The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-21 00:00:00

MARKET NE WB,-(THIS DAY.)

CORN-EXCHANGE-n EDNESDAY
Although our market to-day was but moderately sup-.
?lied with all kinds of English Wheat, the demand for
hat article was in a very depressed state, owing to the,
!arge arrivals from abroad, at almost nominal curren-,
cies. Upwards of 18,000 quarters of foreign Wheat;
'lave come in this week. Fine parcels were mostly held:
,t full prices; but all other kinds ruled dull in the ex-.
,reme. The supply of English Barley was small, that;
,f foreign large, viz, 14,560 quarters. The transac-•
tious were wholly in retail, at Monday's quotations..
Halt ruled heavy, at barely stationary prices. The.
Show of Oats was on the increase. Selected samples,
sold at full prices, but damp and inferior qualities were•
6d. lower. Beaus, Peas, and Flour very dull. Indian.
Corn is lower.

ARRIVALS THIS WEEK.

Wheat.

Barley.

Oats,
____

Malt.

Flour.

Qrs. I Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. I Sacks.
840 2,610 2,020 2,690 3,610

English • • • •
•4cotch..
Irish ..• • • •

18,290 14,660 1 22,27)
__ _-

BOUOTJGII BOP 11111.8CEIT.
Good and fine Hops move off steadily, at very full
prices. OtherwiFe the demand is in a sluggish state.

WHITECHAPEL.

Our market to-day was steady for each kind of Meat,,
the prices of which were well supported, Beef, from
23 6d to 3s 6d; Mutton, 3s to 45; Veal, 3s 4d to 3a,
lOd; and Pork, 3s 4d to 4s 2d per albs, by the carcase.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

NORTH V. MORLET.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning la
this case, which came before his Lordship some time
since, upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor Wigram. His Lordship affirmed the judgment of
the Court below, and dismissed the appeal with costs.-
Ihe case involved no question or facts of any interest,.
except to the parties concerned.
LORD ALVANLEY V. LORD RINNAIRD.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which was heard before his Lordship some time-
sir•ce, upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chan-•
cellor of England, directing a resale of certain.
property in the county of Chester. The case-
came before the Vice - Chancellor of England.
under the following circumstances :—Certain proferty
belonging to Lord Alvanley had been directed to be sold
by a decree of this court, 1842. The estates included
the manor of 'Bredbury, in the county of Chester, and.
which was described in the particulars of sale as the
"manor of Brc dbury.cum-Goit, including all rights, roy-
' alties, liberties, privileges, and advantages." There were
certain estates called the Highfield Estate, which had
originally formed part of the demesne lands, but had'
been sold separately, reserving the mines. The manor
it►elf, described as lot 1, was purchased at the sale for
721. by a Mr. Ferns, as agent for Mr. Josiah Howard, the
son of the lessee of a large part of the estate. There was a.
good deal of conflicting testimony as to what was actually
said at the time of the sale—the vendors contending that,
;t was distinctly explained that the manor included nearly •
61. a year rents, with the right of appointing a game-
keeper and a sexton. The purchaser, on the other side,.
contended that he believed that he was purchasing the
ight to the mines, and that nothing had been said at
the sale of any reservation being intended to be made..
Subsequently the purchaser carried a conveyance into•
,he Maser's office, by which the mines were to be con-
veyed; but the vendors refused to execute it, and im-
mediately presented a petition, alleging that it was
never intended to pass the mines, and that, Mr. Ferns,
who had been a receiver of the estate under the trustees.
was aware of the fact, and praying that the Court
would direct such a conveyance as would except the.
mines, and that the petitioner might be directed to pay
the costs. The Vice-Chancellor of England, on the case
coming before him, directed a resale, and from
that decision the present appeal was brought. The
Lord Chancellor, after going at considerable length into
the case, stated his opinion to be that the purchaser was •
entitled to lot 1, exclusive of the mines, but that no de-
cree for a specific performance of the purchase could be
pronounced against him. His Lordship would, there-
fore, discharge the order of the Vice Chancellor of Eng-
land, giving the purchaser the option of taking the land.
without the mines.

IN THE MATTER OF DICKSON.
In this case Mr. Dickson appeared in person to ask
for the judgment of the Court. Our readers will recol-
lect, no doubt, the facts of the case. Mr. Dickson is a.
trader in the city of Dublin, and he alleges
that with respect to a spirit licence obtained
from the Excise, 16s. bid. beyond the legal
demand was exacted from him by the Excise
officers; and as between 30,000 and 40,000 of the trades-
men of Dublin were similarly circumstanced, it was
determined to try the question at law. Mr. Dickson ac-
cordingly instituted proceedings in the Irish Court of
Exchequer for the recovery of the alleged excess, but he.
was nonsuited, on the ground of his having neglected to
bring his action within the statutory period. He there-
upcn presented a petition of right to her Majesty,.
pray tog for a commission of inquiry into the matter,
and the matter was referred to the Lord Chancellor to-
do right between Mr. Dickson and the Crown. When.
the application for the issuing of the commission came
before his Lordship, the Attorney• General (although he
bad previously consented to pay the amount claimed)
opposed it, on the ground that it would be beneath the
dignity of the Court to entertain jurisdiction in a matter
of such trifling importance as a claim of 16s. 6id. The
matter was then ordered to stand over until his Lord-
ship had fully considered the case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would look into the
papers and dispose of the matter on an early day.
Mr. Dickson said that perhaps his Lordship would
dispose of the case some day next week.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not enter into any
compact with Mr. Dickson as to the time he would give
judgment, the amount was small, but he would look over
the papers and dispose of it as soon as he could.
Mr. Dickson said that many thousands depended
upon his Lordship's decision. He had come from Dub-
lin, a distance of upwards of 300 miles to ask his•.
Lordship for his judgment, and he trusted
that his Lordship would pronounce his decision on an.
early day.
The LORD CHANCELLOR promised to give his best.
attention to the case, and dispose of it as soon as his,
other duties would permit him.
Mr. Dickson, after thanking the Court, withdrew.
SCARF v. SOULBY.
The further arguments on this part-heard appeal from.
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England were then.
resumed. The question in the case is, whether•
a voluntary settlement in favour of a woman and her ille-
gitimate children was valid against creditors. In 1842.
a person named John Milner (the testator), by a deed.
between him and Eliza Quilton, recited that as he and.
Eliz I had fur past years cohabited together, and had had.
four children, and also that as John Milner
was desirous of ceasing to cohabit with.
the said Eliza Quilton, but was desirous of making pro
vision for the children and the mother, he, in order to•
~ecure them 2401. a year, directed his wife, after his-.
decease to assign two policies of assurance to Eliza.
Quilton. After the testator's death, this bill was filed by-
creditors, impeaching the settlement, on the ground that
at the time of executing the deed the testator was largely'
indebted and embarrassed in his circumstances, and
praying that this settlement—there being no good or
valuable consideration—should be declared void. On the,
ease coming before the Vice-Chancellor of England, his.
Honour decreed that the settlement was void as against.
creditors, and from that decision the present appeal was"
brought.
The further arguments occupied the Court the wholeo;.
morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BLENILINSOPP 7. BLEKINSOPP.
The Court was again occupied the whole day in hear
i -.
ing the arguments in this case. The suit was instituted`.
by Mrs. Harriett Leaton Blenkinsopp against her hut
band, George Thomas Leaton Blenkinsopp, to set aside-
a deed executed by the defendant in September, 1842,,
to defeat a decree for alimony, which had been obtained:
against him by the plaintiff, who in 1842 obtained tt, '
decree for a divorce from the defendant, on the grounds,
of adultery and cruelty. The deed in question purported!.
to convey all the defendant's estates to trustees for the'
t.enefit of his creditors; but it was alleged by the plain—
tiff that the deed was collusive and fraudulent as against
her.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
LEE v. BUTTON OR WARD.
HIS HONOUR, on taking his seat this morning, stated•
that in this case, which was heard in his private room
short time since, he had seen the young lady and her
aunt, and after having done so, ho thought it right ta'
state publicly that his opinion was that the injunctioul
restraining the suitor of the young lady from having:
any communication with her should be dissolved, 00'
that a reference should be directed to the Master to ap—
prove of a settlement.
(Before the Vice Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour took bankruptcy petitions to-day, but It°
case of any interest came before the Court during the
day.

(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
His Honour having disposed of the cases of thEet'
Attorney-General v. Murdoch. And the Marquis 01:
Londonderry v. Ovingdon, which stood on the paper tfi'
he spoken to, proceeded to hear the further argumenl6`
in the part-heard case of Thompson v. Roper, which'
cccupied the Court the remainder of the day.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY•)

(Sittings in Banco.)
COLE V. KNIGHT.
Mr. FLOOD said this case was now pending in tba
Warwickshire County Court, and as he considered
cue in which it could have no jurisdiction, he bad
apply to their Lordships to grant a writ of certiorari for
its removal to this court, and also for a prohibition•H'
Two cases had already been before their Lordships, 113
which the plaintiffs, in order to bring them under lb°
Small Debts Act, had reduced the debt to 201,
giving
credit for the remainder of the debt, but the Court be"
notwithstanding the reduction so tendered by the plaia:
tiff, that the cases were still not within the jurisdiction et
the County Court, and could not be so unless the belaGg°