The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-11 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER—Nov. 10.

(Present—The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr.
Baron Parke, Mr. Justice Maule, Mr. BaronPlatt,
Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Talfourd, and Mr.

Baron Martin.)
THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE QUEEN.

In this case the Court of Queen's Bench had issued a
mandamus to compel the Great Western Railway Com-
pany to make a certain line of railway, for which the
Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway Company had
originally received powers which it was alleged were now
vested in the Great Western. The line contemplated
was provided for in the second section of the former com-
pany's act, which said it was expedient to improve the
communication by a branch from Bradford to Bath-
ampton, where it would join the Great Western line.
Mr. Butt, on the part of the company, contended that
the judgment. of the Court of Queen's Bench should be
set aside on the ground that the provisions of the act
by which the company took the powers of the Wilts,
Somerset, and Weymouth Railway Company were per-
missive and not obligatory.
The court (without calling on Mr. Crowder, who was
on the other side), held that the act must be construed
as obligatory, and affirmed the judgment.
Judgment affirmed accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY—Nov. 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
IN RE ARMSTRONG.

The bankrupt, a linendraper, at Norwich, applied for
his certificate. His debtes were 9331. ; assets about
1701.

Mr. Linklater, for the bankrupt, asked for an imme-
diate certificate, the bankruptcy having ocourred nearly
two years ago, and there being no opposition.
His Honour granted a second-class certificate.
IN RE HENNET.

The bankrupt, George Rennet, was described as a
railway contractor, shipowner, &c., of Duke-street,
Westminster, of Bristol, Bridgewater, and Teignmouth.
This was the first audit meeting held under the bank-
ruptcy. _ _

Cannan, the official assignee, submitted to the
Court an account, of which the following is an abstract.
Total amount collected—cash, 73,1161. ; bills of ex-
chance, 2,761/. ; total, 75,8771. Balance in hand—
cash, 33,2821. ; bills, 2,761/. ; total, 36,0431. The dif-
ference is accounted for by payments to a large amount
which have been made in completing sundry works,
and in working up materials and stock at Bristol and
Bridgwater. The assets yet to be collected are estimated
at from 110,000/. to 120,000/.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—Nov. 10.
(Before Chief Commissioner Law.)
IN THE MATTER OF sut HUGH EVELYN, BART.
Mr. Cooke applied to the court, on the part of Mr.
Burley, a solicitor, of Lincoln's-inn, for an order on the
provisional assignee of the court (Mr. Sturgis) to pay
over to him all moneys, unclaimed dividends and other-
wise, which he had to the credit of this estate. The
circumstances were of a novel character. Sir Hugh
Evelyn was committed to prison in 1826, and did not
file his schedule till 1843. His creditors had been paid
three dividends, amounting to Bs. in the pound, and
there was now a sum in court unclaimed which, it was
submitted, belonged to Mr. Burley. Sir Hugh Evelyn
had been in the receipt of the interest of some 8,6001.
in the Three per Cent. Consols from a relation named
Evelyn, who made his will in the course of last century.
The Court of Chancery had declared the will void from
remoteness of the distribution, and Mr. Burley had been
declared entitled to the principal. The assignee of Sir
Hugh Evelyn, a Mr. Thomas Barton, had been ordered
to pay the balance in his hands into the Court of Chan-
cery, as Sir Hugh Evelyn was not entitled to receive
the dividends, and it was now sought to obtain the un-
claimed money in this court for Mr. Burley. The cre-
ditors of Sir Hugh Evelyn before the final decree in
Chancery had been' paid (those who had proved their
debts) about Bs. in the pound, and some others had not
claimed the dividends which remained in court.
The Chief Commissioner granted a rule nisi on the
provisional assignee for him to show cause why the
fund standing to the credit of the estate should not be
paid over to Mr. Burley. His Honour thought that
the only fund would be the unclaimed dividends.
Rule nisi accordingly.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips).
IN RE THE REV. THEODORE WILLIAMS.

This insolvent, the Vicar of Hendon, was discharged
under the act, some time back, and the provisional as-
signee of the court (Mr. Sturgis) had, on behalf of the
creditors, issued a sequestration on the vicarage for
25,0001.
Mr. Cooke applied to the court for a rule on the
Bishop of London to show cause why he should not
make a return to the sequestration of the provisional
assignee, and why the proceeds under the same should
not be paid into court. In March last Mr. Sturgis ap-
plied for a sequestration, and in May he received a
letter from the bishop's registrar, informing him that
Mr. Lee, of Great Dean's-yard, Westminster, had been
appointed the sequestrator. No return had been ob-
tained to the sequestration, and an account was re-
quired of the money received.
Commissioner Phillips asked whether any appli-
:ran_ n had been made to the Bishop of London before
`"Zpresent application ?
Mr'made. c 00., ze was not aware that an application had been
1. nothing ;zonally the Bishop of London could know
registrar. e matter. It was left in the hands of his
Mr. Comm
courtesy his loner Phillips thought, as a matter of
grace should be applied to.- He would not
refuse the rule.
Mr. Cooke
apprehended that it was similar to a sheriff.
It was well known that the
to whom applications w
made'
trndersheriff was the party
Hie Honour preferred":
an application being made to
the Bishop of London before
,0 granted a rule,
learned mmissioner.
The matter stod o to phi
suggestion of the
cover pt the