The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-09 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY•)

REYNOLDS V. CONCANNON.
This was an application upon motion to dissolve an in-
junction granted by his Honour in June last, restraining the
defendant, who is the Secretary of the Royal Mining As-
sociation at Truro, from cutting off the supply of water to
the Wheal Friendship Mine, until after the trial of an ac-
tion, or till the defendant should fully answer the bill.
From the statements in the bill and the affidavits in EUppOrt
of the applicant for the injunction, it appeared that the
defendant and the plaintiff had both of them tin
mines on the same stream, and that some disagreements
taking place between them, shortly before the application
' for the injunction, the defendant, accompanied by a large
'body of persons, proceeded to the works of the plaintiff and
cut down the ancient dam of the stream, whereby the works
of the plaintiff were completely stopped ; Concannon en-
couraged the men to this work of destruction by a promise
of 2/. to spend in drink, desiring them to bury alive all that
stopped them, saying he had come from London on purpose
to make a riot and shed blood, and that he would do so
before he returned ; adding that he would send lead through
the first man that opposed him. By their answer the de-
fendants denied that they had diverted the ancient water-
course of the river by what they had done, but that the
course pursued by the plaintiff had effected it.
The case had not concluded when we left.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
This being the second seal after Michaelmas Term, the
Court took motions.

SANDERS V. HOWELL.
In this case, on the motion of Mr. PEmainToN, which
was opposed by Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. GiaDLssToNx,
a receiver was appointed of the rents of certain freehold
messuages at Chepstow, in Monmouthshire. •

V. FARR.
In this case an attachment had been issued against Nir.
Farr for want of his wife's answer. He had put in his an'
swer, and Mr. GIRDLESTONE now moved that the attach"
ment might be discharged, and that the wife ought to be
ordered to put in her answer separately.—Order made.

LTD' V. HALL
Mr. PEMBERTON moved that the orders made in this
cause on the 16th of May and the 19th of December, 1835,
might be discharged. The bill was filed by the plaintiffs,
who were the assignees of an annuity of 3001. a year, pay-
able to the defendant, Mrs. Hale, to which she was entitlei
out of a pension fund, called " the Civil Fund of Bombay'.
Her husband having been an officer of that establishment,
on his death she became entitled to the annuity. Mrs;
Hale mortgaged or sold to the plaintiffs, Messrs. Lyde an",
Foam, a sum of 2001., part of the annuity. The fun'
was received by remittance tol the house of Colville,
Crawford, and Co., and they had been in the habit of payi.ng
the annuity as received from time to time. Mrs. Hale being
abroad, and acontinuance of payment to Messrs. Lyde and Co.
being refused, the plaintiffs filed the bill. against Colville and
Co. and Mrs. Hale, when she should come within the juris-
diction, to have the arrears of the annuity ascertained,
and paid out of the monies in the hands of Colville and
Co. The cause came on for hearing before Lord Cot-
tenham when Master of the Rolls. Messrs. Colville and
Co. appeared, and submitted whether the annuity was
in
its nature assignable ; but they principally insisted that
the Court could make no order with regard to the fund,
Mrs. Hale being out of the jurisdiction. Lord Cotten-
ham came to the opinion, that in the absence of Mrs.
Hale, he could make no decision, and the cause was or-
dered to stand over. The plaintiffs obtained an order
that service on the clerk in Court of Mrs. Hale, might
be deemed a good service, and were preparing to take the bill,
pro confesso. The order of the 16th May stated that the
cause was to stand over for the purpose of adding parties,
which Mr. Pemberton said was clearly wrong, because
there were no parties to add. Then an order had been °lr.
tamed on the 12th of November, 1835, ordering the bill
to be dismissed, unless Mrs. Hale was made a party en or
before the second day of Michaelmas Term. The Learned
Counsel therefore considered that what he asked must, as
a matter of course, be granted.
Mr. TINNEY and Mr. Nom." for the defendants,
Messrs. Colville and Co., submitted that it would be neces-
sary to have a re-hearing of the cause before the order
could be discharged. They further contended that the suit
was defective for want of parties, and that Lord Cotten-
ham had considered the trustees of the Fund ought to have
been brought before the Court, Messrs. Colville and Co.
had no interest in the matter, and were merely desirous of
having the Bill dismissed, that they might not be subjected
to any further costs.
Mr. PEMBERTON replied.
Lord LANGDALE considered that if he refused the pre'
sent application, he should be doing great injustice to the
plaintiffs, who appeared to have an equitable claim. There
had been some mistake in the drawing up of the first order ;
and under these circumstances, the best way would be t°
discharge the order of November, 1835, and to vary the
order of May by striking out of it all the words except
that the cause was to stand over. The plaintiffs, hoc'
ever, were to pay the costs of the present application.