The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-25 00:00:00

FOLEY V. OILL.

His Loansutr also gave judgment on a point of pleading, argued a
few days ago, in this case, on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, and dis-
missed the appeal.

STANLEY V. TIIE CHESTER AND BERKENHEAD RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. JAcou was heard in support of a demurrer put in by the defend-
ant's bill, which prayed a specific performance of a c,ntract to pay the
plaintiff 9.0,000/. for some acres of his land, which a former company,
whose contracts were said to be adopted by the defendants, agreed to
pay. The Vice-Chancellor refused to allow the demurrer, and this was
an appeal from his Honour's decision.
After hearing all the facts of the case,
The LORD-CHANCELLOR disallowed the demurrer, and confirmed the
Vice-Chancellor's judgment with costs.

ROLL'S COURT, Joys 23.
ANTRAM V. MILLER.

This was a suit for the recovery of 2,500/. stock, which had been
illegally parted with by the trustees of a life estate, and which was now
sought to be recovered from the executor of the trustee deceased. On
the marriage of Mr. Richard Antrarn, of Dorchester, in 1794, the sum
of 2,600/. three per cent., and of 1,0001. five per cent. stocks, were
settled on him, his wife, and children, with a proviso that if either
survived and married again, that one moiety of the fund should
be divided amongst the children. Mrs. Antram died in 1815, and her
husband contracted a secoud marriage in 1818, when the fund would
have become payable to the children, the two plaintiffs, but was not
paid to them. In 1820 Mr. Miller sold out the 2,6001. stock, and in
1823 he died, leaving a considerable estate, and never having replaced
the trust fund. In 1828, Mr. Richard Antram, sen., died.
Lord LANGDALE, after hearing Counsel, decreed that the funds should
be restored, with interest, from 1823, together with the costs of the suit,
out of the assets of Mr. Miller, the trustee.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, JUNE 23.
THE QUEEN V. ANSDELL, DEANE, SLADE, AND OTHERS.

This case was resumed this morning. The letters of administration
granted to Isaac Joseph Isaacs, and the letters of administration granted
on his death, and similar documents, were put in, to show that the family
had repeatedly acted on the assumed ground of the legitimacy of Isaac
Joseph Isaacs. On the distribution of the property of an uncle Isaac
Joseph Isaacs paid duty as a lawful son of the brother of the deceased,
and the Stamp-Office received such duty from him without objection.
This evidence was given, and some letiers of Benjamin, the elder
brother of Joseph Isaacs, and the first tenant for life of the property,
written to Isaac Joseph Isaacs, were also produced, with the view to show
that in a great many family transactions Isaac Joseph Isaacs had been
treated as legitimate.

Sir F. POLLOCK (in the absence of the Attorney-General) replied
upon the whole case. He contended that the question which the Jury
had to decide was, not whether one or other of the two brothers was le.
gitimate, but whether this charge of:conspiracy had been made out. The
Learned Counsel went at great length into the evidence, and then sub-
mitted that the case against all the defendants had been fully made out,
and that the Jury had no alternative but to pronounce a conviction.
Lord DENMAN summed up the case, and
The Jury returned a verdict, finding that Henry Gulley Isaac was
legitimate : that Dean and Slade were Guilty, and that the other defen-
dants fete Not Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jura 23.