The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-02 00:00:00

LORD TRIMLESTOWN V. D%RLTON.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL remined the Court of this
case, which had stood over for some time for judgment.
The Loan CHANCELLOR thought it had been dis-
posed of.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was told not ; and there were
circumstances which made it very important that judg-
ment should be given. His Lordship promised to look
into it.

NEROT v. BARNARD AND WIFE.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, moved OIL the part of the
defendants that their recognizances entered into in the
Master's office, might be ordered to he discharged. The
notice of motion prayed in the alternative, that should the
Court not be pleased to vacate the recognizances, the de-
fendants might be directed to have joint possession of the
premises (Nerot's Hotel) with the plaintiff, or that the
plaintiff might be ordered to give security for the preserva-
tion of the property. The defendants originally were in
possession of the premises, and entered into security to the
amount of 3,5001. ; under a decree of the Court, the tables
became turned, for the plaintiff became the purchaser of
the premises at a sale, and the defendants left the house.
Oa departing from it, they left the partnership stock in the
possession of plaintiff, and they now considered themselves
entitled to the prayer of the present motion.
Sir E. Sun DEN opposed the application, and
The Loan CHANczu.oitwas clearly of opinion that he
could not vacate the recognizances of the defendants until
their accounts had been passed in the Mister's Office. It
seemed hard that the plaintiff should be in possession of
the property; adversely to the defendants, which they had
previously given security to preserve, without his entering
into a similar security, and when he might do aw,ty with
or consume it at any moment. This requited some con-
sideration. As to of dering the joint possession to be taken,
that was out of the question.
The Learned Counsel on each side subsequently agreed
that it should be referred to the Master to take the ac-
counts between the parties respectively, and that he should
be directed to proceed de die in diem.
SPECIAL INJUNCTION..-.LADY TAMWORTII V. LORD

FERRARS.

Mr. WAKEFIELD obtained leave to move, in the course
of to-morrow, to set aside an order made this morning by
his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, that an injunction should
issue to restrain Lord Ferrars from cutting down timber
generally.

VICE- CHANCELL OR' S COURT.

His Honour the VICE••CHANCELLOR. took motions to-day.

SHIRLEY V. LORD rxß,REtts.

In this case an injunction had been obtained ex-parte,
restraining Lord Ferrets or his agents from cutting down
timber left standing or growing for ornament on his Lord-
ship's estates at Stanton Harrold, in Leicestershire.
Mr. KNIGHT this morning moved that a sequestration
might issue against the Earl, and that his Lordship's stew-
ard, Mr. Davy, might be committed to the Fleet for a
breach of the injunction. The Learned Counsel made
the application on affidavits, which stated that notwith-
standing the injunction of the Court the Earl was cutting
down timber and laying waste the park and pleasure
grounds, and one affidavit stated that timber was now
being cut within 200 yards of the mansion-house.
Mr. WAKEFIELD who appeared for the defendent applied
far the postponement of the motion, on the ground that
affidavits bad been made which it was necessary for his
client to answer, and stated that timber was not being cut
within miles of the mansion house.

Mr. KNIGHT had affidavitsto— prove that timber was
being cut within 200 yards of it, and trusted, if the Court
granted the indulgence which Mr. Wakefield asked, it
would do so upon the terms that Earl Ferrers should not
c':t, or carry away any timber that was cur, from off the
land, until after the motion bad been made.

Mr. WAKEFUL]) would subject his client to no terms,
but asked the indulgence from the Court as a right.
Mr. KNicsr considered the conduct of Earl Ferrers
and his agents exceedingly improper, for they appeared
determined to set at naught the orders of the Court, for
the purpose of raising money for immediate purposes.
His clients were the grand-children of the Earl, infants
under ten years of age, who would ultimately be entitled
to the property.
Mr. WAKEFIELD, for the defendant, submitted that no
evidence had been produced on the other side as to the
breach of the injunction, except information and belief,
nor was any attempt made to say that a single tree cut
down had stood on the park or on the plantations, but
the plaintiff had chosen to suppose that every tree standing
in a hedge or field had been left standing or growing for
ornament.

The VICE•CHANCELLOR said it appeared clearly from
the affidavits that trees standing or growinz for ornament
had been cut, and therefore if Mr. Wakefield wished the
motion to stand over he must undertake on behalf of the
Earl not to do any thing in the me in time.

Mr. WAKEFIELD observed that the case must stand
over, but he should prefer an order of the Court upon his
client to any undertaking on his part.
The VICE-Citaicaumit then directed the motion to
stand over, in order to give the defendant time to answer
the affidavits, and ordered him in the meantime not to cut
any timber or remove any off the ground that had been al-
ready cut.

ROLLS COURT.
WYNIATT V. LINDON.

His Honour, the MASTER of the ROLLS, was occupied
the whole morning with this case, which involved a
question as to the liability of lands in Gloucestershire to
pay tithes. The case had not concluded when our Re-
porter left.