The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CiUttliT of CHAIVCRIIY, JAN 27.
niticitAN-rvNit ti. it:Junta.
This was a petition on the part of Ou oftcial asssgnce for
an order ai thV crPditors of a bankrupt to give security for
the costs he may incur in proteo:nting a claim on the defen-
dant. The principal portion of the creditor./ live in Scotland,
Anti have already assented by proxy, and the real Tiestion
raised by the petition was whether such assent was sufficient kr
the purposes of the Act:
The Lt3tiu CHANCELLOR now gave judgrncnt, and thought
the official assignee, hating the assent of the creditors through
their proxies, was, without any nviedng being called for the
ptirposvj in a Condition to prosecute the Suit with a sufficient
security for the costa,

VICE-CIIANCELLOk 8 COURT, JAN. 27.
!MITI! V. DUDLEY.
This was a question cm the construction of: a very informal
marriage settlement. Upon tl.e marriage of Mary Wheeler
with Benjamin Pountney a settlement was executed by which
Mr: and Mrs. Barnsley, the stepfather and the mother of the
lady, pin-ported to convey freehold and leasehold property to
trustees in trust for themselves for life, with remainder to the
intended husband and wife for life, with remainder to their
issue, and with an ultimate remainder, " as to the freeholds,
to the use of the right heirs of Mary Wheeler, and as to the
leaseholds in trust for the eXetutors and administrators of Mary
Wheeler's own family." There was then a covenant that Mr.
and Mrs. 13arnsley and Mary Wheeler should sotrender copy-
holds to the like uses and trusts as were limited of die freehold
and leasehold property. Mr. and Mrs. Barnsley also assigned
some furniture for the benefit of Mary Wheeler, with an ulti-
mate trust " fob' the executors and administrators of her fa-
mily." And there was, finally, a covenant by Pountney to
pay the trustees, in certain events, a mum of money of which
the ultimate trust was declared " for the executors and admi-
nistrators of his family." The marriage took place, and Mrs.
Pountney died without issue in her husband's lifetime. Mr.
Pountncy was also dead. One of the next of kin of Mrs.
Pountney had taken out administration and was the plaintiff in
this suit, arid the principal defendant was the representative of
the husband. The question was to which of those parties, the
next of kin or the husband, the chattels comprised in the set-
tlement belonged, or what was the trust of the copyhold?
The SoucitTon-GENERAL appeared for the neat of kin ; Mr.
KNICHIT BRUCE, for the other parties.
His HONOUR said the Court was justified in departing from
the literal meaning of words where, from the whole instru-
ment, it was obvious that the words were not used in their
literal meaning. And the Court was also at liberty for one
purpose to take a set of words in one meaning, and to take the
same words in the same instrument for another purpose in
another meaning. The well-known instance of freehold and
chattel interests was an example of this. His Honour thought
that, upon the whole settlement, it was fairly to be inferred
that the parties meant their respective properties ultimately to
revert to their own families. As to the wife's property,
therefore, the ultimate trust was for her next of kin. He held,
therefore, that, according to the proper interpretation of there
words, the husband's property went to his executors or admi-
nistrators, or, in other words, reverted to himself, but the
wife's property went to her next of kin.

COURT OF Q UEEN'S BENCH, JeN. 27.
LYDIAnD V. lIUMFRET.

This was an action for assault and malicious prosecution.
The plaintiff was a workman in the service of the defendant,
and had been discharged by his master, whom ho summoned
for wages. The master charged the setrasa with a felony,
and took him befose a magistrate on an alleged allegation that
ha had stolen some lead. The charge was heard, and dis-
missed, and the plaintiff then brought this action, which was
heard before Mr. Justice Littledale, when a verdict was found
for the plaintiff, damages 501. A rule had been since ob-
tained to set aside the verdict, and enter a nonsuit, or have a
new trial, on the ground that the Jury had been misdirected as
to the question of reasonable and probable cause.
Mr. GODSON on a former day showed cause against the rule.
The COURT then suggested that the verdict should be en-
tered for 201.
Mr. Serjeant ANDREWS was heard in support of the rule, the
defendant having refused.—Rule discharged.

BAIL COURT, JAN. 27.
Sir W. FOLLETT applied to the Court for a rule calling
upon the Churchwardens of the pariah of St. James, Clerk-
enwell to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not
issue commanding them to deliver up to
keys of the burial-ground of that parish, and the implements
attached to the office of grave-digger—(a laugh)—by which
he ( Sir W. Follett) supposed was meant the pickaxes, sho-
vels, &c.—(Renewe laughter.) lie made the application on
behalf of Burwash, who, it appeared from the affidavit in sup-
port of it, had been elected, after a severe contest, to fill the
office of sexton of the parish. The right of election was in the
vestry at large, and they after the election, having, in these
reforming times, sot their faces against any person in the parish
enjoying a plurality of offices, came to the resolution that the
office of grave-digger should be separate from that of sexton,
although from time immemorial those two distinguished offices
have been filled by the same individual.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Justice PATTEBON.—You may take a rule to show cause.

COCK FIGIITING.—FORBES V. TOWNSEND.
This was an action brought to receive the sum of 15/. paid
by plaintiff as a deposit on a wager relative to the result of a
cock-fight.
After plaintiff had laid the wager with defendant the money
was placed in the hands of the wife of the latter, as stake-
holder, and the present action was brought against the defen-
dant (who won the wager) to recover the money so placed in
the hands of his wife. The cause was tried before the Under
Sheriff of Lancaster, and plaintiff nonsuited.
On a former day Mr. HUMFERY obtained a rule to show
cause why there should not be a new trial.:
Mr. ADDISON now showed cause against the rule.
Rule for a new trial made absolute.