The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-18 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

After the consent petitions were disposed of the argu•
ments were resumed in the case of

WILLIAMS V. CALVERLEY.

Mr. ROGERS, who was with Mr. Kindersley, addressed
the Court in support of the plaintiff's case.
Upon Mr. PEMBERTON rising to reply,

The MASTER of the ROLLS threw out a suggestion that
the circumstances would probably be better investigated in a
court of law, the evidence before the Court being so con-
flicting.
Mr. PEMBERTON said that a trial at law might do very
well for Mrs. Calverley, who had an income of 9001. a-
year, but that it might be ruin and death to his client, her
husband, who had given up the only income he possessed in
consideration of receiving the dividends of the Long An-
nuities. His wife had eloped, carrying with her the 900/.
a-year, and he would have literally to starve during the
time the plaintiff might think fit to suspend the proceedings
at law, not having anything in the world to subsist upon but
the dividends. Under all the circumstances, the Learned
Gentleman contended the Court might dissolve the in-
junction.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said that if be could decide
the case in the present state of the evidence, he would cer-
tainly do so ; but he should postpone his judgment for
the present,:in order that he might attentively read over and
consider the terms of the settlement. It was also possible
that as Mr. Sharpe the stock broker was the only witness
present at the time when the transfer was made by the
lady to her husband in the joint names of the two, be
might have some further explanatory evidence to give which
his Lordship wished should be ascertained, and he would
deliver judgment on Monday morning next.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. FISHMONGER'S COMPANY.

Counsel then addressed the Court on this part-heard case.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)-

MUNCH V. COCKERELL.

His Honour the CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, which stood over to enable his Honour to ad
the reported case of " Walker v. Simmons," in whitill it
was contended that Lord Eldon had laid down the general
practice of the Court to be, that where default had been
made by three trustees out of four, the fourth trustee might
at the instance of the plaintiff, institute proceedings against
them, without making, in case of the death of one of the
defaulting trustees, his representatives parties. His Honour,
after carefully reading over the case, did not think, from the
arguments there used, the fair inference was what had been
contended for at the bar. He should, therefore, order that
the representatives of the defaulting trustees should be
made parties.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
ENTS V. BENNETT.

Sir W. FOLLETT had been instructed to apply to the
Court in this case for a trial at bar. It was an action
brought against persons acting under the authority of the
lessees of the Duke of Marlborough, for working certain
mines in the county of Cornwall. The question intended
to be raised was the ascertaining the boundaries of the
Crown-lands and the rights of the Crown. An application
of a similar kind had been granted some time since in the
Court of Exchequer, and their Lordships would, he trusted,
be of opinion that in a case involving rights of so much
magnitude he was entitled to a trial at bar.

Lord DENMAN_-In the case to which you have alluded
the application was for a rule to chew cause.

Sir W.
FOLLETT—Yes, my Lord, and that is my appli-
cation. Another part of the rule for which I apply is,
that one of the two actions which have been brought may
be stayed until the result of the other has been ascertained.
COURT—You may take a rule.
ORLAY V. DUNBAR.
In this case, which was an action brought by the Ne-
therlands Steam Navigation Company against the under-
writers, to recover the amount of a policy of insurance for
27,0001., effected upon the steam-vessel Pylades, and the
particulars of which have already been before the public,
Sir Wm. FOLLETT moved for leave to have the sum of
27,0001., for which the plaintiff had obtained a verdict,
vested in Exchequer Bills, and paid into Court, as from
the immense quantity of business before their Lordships,
there being 150 motions for new trials, it was impossible
that the new trial could take place before a year and a
half. Some of the underwriters had since died, and before
the trial came on, from the fluctuations to which such com-
mercial speculations were subject, the defendants might
become insolvent.—Application granted.
The remainder of the morning was occupied with cases
from the special paper.

BAIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)
KNIGHT V. WALKER.

Mr. RICHARDS obtained a rule, calling upon Fulham to
show cause why a writ of attachment should not issue
against him for not obeying a subpoena to attend a trial at
the last Monmouth Assizes.