The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-23 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY SUMMARY.

In the LORDS', last night, af.cr the• presentation of some pe-
titions, it was announced by Lord Lansdowne, " that Govern-
ment had no intention, at present, of making any alteration in
the timber duties, and that whenever they meant to propose an
alteration, ample notice would be given of their intention."
The motion on the subject of Municipal Magistrates was post-
poned till to-day. All instruction to the Agricultural Com-
mittee was ordered. Some conversation took place relative
to railroad bills. The E leSiastical Courts Bill was read a
second time, and referred:. a Select Committee. Petitions
for the continuance:of the present plan of taking out Probates,
&c., in counties were preferred to the same Committee.
In the COMMONS', Lord W. Bentinck, the Liberal Member
for Glasgow, took the oaths and his seat. The Speaker in-
formed the House that he had received a petition against the
return of Mr. O'Loghlen, the Irish Attorney-General, for
Dungarvan. Lord William Lennox having moved the second
reading of the London and Brighton Railway Bill; a very in-
teresting discussion ensued. Mr. P. Thompson moved that
the second reading of all railroads bills should be postponed
for eight days, by which time a Select Committee would re-
port what rules it might be desirable for the House
to establish with respect to them. On a division, the
numbers were—For the postponement, 271; against it; 75.
In answer to a question of Mr. Harvey, it was stated that the
Committee appointed to investigate the Carlow case had de-
termined to pursue their inquiry with closed doors, and had
adjourned to Monday, as the evidence was not at present quite
ready to be proceeded with. The witnesses from Ireland
would by that time arrive, and the proceedings be then con-
tinued uninterruptedly. The Tithes Commutation Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed pro forma
on Thursday, when it will be reprinted, and be ordered to be
committed on Monday week to a Committee of the whole
House. Sir R. Peel objected to the compulsory part of the
measure. The Pensions' Duties Bill and the Municipal Cor-
porations Act Amendment Bill were severally read a second
time. Some conversation took place on the motion of the
Attorney-General for the second reading of the Bill to amend
the Municipal Corporations Act. Some motions were post-
poned.—Adjourned at 12 o'clock.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BUTTEYANT V. TAYLOR AND OTHERS.

This was a suit instituted by the plaintiff, as the devisee of
a person named Munton, of an estate in Northamptonshire,
against the defendants, the executors, and their solicitors,
Messrs. Douglas and Abbey, of Market Harborough, for the
purpose of obtaining the poss'ssion of the title-deeds belong-
ing to the estate. The defendants set up a lien upon the
deeds, on the behalf of a Mr. George Wartnaby, formerly a
partner of Douglas, for business done from 1803 to 1820 ;
and a supplemental suit was instituted against Mr. Wartnaby,
to compel him to establish that claim.
Mr. PEMBERTON, Mr. BETHEL, and Mr. WRIGHT were
Counsel for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr.
BLUNT appeared for the defendants.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLS, ill giving judgment, said it
would seem, from the statements of the Counsel on behalf of
the defendants, that an angry feeling had existed between
Messrs. Douglas and Abbey and Mr. Shuttleworth, the soli-
citor for the plaintiff, and on that ground one of the parties
thought they ought not do that which they were bound to do.
His Lordship had read the correspondence very carefully, and
having done so, he must say that he did not find a single irri-
tating expression, that would justify the defendants in the
course they had adapted. The only. evidence affecting
Shuttleworth, was an alleged conversation between Douglas and
the plaintiff, in August 1832, when Douglas pretended that he
had told the plaintiff where the deeds were. His Lordship must
in justice to Mr. Shuttleworth say that there was nothing to
warrant the observations made by the Counsel for the defen-
dants, but on the contrary there was, to say the least of it,
shuffling conduct on the part of the solicitor for the executors.
In his Lordship's opinion the original suit was occasioned by
the evasion that had taken place on thoir part. There could
be no doubt that the plaintiff had a right to his deeds, and
there was no evidence to prove that Wartnaby was entitled to
what ho olaimed—indeed he seemed to doubt it himself,
for, in one instance he claimed 300/., and in another
612/. On the whole, therefore, his Lordship would
decree that the deeds should be immediately delivered up to
the plaintiff. The costs of the original suit to be paid by
Douglas and Abbey, and tlo.ose of the supplemental one by Mr.
Wartnaby jointly. . _ _

His LOai•snii rose at one o'clock to attend the Levee,

VICE-CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)

POWIS /), MAI.I*P/ELD.

His Honour the Viog• CHANCELLOR gave judgment this
morning, in the ease which our readers will recollect occupied
four or five days some time ago in argument. The question in
the ease was whether a niece of Sir John Barrington's, to
whom Sir John had given a sum of 10,000/., by her marriage
settlement was also entitled to a similar sum of 10,0001., given
her by the will of Sir John Barrington, or whether the gift of
the 10,000/. by the marriage settlement was not to be coml.
dered an ademption of the legacy given by the will. His Ho-
nour, after going at considerable length into the facts of the
case, stated his opinion to be that the rii•eoc was entitled to
both sums, and decreed accordingly,
The COURT then proceeded to bear motions,
To-morrow uin the queen's Birth-flay, his Honour will
not sit,

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY).

MOTET V. .COLOIN.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance for the sum
of 45,000 francs, effected by the plaintiff, a French ship-
owner, upon his vessel, Cuurrier de Sette, in the month of
May, 1833, on her voyage from Havre to St. Melo, on which
occasion she sprung a leak, and the Captain was compelled to
run her on shore.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the case for the plaintiff, and
the ATTORNEY•GENERAL and Mr. MAULE for the defendant.
A great mass of evidence taken before the French Com-
missioners was put in—the evidence for the plaintiff had not
concluded when our Reporter left.