The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-06 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 5.

EANAS V. LEATON.
This was a suit instituted by the plaintiff to enforce against
the defendant an equity of redemption in certain lands which
were mortgaged in the year 1780, for 3001.
Mr. BICKERSTETII, for the plaintiff, contended, that al-
though the period of 20 years, limited for redemption of mort-
gages, had expired, yet that an acknowledgment contained in
a letter by' the defendant's father, that he held the lands in
mortgage, would
.supply that defect. The letter was dated in
November, 1795, and the application to the Court was. made
within ten days of the twenty years after that period.
Mr. SUGDEN and Mr. 1%11:G6:sox, for the defendant, set
up several grounds of opposition. They'principally relied upon
the time which had elapsed. They disputed also the title of
the plaintiff, who claimed as heir at law bf the mortgagor ; sud,
contended that the promises having been made the subject
of a settlement, on the marriage of the mortgagee, the par-
ties now in .possession under that settlement were to be
considered as purchasers who had no notice of the incum-
brance.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR, in pronouncing his judgment,
overruled all these points. He said that, although the parties
claiming under the settlement might rightfully demand to be
considered as purchasers, and although, perhaps, in truth they
had no notice of the mortgage, yet, as they might by the exer-
cise of due diligence have informed themselves of that fact, they
must be treated as negligent purchasers. He thought the proof
of the pedigree was sufficient to establish the plaintiff's claim,
and that the period, although it came so close upon the statute,'
yet, as it was within it, was sufficient to save the right. of re-
demption. His. Honour, therefore; pronounced the usual
decree.

Mr: SUGDEN prayed that this might be varied, and that
some account might be taken of the increased value of the pro.
perty, which the defendants had much improved, under the be.
lief that they held it in fee: • •
His HONOUR said he could not comply with this request.
The defendant might presentia petition, if he had any-grounds
for it.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,-DEC. 5.
WOOD V. WOOLER.
This was an action against Air. '1'..1. Wooler, who recently
made an application to the Court for a mandamus to admit
•

him a member' of Lincoln's-inn, to recover the am Olt;
bill for printing several numbers of a work called The Mecha-
nics' Chronicle, which did not succeed. The total amount ori-
ginally claimed was 33/. 13s. 6d., and 151. having been paid,
the sum was reduced to 231. 13s. 6d., which the plaintiff now
sought to recover. •

The defence set up was. that the plaintiff was in partnership
with his son-in-law, Mr. Keene, and that therefore the action
should have been brought in their joint names. It was stated by
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendant, that his client resisted
the demand on this ground, because he believed there had been
a fraudulent scheme to represent Mr. It eene as separately
liable for debts, and to procure his creditors to take a compo-
sition,- and on the other hand to put forward Mr. Wood as
the sole claimant on the-customers. Mr. Keene was called
for the plaintiff; and stated, that at the time when this busi-
ness was done for Mr. Wooler, he was not in partnership
with Mr. Wood, though a partnership was in contemplation ;
though he admitted that the transactions had been effected in
their joint name, and that he had made out a bill to the de-
fendant kr his own name alone. A letter of Mr. Wooler was
read, bearing date after the Commencement of the action, ob-
jecting to the amount of the bill, but not to the liability as
stated to the plaintiff only. For the defendant, receipts and
accounts were put in, some. by Keene only, and where as for
" Keene and Wood ;" and the clerk who acted at the time,
and several customers, stated that they considered and dealt
with Keene and Wood as partners. It was also said that Keene
at Christmas compounded with some of his creditors. A good
deal of merriment was excited by the pompous manner in which
the publications printed at the office were announcad by some
of the witnesses ; one of whom talked of " selling the Roman
empire," and another announced hiMself as " trustee for the
Nation." It appeared that a newspaper called Thy Nation"