The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dr•c. 3.

THE RIVER DU NN NAVIGATION COMPANY V. THE NORTH
MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
_ _

This was an appeal from the order of the Vice-Chan.
cellor, refusing a❑ injunction to restrain the defendants
from entering on son-p..: parcels of land which the plaintiffs
considered to be necessary to them for the proper use of
their canal.

Mr. WAKEFIELD was this morning heard at considerable
length in reply.
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment.
RAWSON V. SAMUEL.

This was a motion todise- barge an order of the Vice-
Chancellor, which contained an injunction to restrain pro-
ceedings at law.
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed the argument till
to-morrow morning.

ROLLS' COURT, DEC. 3.
WESTHEAD V. KEANE.

This case came before the Court on a general demurrer,
The bill was filed for the infringement of a patent against
the • defendants Keane and Nicholls, and the London
Caoutchouc Company. The ground of demurrer was that
the words of specification in the bill were so loose and
vague that they would not sustain the patent, and also
that there was a mis-joindure of parties.
His Lordship the MASTER of the ROLLS said that he
thought he was bound by the decision in the case of Day
V. Marshall on the first ground of demurrer ; and, on the
second, as the parties complained of claimed an interest,
he could not allow the demurrer. Ile should, however,
give no costs.

COURT OF QUEEN' S BENCH, DEC. 3.
DANE V. LADY KIRKWALL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the
amount of rent due to him for a house which the defen-
dant had taken of him under an agreement. It appeared
that the plaintiff had been legally pronounced a lunatic
subsequently to her taking the house, but the facts of the
case will best be seen by the summing up of the Learned
Judge, who told the Jury that, though the proof of the un-
soundness of the defendant's mind was fully satisfactory,
yet their verdict must be for the plaintiff, unless they also
found that the residence she had taken for herself in Bar-
row-hill-place was unnecessary for her. If both of these
circumstances were established by the evidence, the ver-
dict of the Jury must be for the defendant. If not, the
plaintiff must have a verdict for his demand. As the re-
cord now stood, there must be a verdict for the plaintiff,
on the issue of whether the defendant had entered into the
contract or not. But if-the Jury thought that when she
did so she was of unsound mind, and that the house was
not necessary for her, then the special plea was supported,
and on that the defendant must have a verdict.

The Jury, after consulting together about ten minutes
returned a verdict for the defendant on the special plea.

CONSISTORY COURT, DEC. 3.
LOCKWOOD V. LOCKWOOD.

This was a suit for divorce on the grounds of cruelty,
promoted by Lady July Lockwood against Mr. Robert
Manners Lockwood, her husband. The parties were mar-
ried in 1821, and lived together till September, 1834, when
they finally separated. There are several children, the
issue of the cohabitation. An allegation was this day
offered for admission on behalf of the husband, responsive
to the libel given in on the other side.

The Learned Judge, after hearing counsel, directed the
allegation to be reformed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC 3.
IN RE JOHN TODD.

This insolvent, who had been before the Court on two
former occasions, came up for judgment.
The opposition on the part of several creditors was on
the ground that the insolvent, an attorney, had incurred a
great number of liabilities for Mr. Thomas Halls, the ex-
magistrate of Bow-street, without reasonable or probable
means of paying them ; and, further, that he had been
embarrassed, and made away with some property, to the
injury of the general body of his creditors. _ .

-The insolvent declared that he bad accepted various bills
of exchange on the representations of Mr. Halls and a per-
son named Gompertz, who had acted as his agent ; he
ascribed his insolvency to the liabilities he had entered into.
It appeared that previously to quitting England, which he
did to avoid arrest, he sold a debt due from a gentleman for
professional business to a Mr. King, which sale was com•
plained of as a making away with property.
Mr. WOODROFFE to-day read two certificates, showing
that the insolvent was labouring under indisposition.
Mr. NICHOLS, {Vho appeared in opposition, said he had
seen the amended account filed, and had no further in-
quiries to make.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN adjudged him, from the date
of his petition, to an imprisonment of four calendar months,
for making away with his property, to diminish the fund
divisible among his creditors.