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

SHERWOOD V. VINCENT.

This is an appeal from art 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
tkat the 8001. had not been left with the defendant in
the manner and for the purposes he 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 OP BUSINESS.

The arrangements for the bearing of appeals being
concluded, the following notice was this day made pub-

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 Attorney-General v. Clapham, Johnson
v. Webster, Lazenby v. Rawson, Eades v. Williams,
Kane'v. 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. Affords."

(Before the Lords Justices.)
moss V. BAINBRIGGE.
The whole morning was occupied by the opening of
this case, which was commenced o❑ 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 have the least
public interest.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. R. Palmer, and Mr. E.
Webster, are for the plaintiff ; the two first ware fully
heard, and the last was speaking when the Court rose.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. J. 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 over 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 t• his widow, with full power of
sale, and to dispose of one 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 defeasanco 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 the 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 purebaeer bad 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.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)
IN RE IVIGG AND SMITH.-THE QUESTION OF ADJOURN.
MINTS.

This was an examination meeting in the above case
The bankrupts are described as commission agents, o.
Gresham•strcet.

Mr. Waller appeared for the assignees • and Mr. J.
R. Chidley, of Gresham-street, for the bankrupts.
The balance-sheet extends from May, 1853, to Sep-
tember, 1854, and shows the following items :—Credi-
tors, 22821. 3s. Bd. ; capital, 7001. ; profits, 4351. 14s. ;
good debts, 581. 11s. 3d. ditto, doubtful, 161. 4s.
3d. ; bad debts, 379/. 9s. Bd. ; cash with assignees,
2001. ; trade expenses, 686/. ; law costs, 501. ; interest
and discount, 3041. ; drawn out by Wigg, 8011. 14s.
Bd. ; ditto by Smith, 4701. 17s. 3d. ; loss on trading,
3321. lie. 3d. ; loss on sale of property, 181. 4s.
Mr. Waller stated that the balanco sheet had not
been filed in proper time on the last day allowed by
the law for doing so, having been left at ten minutes
past four.
Mr. Chidley contended that the act did not specify
what time the accounts were to be delivered on the
day of filing, and that therefore they were filed in law-
ful time.
His Honour thought they should be furnished before
three o'clock, but did not intend to adjourn the bank-
rupts on that point.
The examination was ultimately adjourned, to enable
the trade assignee to investigate the accounts.
An application for an allowance to the bankrupts was
then made, which Mr. Waller opposed ; but after a brief
conversation the opposition was withdrawn, and his
Honour ordered 11. per week to each bankrupt.