was this day made pub-
lic :

" During the present term, unless any matters be
specially appointed for hearing before the full court, the
Lord Chancellor will proceed with the hearing of these
appeals :—The Atterney.General v. Clapham, Johnson
v. Webster, Lazenby v. Rawson, Eades v. Williams,
Kane ►. Reynolds, Schroder v. Schroder, Simpson v.
Sadd, Lockhart v. Reilly, and Reilly v. Lockhart,
Cooper v. Arnold, and Arnold v. Cooper, Fearnhead
v. Buttevant, Goldsmith v. Russell, The Attorney-
General v. Alfords."
(Before the Lords Justices.)
MOSS V. BAINBRIGGE.

The whole morning was occupied by the opening of
this case, which was commenced on Saturday. The
litigation relates to large demands for costs, and other
matters, made by the plaintiff, a solicitor, upon the pro.
perty of the Bainbrigge family. It was disposed of by
a decree at the Rolls on the 25th of April last ; but
both sides being dissatisfied, the entire matter has been
now brought, by way of appeal, before the Lords Jus-
tices. The contest does not appear to hare the least
public interest.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. R. Palmer, and Mr. E.
Webster, are for the plaintiff ; the two first were fully
heard, and thallast was speaking when the Court rose.
Mr. Rolt afi& Mr. s. V. Prier are counsel for the
Bainbrigge family; Mr. Follett and Mr. Speed appear
for trustees ; and Mr. H. Wright for other parties in-
terested.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.
(Before Sir Richard Kindersley.)
PHILLIPS V. POWELL.
The question in this case was whether the purchaser
of realty, devised by a testator to his widow, was or
was not liable to pay the costs of the suit, he having
retained a moiety of the purchase money, and given a
bond to pay it ever to the party to whom the Court
should decide that it was payable. The facts were, that
the testator, by his will, dated in 1848, devised his real
and personal estate to his widow, with full power of
sale, and to dispose of cone moiety of such real and per-
sonal estate as she should be possessed of at the time of
her death. He directed that the other moiety should go
to his sister. The widow sold the whole estate to the
defendant, who was advised that the widow was only
entitled to the moiety, and it would not be safe to pay
over more. He paid this, and gave a bond to the
widow, reciting the will, the defeasance in the bond
being to pay over the other moiety to the party who
might be declared entitled.
The case was argued by Mr. Glasse and Mr. Kars-
lake for the plaintiff; Mr. Salmon appeared for the
personal representatives of the testator's sister, and Mr.
Renshaw was for the purchaser.
His Honour held that the widow was only entitled
absolutely to a moiety of tie proceeds of the realty.
The duty of the purchaser was to have brought the dis-
puted moiety into court to abide the order of the Court.
As the purchaser had acted under a mistake, and had
shown no disposition wrongfully to withhold payment to
the legal owner of the money, his honour decreed pay-
ment to the personal representative of the testator's
sister, with interest at 4 per cent, from the day of the
sale, but the decree to be without costs.
.en

• BANKRUPTCY COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fame.)