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

litult.OUGli EtOP PSZLEKET.

Good and fine llop3 move eti" steadily, at ♦ery full
prices. Otherwise the demand is in a sluggish state.

VTHITECITAPEL.

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 4s; Veal, 3s 4d to 38
10d; and Pork, 3s 4d to 4s 2d per Sibs, by the carcase.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

NORTH V. MORLEL—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in
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.
The case involved no question or facts of any interest,
xcept to the parties concerned.
LORD ALYANLEY v. LORD KINNAIRD.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which was heard before his Lordship some time
since, 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 property
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 decsribed in the particulars of sale as the
" manor of Bredbury-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
itself, 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
it 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
right to the mines, and that nothing had been said et
the sale of any reservation being intended to be made.
Subsequently the purchaser carried a conveyance into
the Master's office, by which the mines were to be con-
veyed; but the vendors refused to execute it, and ins'
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 us would except the
mines, and that the petitioner might be directed to pa/
the costs. The Vice-Chancellor of England, on the case
coming before him, directed a resale, and front
that decision the present appeal was brought. The
Lord Chancellor, atter going at considerable length into
the case, stated his opinion to be that the purchaser we
entitled to lot 1, exclusive of the mines, but that no de'
tree for a specific performance of the purchase could b°
pronounced against him. His Lordship would, there'
tore, discharge the order of the Vice• Chancellor of Bog;
land, giving the purchaser the option of taking the boo
without the mines.
IN THE MATTER OF DICESON.
In this case Mr. Dickson appeared iu person to asig
for the judgment of the Court. Our readers will .recol'
lest, no doubt, the facts of the case. Mr. Dickson is di,
trader in the city of Dublin, and he allege!
that with respect to a spirit licence obtain
from the Excise, 16s. 6id. beyond the ler,
Excise
demand was exacted from him by the Ex
officers; and as between 30,000 and 40,000 of the trades'
usi-n of Dublin were similarly circumstanced, it wet
determined to try the question at law. Mr. Dickson se*
cordiogly instituted proceedings in the Irish Court of
Exchequer for the recovery of the alleged excess, but he
was nousuited, 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'
praying for a commission of inquiry into the matter,
and the matter was referred to the Lord Chancellor t°
do right between Mr. Dickson and the Crown. Wbel:
the application for the issuing of the commission calla
before his Lordship, the Attorney. General (although b°
had previously consented to pay the amount clairOeti)
opposed it, on the ground that it would be beneath al
dignity of the Court to entertain jurisdiction in a matter
of such trifling importance as a claim of 16s. 6id.
matter was then ordered to stand over until his Liar
ship had Cully considered the case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would look into tb°
papers and dispose of the matter on an early day. ,d
Mr. Dickson said that perhaps his Lordship won,
dispose of the case some day next week.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not enter into 11,11
compact with Mr. Dickson as to the time he would gar
judgment, the amount was small, but he would look ever
the papers and dispose of it as scon as he could. aad
Mr. Dickson said that many thousands depen%
upon his Lordship's decision. He had come from 39114.0
lin, a distance of upwards of 300 miles to ask
Lordship for his judgment, and he 00100
that his Lordship would pronounce his decision 00 0
early day.
"
The LORD CHANCELLOR promised to give his bFlt
attention to the case, and dispose of it as soon as ml
other duties would permit him.
Mr. Dickson, after thanking the Court, withdrew.
SCARF V. SOULBY.
The further arguments on this part-heard appeal froOs
0
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England were the
resumed. The question in the case is, whistlo a
voluntary settlement in favour of a woman and her
gitimate children was valid against creditors. In 18:A
4 person named John Milner (the testator), by ade 'ii
between him and Eliza Quilton, recited that as be °°,4
Elia% had for past years cohabited together, and had bet
four children, and also that as John blib!is
was desirous of ceasing to cohabit 0:e
.he said Eliza Quilton, but was desirous of making Po
vision for the children and the mother, he, in order,i,
secure them 2401. a year, directed his wife, after !let
lecease to assign two policies of assurance to
Quilton. After the testator's death, this bill was fileabiA
creditors, impeaching the settlement, on the ground iply
At the time of executing the deed the testator was lag"
indebted and embarrassed in his circumstances, 70
praying that this settlement—there being no goode
valuable consideration—should be declared void. 00 Lill
case coming before the Vice-Chancellor of Englandr
honour decreed that the settlement was void as agel"to
creditors, and from that decision the present appeal st
brougbt. el°
The further arguments occupied the Court the VI
morning.