The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-20 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

IN THE MATTER OF DYCE SOMBRE, A LUNATIC.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case at great length. Our readers will recollect that the
case was argued some weeks since for nine days before
his Lordship,. upon.a petition presented by Mr. Dyce
Sombre, praying for the supersedeas of the Commission
of Lunacy that was existing against him. This was the
fifth petition for a supersedeas that had been presented
since the issuing of the commission in 1843. The Lord
Chancellor after going through the principal facts of the
case which are already before the public, and commenting
most severely upon some of the parties concerned in
presenting the petition, stated his opinion to be that the
petition must be dismissed, observing, at the same time,
that if he had the means of making those parties pay
the costs from whom the petition emanated, he would
certainly have done so. His Lordship observed, in con-
cluding his judgment, that Mr. Dyce Sombre must not
suppose that by the judgment he had given, the doors of
the Court were shut against him, he could make any
application to the Court himself that he might wish, and
he might feel assured that as soon as the Court thought
it could do it with safety, it would supersede the ccna-
mission that was existing against him. Mr. Dyce
Sombre had now the whole of his surplus income after
paying the annuity to his wife; but after what had taken
place, considering the reckless expenditure that had been
proved in the course of the discussion to have been
adopted, his Lordship doubted whether he had not gone
too tar in allowing him to have the whole surplus. Ile
could not but doubt also whether he ought not to esta-
blish a snore vigilant superintendence over the affairs of
Mr. Dyce Sombre. lie would advise that gentleman to
act under the advice of his professional adviser, be could
not be in better hands than those who had acted for him
professionally, and he might depend upon it, if he did
act under such advice, and not resort to other parties,
he would obtain all he could desire, but the Court could
not allow him to continue the ruinous system he had
hitherto done.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
MILNE V. GILEART.

This was a petition presented against the finding of the
Master, to whom it had been referred to state what
amount of remuneration ought to be paid to a Mr.
Weldon, a clerk in the London and Westminster Bank,
for keeping the accounts of the testator, Mr. Milne, re-
lative to a great number of foreign securities which
he had disposed of by his will. Mr. Gilbert, the
manager of the London and Westminster Bank, had
been appointed one of the executors, with a legacy of
4001.; but he had intrusted the management of the
securities in question to Mr. Weldon; who for that ser-
vice received ut one time 150/. a year The executors had
since differed about the amount to be given to Mr. Wel-
don, and the Master had found that 75/. a year ought to
be paid to him for his services down to the time of mak-
ing the Master's report.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR confirmed the Mas'er's report,
'mit intimated that he would give no opinion whether
Weldon was to receive anything or nothing for any
servk -es he might perform in future, from the date of the
mute, '3 report.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
HAMMIWk. AND OTHERS V. SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX.
This action 14.9. s tried before Mr. Baron Platt, at
e 9th Feb. last, when a verdict was
Westminster, on ti.._ upon the two wain ileum
found for the defendoull