The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-05 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

MALCOM V. SCOTT.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal °ea'
pied the Lord Chancellor the whole day.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS I)AY.) ,
The Master of the Rolls did not sit to-day at the Rollo
House, Chancery•lane, in consequence of having t°
attend the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

VICE-CIIANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE • CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
THE KING OF THE TWO SICILIES v. THE PENINSULA°

AND ORIENTAL STEAM-PACKET COMPANY.
In this case Mr. BETHELL, with whom was alt.
Goldsmid, applied on Monday for a special injuncti°ll
restraining the defendants from delivering up a ateso3:
ship called the Bombay, now in their possession. 93"
facts of the case were these:—lmmediately after th.
revolution the de facto Government sent over to to.
country too individuals, named Scalia and Granate)"'
who entered into a contract with the defendants for th•
pureln,se of two steam-vessels. The bill was subsea
gut ntly paid out of funds taken from the Royal Treesurij
Subsequently, before the delivering up of the scon
ship (the first having been previously given up), the
~
insurrection was suppressed, and his Majesty's authorill,
restored. It had been determined, therefore, bJ
his Majesty to endeavour to obtain possessio-
„
of the vessel, on the ground that the purchase:
money had been taken from the Royal. Tressull
and the result was the filing of the bill of the sing °
the Two Sieilies, and the application for the injunction'
The Court granted the injunction, and an applicstil
was at the same time made for leave to give
notice of motion for a second injunction to restrain the
surrender of a certain bill of sale. The Court also
granted this application, and the moving at the sittia
of the Court.
Mr. BETHELL mentioned the case to the Court, atla,',
after some discussion, it was arranged that the motiol
for the second injunction should stand over to the it:,
day of Hilary Term, the affidavits on all sides to 11'
prepared by the Ist of January, 1850.
MATTHEWS V. THE EARL OF CARLISLE AND orsfEa°'
The Court was occupied the remainder of the toorP;
ing with the arguments in this case, which came 1.31011,
his Honour upon motion to dissolve an injunction whic,
ho had granted ex parte during the long vacation, r.f.
straining the Noble Defendant, as the First Lord C°l;
missioner of Woods and Forests, front granting a leap
of certain mines in the forest of Dean to bishEill'"
Martin, a free miner of the forest of Dean.

(Beforo the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE*)
His Honour heard bankrupt petitions to-day, but 41,
case of any interest came before him during '

morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WraluM.)

GRIFFITHS V. LUNELL.
The further arguments in this case occupied the C°l3rl
the whale morning.

COMMON PLEA.—(THIS DA
(Sittings in Banco.)

STEBBING V. SPICER. the
On a foimer day Mr. Bramwell, on the part Of
defendant in this case, had obtained a stile nisi, ea Q 0
upon the plaintiff, to whom a verdict had been gi/eedict
the trial at nisi prius, to show COM why that Ter the
should not be set aside, and a nsw trial bad, 00
ground of misdirection by the Learned Judge (Or
well) who tried the cause. Ath
Mr. Seant BYLES (with whom was Mr. Grip' :o
x...c 5
now showed cause against the rule. The question
,f,itif
on the second plea to the declaration, which statea
the defendant made his promissory note, and thertgoi.
promised to pay one John Holland on order 69/..._49',•ii
To this it was pleaded that the defendant, as .to:lo°„"fite,
John Holland, did not indorse the said promissorY,"
.;b0
The issue upon that was, whether the John Rolland "00
was the vay ee of the note indorsed it either by bis trill
hand or by the hand of any other person. At the iba
it appeared there were two John Holland', fth of
aid son. It was proved that the handwritillfoos
the back of the note was that of the tsted
but on the part of the plaintiff it was sub°3-00
that the presumption was that the note was gilevtel
the father, and that there was, no evidence to CO
that presumption. The same argument was now r
on on behalf of the plaintiff in resisting the rule. a gr.
Mr. BRAMWELL, in support of the rule, quo' laid
Sergeant own book on bills, where it 0°50,0 0
down " if there be a father and son of the same 7.thero
bill would be presumed to be payable to the L._ 0,0
unless the contrary appears." Jut the counselJu'co.
plaintiff at the fist trial hal failed to make the
trary appear.