The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-19 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BLENKINSOPP V. BLENKINSOPP.
The arguments in this part-heard case, which
were comm, need on Thursday, and proceeded with
on Friday and Saturday, were resumed to-day. The
ease came 13A.ore the Court upon a bill tiled by the wife
of George Thomas Seaton Blenkinsopp, sgainst her
kUsband, for the purpose of having a deed of trust of
2d 8(14-, 1842, set aside and given up to be cancelled;
and that th- trustees thereto, Thomas William Fen-
nick and William Trotton, should be ordered to render
an account of the receipts and disbursements under
ouch deed; that a receiver be appointed under the order
of the Court, and if the Court should not so decree, then
that the several sums payable under such deed, to
George Thomas Seaton Blenkinsopp, be paid
over to the plaintiff. It appeared that a mar-
riage was solemnized between the plaintiff (Miss
Colliugwood) and defendant, 6th October, 1807.
The parties lived together, and had several children.
In the year 1841 they were residing at Hoppy-
land Park, when, in consequence of the adultery and
cruel treatment of the defendant, Mrs. Blenkinsopp and
her daughter quitted the house. In the month of
March, 1841, the plaintiff instituted proceedings in the
Consistorial Court of Durham, for a divorce a mama et
therm On the 29th November, 1841, Mrs. Blenkinsopp
appealed from fthe Court of Durham to the Chancery
Court of York, and finally transferred the cause, by ap-
peal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
whence was obtained, 13th of December, 1841, a writ
of sequestration against the defendant, to which the
trustees, Fenwick and Trotton, set forth the deed of
September, 1842, by which the property of the defen-
dant was conveyed to them in trust, to discharge his
debts and liabilities. The bill chargei this deed as
fraudulent, and entered into by the defendant to evade
the payment of alimony to his wife, and to frustrate
the decree of the Judicial Committee, confirming those
of the Courts below. A voluminous body of evidence
was adduced to sustain these charges on the part of Mrs
Blenkinsopp •
and
Mr. GLASSE, following Mr. Turner, was heard to-day,
the case appears likely to occupy some time.
SWEARING IN SOLICITORS.
The Master of the Rolls has appointed to-morrow, at
three o'clock, at the Rolls' Court, Chancery-lane, for
awearing-in solicitors.

o
VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
~„,(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
"1.4 1-lo Noun sat to-day, at eleven o'clock, and beard
eauses, but no case of interest came before the Court
ctiiring the morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
19it1s lioNoun heard motions to-day and bankrupt
Petitions, all of which were totally devoid of interest.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
I'INCENT v. THE BISHOP OF SODOR AND MAN.--
JUDGMENT.
"Tie LIONOUR give judgment in this case to-day, which
!as argued before him some time since, against a judg-
ment pronounced by the Court of Common Pleas upon
lise sent from this Court for its decision thereon.
Cos Honour not being satisfied with the judgment of the
till of Common Pleas, directed the same case to be
argued before the Court of Exchequer.
TIDMAS v. THOMSON.
This case also stood on the poper for judgment, but
bl 9 HON OUR. postponed giving it till Thursday next.