The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-21 00:00:00

MARKET NEWS.-(THIS DAY.)

CORN-EXCHANGE--WEDNESDAY
Although our market to-day was but moderately sup-
plied with all kinds of English Wheat, the demand for
that article was in a very depressed state, owing to the
large arrivals from abroad, at almost nominal curren-
cies. Upwards of 18,000 quarters of foreign Wheat
have come in this week. Fine parcels were mostly held
at full prices; but all other kinds ruled dull in the ex-
treme. The supply of English Barley was small, that
of foreign large, viz , 14,560 quarters. The transac-
tions were wholly in retail, at Monday's quotations.
Malt ruled heavy, at barely stationary prices. The
show of Oats was on the increase. Selected samples
sold at full prices, but damp and inferior qualities were
6d. lower. Beans, Peas, and Flour very dull. Indian
Corn is lower.

ARRIVALS THIS WEEK.

Wheat. I Barley. 1 Oats. I Malt.
I_____l_

Flour.

Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. Sacks,
840 2,610
2,020 2,890 3,810

English ......
Scotch ...... • •
Irish •••• • • • •
Foreign •• • ... $ 18,290 1 14,560 122,270

BiIohLOUGIEt BOP MARKET.

Good and tine Hops move off steadily, at very full
prices. Otherwise the demand is in a sluggish state.
WHITECHAPEL.

Our market to-day was steady for each kind of Meat,
the prices of which were well supported, Beet; from
2s 6d to 3s 6d; Mutton, 3s to 45; Veal, 3s 4d to 3s
10d; and Pork, 3s 4d to 4s 2d per Sibs, by the carcase.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

NORTH V. AIORLEY.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave, judgment this morning irr
this case, which came before his Lordship some time
since, upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor Wigram. His Lordship affirmed the judgment of
the Court below, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
The case involved no question or facts of any interest,
except to the parties concerned.
LORD ALVANLEY V. LORD KINNAIRD.—JUDGSIENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this='
case, which was heard before his Lordship some time
since, upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chan-,
Icellor of England, directing a resale of certain.
property in the county of Chester. The case.
came before the Vice - Chancellor of England:
under the following circumstances :—Certain property'
belonging to Lord Alvanley had been directed to be sold.
by a decree of this court, 1842. The estates included.
the manor of Bredbury, in the county of Chester, and:
which was described in the particulars of sale as the.
"manor of Bredbury.cum-Goit, including all rights, roy-
alties, liberties, privileges, and advantages." There were
certain estates called the Highfield Estate, which had
originally formed part of the demesne lands, but had
been sold separately, reserving the mines. The manor
itself, described as lot 1, was purchased at the sale for
721. by a Mr. Ferns, as agent for Mr. Josiah Howard, the
son of the lessee of a large part of the estate. There was a
good deal of conflicting testimony as to what was actually
said at the time of the sale—the vendors contending that
it was distinctly explained that the manor included nearly
61. a year rents, with the right of appointing a game-
keeper and a sexton. The purchaser, on the other side,
contended that he believed that he was purchasing the
right to the mines, and that nothing had been said at
the sale of any reservation being intended to be made.
Subsequently the purchaser carried a conveyance into
the Master's office, by which the mines were to be con-
veyed; but the vendors refused to execute it, and im-
mediately presented a petition, alleging that it was
never intended to pass the mines, and that Mr. Ferns,
who had been a receiver of the estate under the trustees.
was aware of the fact, and praying that the Court
would direct such a conveyance as would except the'
mines, and that the petitioner might be directed to pay
the costs. The Vice-Chancellor of England, on the case.
coming before him, directed a resale, and from
that decision the present appeal was brought. Thu
Lord Chancellor, atter going at considerable length intt
the case, stated his opinion to be that the purchaser wail
entitled to lot 1, exclusive of the mines, but that no dee•
tree for a specific performance of the purchase could bu'
pronounced against him. His Lordship would, there-
fore, discharge the order of the Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
land, giving the purchaser the option of taking the lanil
without the mines.

IN THE MATTER or DICKSON.
In this case Mr. Dickson appeared in person to ask
for the judgment of the Court. Our readers will recital -
lect, no doubt, the facts of the case. Mr. Dickson is .*
trader in the city of Dublin, and he allegro,
that with respect to a spirit licence obtainOsi
from the Excise, 16s. 6id. beyond the leg, I
demand was exacted from him by the Excite
officers; and as between 30,000 and 40,000 of the trades
nacn of Dublin were similarly circumstanced, it ws s
determined to try the question at law. Mr. Dickson at
cordingly instituted proceedings in the Irish Court ..of
Exchequer for the recovery of the alleged excess, but b 0
was noesuited, on the ground of his having neglected t 0
bring his action within the statutory period-. He then •
upon presented a petition of right to her Majesty 's
pray, ing for a commission of inquiry into the matter 4
and the matter was referred to the Lord Chancellor I
do right between Mr. Dickson and the Crown. Whe 0
the application for the issuing of the commission can 0
I before his Lordship, the Attorney. General (although b
had previously consented to pay the amount claimei I)
opposed it, on the ground that it would be beneath 1.1 ,0
dignity of the Court to entertain jurisdiction in a matt
of such trifling importance as a claim of 16s. 6id. Ti A
matter was then ordered to stand over until his Lon l'
ship had fully considered the case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would look into 0
papers and dispose of the matter on an early day.
Mr. Dickson said that perhaps his Lordship wog; la
dispose of the case some day next week.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not enter into an I
compact with Mr. Dickson as to the time he would gin
judgment, the amount was small, but he would look ov• et
the papers and dispose of it as soon as he could.
Mr. Dickson said that many thousands depends 33
upon his Lordship's decision. He had come from Del t'
lin, a distance of upwards of 300 miles to ask It i!
Lordship for his judgment, and he trust !0
that his Lordship would pronounce his decision on. *0
early day.
The LORD CHANCELLOR promised to give his be It
attention to the case, and dispose of it as soon as. l ,is
other duties would permit him.
Mr. Dickson, after thanking the Court, withdrew--
SCARE I'. souLnv.
The further arguments on this part-heard appeal f'n .01
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England were t b 0111
resumed. The question in the case is, whet ‘4
a voluntary settlement in favour of a woman and her lei le'
gitimate children was valid against creditors. In la 4:1
a person named John Milner (the testator), by ade
between him and Eliza Quilton, recited that as he to l'
Eliza had for past years cohabited together, and had h A"
four children, and also that as John Mile et
was desirous of ceasing to cohabit wi
the said Eliza Quilton, but was desirous of making pi °'
vision for the children and the mother, he, in order t°,
secure them 2401. a year, directed his wife, after 1
decease to assign two policies of assurance to Eli $!,
Quilton. After the testator's death, this bill was filed
creditors, impeaching the settlement, on the ground 03 itt;
at the time of executing the deed the testator was large 'IA
indebted and embarrassed in his circumstances, a `;
praying that this settlement—there being no good ,°,
valuable consideration—should be declared void. On ' t";
case coming before the Vice-Chancellor of England, 111
Honour decreed that the settlement was void as spa i 36
creditors, and from that decision the present appeal
brought.
The further arguments occupied the Court the wlit 01°
morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAYO

ALENKINSOPP W. BLENKINSOPP.

The Court was again occupied the whole day in h ear;
ing the arguments in this case. The suit was instituted
by Mrs. Harriett Leaton Blenkinsopp against her hall'
band, George Thomas Leaton Blenkinsopp, to set a side
a deed executed by the defendant in September, 18421
to defeat a decree for alimony, which had been obtained
against him by the plaintiff, who in 1842 obtained •
decree for a divorce from the defendant, on the ground!
of adultery and cruelty. The deed in question purpor tea
to convey all the defendant's estates to trustees for 00
benefit of his creditors; but it was alleged by the phalli'
tiff that the deed was collusive and fraudulent as against
her.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
LEE V. HUTTON OR WARD.
lElis Horrotra, on taking his scat this morning, stated
that in this case, which was heard in his private room
short time since, he had seen the young lady and her
aunt, and after having done so, he thought it right
state publicly that his opinion was that the injunction
restraining the suitor of the young lady from haeioi
any communication with her should be dissolved, GO
that a reference should be directed to the Master to, ar
prove of a settlement.

- (Before the Viee. Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Ills Honour took bankruptcy petitions to-day, but 00
case of any interest came before the Court during tb°
day.

(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
His Honour having disposed of the cases of thee
Attorney-General v.. Murdoch, and the Marquis 13'
Londonderry v. Ovingdon, which stood on the paper t°
be spoken to, proceeded to hear the further arguateFt!
in the pant-heard case of Thompson v. Roper, v 431
occupied the Court the remainder of the day.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
COLE V. KNIGHT.
Mr. FLOOD said this case was now pending in de,
Warwickshire County Court, and as he considered
one in which it could have no jurisdiction, he bad t°
apply to their Lordships to grant a writ of certiorari for
its removal to this court, and also for a prohibitiop•
Two cases had already been before their Lorciships,lii
which the plaintiffs, in order to bring them under tu:
Small Debts Act, had reduced the debt to 201., giving
credit for the remainder of the debt, but the Court
notwithstanding the reduction so tendered by the plain,
tiff, that the cases were still not within thejurisdiction
tile county court, and could not be so unless the balano