The Sun.
London, England, 1831-05-26 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

FROM LLOYD'S.
DEAL, MAY 25.—Wind N.E.—Arrived the Ranger,
Donaldson, from Pernambuco; and George and Mary,
Ashton, from Alexandria.
PORTSMOUTH, MAY 95.—Wind variable.—Arrived his
Majesty's ship Prince Regent, from Chatham. Sailed his
Majesty's ship Savage, for Cork.
FALMOUTH, MAY 21.—Wind variable.—Arrived the
Eclipse packet, from Jamaica.

STANDG ATE CREEK, May2l.—Arrived the Symmetry,
Lauchlan, from Smyrna.

DOVER, MAY 25.—Arrived the Leda, Rabel, from the
Cape of Good Hope.
JERSEY, MAY 23.—Arrived the Young Peggy, Lefevre,
from Madera.

LIVERPOOL, MAY 21.—Arrived the Tancred, Lucy,
from Laguayra.
MONTROSE, MAY 23.—Arrived the Venus, Gowan,
and Superior, Reed, from Riga.
HULL, MAY 25 —Arrived the Broughton, Raisbeck,
from Memel.

ABERDEEN, MAY 23.—Arrived the Alexander, Brand,
from Riga.
WATERFORD, MAY 23.—Arrived the Sultan, Reed,
from London.

CORK, MAY 23.—Sailed his Majesty's ship Seme-
ramis ; Leverett brig ; Speedy cutter ; Albion steamer ;
and Tortoise lighter, for Plymouth.
GREENOCK, MAY 23.—Sailed the Belhaven, Crawford,
for Bengal.

The Factor, Wrann, from Matanzas, has arrived off
Folkstone, after being aground.
The Messenger, Mortimer, bound to Liverpool, put
back to Leghorn the 12th inst., with pumps choaked.
The Prosperous, Atwood, from Weymouth, ran on the
rocks on the north coast of Guernsey, the 22d inst., and
sunk in deep water; crew, and part of the materials saved.

LAW INTELLIGENCE--(THIS DAY).

ROLLS COURT.

The MASTER of the ROLLS took causes to-day, but
nothing of public importance, up to the period of our re-
porter's leaving, had come before his Honour.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S CO UR T.
WOODCATE V. BAILEY.—JUDGMENT.
In this case, which was argued yesterday, his Honour
:he VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment upon coming into
Court. The object of the Bill was to set aside certain
deeds, on the ground of fraud, by which the defendant
had purchased part of the Tunbridge Castle estates. By
a settlement made on the marriage of Mr. Wm. Woodgate
with Miss Alnutt, in 1794, the father of Woodgate not
having at that time the legal estate of the Castle of Tun-
bridge and other lands adjoining, covenanted that he would
settle them, in the event of the marriage taking place, to
the use of his son, his intended wife, and children. In
the covenant there was a power of sale and exchange, and
a proviso that if Mr. William Woodgate in his lite-time,
or his executors and administrators, should within six
months after his decease, transfer into the names of the
tiustees of the settlement as much stock as would pro-
duce 1001, a year, that then the uses of the settlement
should cease. There were several children of the mar-
riage ; Mr. Wm. Woodgate died in 1809, and did not in
his life-time, nor did his executors within six months
after his death, make any transfer of stock, as contem-
plated by the settlement,—and the legal estate or fee of
the land, descended to Wm. Francis WOodgate, who, sup-
posing that he was entitled, or might become entitled, to
the Castle of Tunbridge, put up the property to sale in lots.
One of the lots was bought by the defendant, Mr. Bailey,
but for that one there was no purchaser. An agreement
was on the same day entered into between Mr. Bailey,
and Mr. William Francis Woodgate, witnessed by Mr.
Alnutt, by which Woodgate contracted to buy all the
land and tenements comprised in lot one for 7,350/.
Shortly after the signing of the contract a writ was insti-
tuted for the purpose of obtaining the 'opinion of Lord
Eldon, whether Woodgate, who was the executor of his
father, might make the transfer contemplated by the set-
tlement, and whether the tenements, which were the sub-
ject of the covenants, could be released from the dues of
the settlement? Mr. Alnutt was a very active party in
every thing that related to the contract with the defendant.
Lord :Eldon gave judgment in the cause against Mr.
Woodgate, declaring that the time for making the
transfer had passed, and that no transfer could
then be made. The parties then contemplated
applying to Parliament to enable Woodgate to sell the
estate, but ultimately abandoned the project, agreeing that
the contract originally made should be carried into effect,
by admitting the uses and the power of sale or exchange.
Mr. Bailey left it to the trustees of time settlement and
their solicitors to ascertai❑ the proportion of the purchase
money which he was to pay for the settled part of the
estates, who ultimately agreed that 3,000/. was a fair
equivalent. It had, however, been argued at the Bar that
the sum was by no means sufficient ; but the Court look-
ing at the evidence in the cause, could not come to any
other opinion than that that was a fair value. It was
then alleged that that sum had not been paid to
the trustees ; but the 8,11 itself contradicted that
statement. It also averred, that this purchase was a fraud
on the part of Mr. Bailey, and represented a case which
to the mind of his Honour appeared extremely improbable,
namely, that the defendant, being as it clearly appeared,
extremely anxious to purchase a residence for himself, and
having no knowledge of Woodgate, but merely buying for
his own purpose, lent himself to a scheme in which he
could have no interest, for the purpose of enabling a father
to cheat his own children. if it was meant to be said
there was an interest existing between the defendant and
the tru.tees, the Court, who had looked anxiously at all
the proceedings, could find no proof of it. Mr. Bailey in
answer, stated that he was wholly unconnected with
Mr. Woodgate or Mr. Alnutt, and that the 3,0001. had
been paid to the trustee. Upon the whole case his Honour
was clearly of opinion that the bill altogether failed ; in
fact almost every allegation which it contained was
extremely improbable, and there was a total deficiency
of evidence to support them. Such being the case, the
Court felt itself hound to dismiss the bill as against Mr.
Bailey with costs, and no relief being asked against Mr.
Alnutt, except upon the supposition that relief would be
given, against Bailey, the bill must also be dismissed as
against him in like manner.
Mr. I3oTELEa. and Mr. SIMKINSON were this morning
called within the Bar by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor,
on being appointed King's Counsel.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
oRTER AND ANOTHER V. LIVERMORE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as as•
signees under a commission of bankruptcy, against a livery
stable keeper, named Harland, to recover the sum of 9/.
125., for 63 nights' keep of a horse belonging to the said
defendant.

Thomas Wragg, the hostler to the bankrupt, proved
that the defendant's horse was kept at the stables for about
61 nights, and that three shillings a night was a fair
charge for its keep.
There being no defence to the action, the Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiffs for 61 nights' keep.-91. 3s. and
costs.

JOIINSON AND OTHERS V. POYLL.

This was an action brought by Messrs. Johnson, Mann,
and Co., the wholesale oil' merchants in London, against
the defendant, a painter and glazier at Wimburn, in
Gloucestershire, to recover the sum of 161. 12s. id. for
goods sold and delivered.
John Thompson, the traveller to the plaintiffs, proved
having delivered the account to the defendant, which he
adinived to be correct, and that he would pay the amount
as soon as possible.

In this case, as in the former, there was no defence, and
au: Jury found fur the plaintiff—Damages 161. 12s. 7d.
and costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

JACOB V. GREEN.
This case, in which the question is simply whether
goods were to be paid for in cash or other goods, has
already been before two Juries, the first of which gave a
verdict for the plaintiff, and the last one, after a deli-
beration of s,ven hours, returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff, still not satisfied, applied to the Court
this morning through Mr. CAMPBELL, to set aside that
verdict, and grant another trial, or ti refer the case to
a barrister, on the ground that the verdict was against
evidence.

Lord TENTERDEN, however, thought the question had
received quite enough consideration, ohserving, that there
certainly was conflicting evidence at the trial, but he con •
sidred the verdict a very proper one, as the greatest weight
was on the side of the defendant; and, therefore, with the
concurrence of the other Judges, he refused the application.

V. ESTHER.
Mr. WHITE applied for a rule to show cause why the
verdict in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial
had, on the ground of misdirection on the part of the
Learned Judge. The case was one tried before Lord Tenter-
den, at Guildhall, in the sittings after last Term. It was
thean action
defence b r‘ovu..g tt
btaot rtehceo vienri
thse
wv
ea
rhea e
ooff saoomie prints,mlooral taenot_l