The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-23 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BLENKINSOPP V. BLENKINSOPP.
The reply of Mr. TURNER in this case occupied his
Lordship the Master of the Rolls the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
Unopposed causes, petitions, short causes, and
cause petitions occupied his Honour the whole day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour was occupied the whole day with hearing
cause and bankrupt petitions of no general interest.
(Before the Vico-Chancellor Wroutm.)
THOMPSON V. ROPER.
The further arguments in tbis part-heard case occu-
pied the Court the whole morning.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittirgi in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. JOBLINO.

In this case a rule, calling upon the Sheriff of North-
umberland to show cause why a writ, in the nature of a
melies inquirenduw, should not issue against him, was
obtained on behalf of the Crown by the Attorney-Gene-
ral, on a former day.
Mr. WATSON, on behalf of the defendant, showed cause
against the rule this morning. He said there was a
writ of extent issued, at the instance of the Crown, on
behalf of Greenwich Hospital, against the defendant,
for a debt of 1,6771. The writ of extent was tested on
the sth of June in this year, and directed the sheriff of
Northumberland to find what lands, goods, and chattels
the defendant was possessed of in that county. The
sheriff held an inquisition, and then made a return of
nulla bona to the lei it. Th© Crown had since made an
application for a medics inquirendum, on the affidavit of
an officer of Greenwich Hospital, who deposed
that on the inquiry before the Sheriff of North-
umberland it appeared that Mr. John Cress,-
well Jobling, the defendant, bad executed a deed
of all his effects for the benefit of creditors on the day
on which the writ of extent was issued, which was an
act of bankruptcy. His (Mr. Watson's) answer to that
was, that although before the teste of the writ of extent,
namely, on the 2d of Juno, Mr. Jobling executed a
deed of assignment for the benefit of all his
creditors, that that deed was executed by a
creditor ani accepted by a trustee on the
2d of Jane, so that it became a valid
deed of assignment for the benefit of a creditor.
It was not alleged that the deed was a fraudulent
transaction. The defendant assigned all his property
for the benefit of a creditor, and the creditor assented
to it, and afterwards a fiat of ,bankruptcy was bissued
against the defendant.

—Mr. Baron PARKE was of opinion that the bank-
ruptcy was superseded by the issue of the writ of
extent.

The COURT concurred in this view, and directed the
rule to be made absolute.—Role made absolute ac-
cordingly.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTERN.)
Mr. Justice Patteson sat at Nisi Prius this morning
and disposed of a number of undefended cases.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
Mr. Justice Erlo afterwards sat in Banco, and heard
several motions which, with the following exception,
presented no feature of public interest.
WILSON AND ANOTHER V. LEEDS AND THIRSK RAILWAY.
Mr. ATHERTON moved for a rule nisi calling upon the
defendant to show cause why the award in this case
should not be set aside on the ground of irregularity.
In June last, Messrs. Wilson and Benson, the contrac-
tors, agreed to refer certain matters that wore in dispute
between them and the Leeds and Thirak Railway to
arbitration. The matters had their origin in a contract
for the execution of certain works, dated as far back
as the 14th of June, 1847, and which was made
between the East and West Yorkshire Junction
Railway Company, and Messrs. Wilson and Benson.
By the contract deed, Messrs. Wilson and Benson under-
took to complete certain works, including a viaduct over
the river Nith, at Knaresberough, and to uphold them
in good repair for a period of twelve months. The Leeds
and Thirak Railway Company had en interest in the
maintenance of this viaduct, and hence they had been
made parties to the reference. When the viaduct had
been partially constructed, and considerable progress
had been made in the work, it gave way, and one of the
principal questions to be decided by the arbitrators was
who should sustain the loss of the accident. The arbi-
trator had found that the loss amounted to 8,4501.45.,
while he had directed the amount to be made up in this
way-3,291/. 7s. 10d., to be paid by the Leeds and Thirak
Railway Company ; 2,3191. 12s. by the East and West
Yorkshire Junction Company, and 2,8191.45. by the con-
tractors, but stipulated that the contractors were
only to pay 1,8331. in money, but they were to supply the
balance by giving up all claim to the ruins and plant of
the viaduct. It was contended that the arbitrator had
co power to make such an award, and therefore it ought
to be set aside as bad in law. There were, however,
two otbei objections to the award—in the first place, the
arbitrator, who was the engineer to the company, and
to the vice of whose plan the accident in the viaduct
was attributed, had directed that the viaduct should be
rebuilt by independent parties upon a new plan, which
he clearly bad no power to do, inasmuch as the con-
tractors were under agreement to complete the viaduct
and maintain it for a given space of time; but supposing
the arbitrntor had that power, his award was bad fur
not being final, which was the second ground of ob-
jection. It did not dispose of the covenant and respon-
sibilities the contractors had rendered themselves liable
to by signing the deed, and upon these three grounds it
was insisted that the award was invalid and ought to be
set aside.
Mr. Justice EBLE granted the rule upon all points.

—SECONDARIES—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
INRAYSON V. SUMNER.

The plaintiff in this action is a wholesale stationer in
Lawrence I'ountuey -lane, and defendant is a paper-
hanger at Yarmouth. The action was brought on a
pr( missory note for 171. los. Id.
Defendant pleaded that he did not make the note, and
also payment.
Plaintiff's club was examined to prove the de-
fendant's handwriting to a letter. Ile bad, however,
never seen the defendant write.
The Learned SECONDARY did not think this sufficient
evidence.
Mr. Sherwood, (plaintiff's attorney) then said he
could prove that he wrote a letter to defendant, and re•
ceived one in reply, and, he:: had no doubt that the
signature to the bill was that of the defendant.
The SECONDARY expressed his doubts whether he
could allow Mr. Sherwood to gin ovidouco atlor he bad