The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-09 00:00:00

04.

122, and afterwards filed the consequential affidavit.
rash then attempted to dispose of 4,0001. of hops,
which were in warehouse, to Messrs. Barclay, the
brewers, for the purpose of paying off this claim of
2,0001., but was estopped by Henry Gurney, on the
ground that the partnership property could not be
sold without his consent. The sale was therefore ren-
dered nugatory, as was also a second attempt to sell them
afterwards made by Nash. On the 29th of January Nash
attended before the Court of Bankruptcy, and alleged
the foregoing facts as a reason why he ought not to be
pressed with the claims of the Gurneys, but on the 7th
of February, the present fist in bankruptcy was issued
against him at the instigation of Thomas Gurney in re-
spect of his debt of 5331. 12s. 6d. Nash then presented
is petition to Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce to have the
fiat annulled, on the ground that he had been prevented
from realizing the partnership assets to meet these
Claims, and therefore that the steps taken under the
Bankrupt Act could not be considered as beneficial to the
general body of creditors. The Vice-Chancellor, how-
ever, was of opinion that no collusion had been made
Out to the injury of the creditors, and dismissed
the petition without costs. From this decision Nash
appealed to the Lord Chancellor, who now gave
iudgment upon that appeal. His Lordship, after going
at some considerable length into the case, stated his
opinion clearly to be, that the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce had come to a right conclusion, and ordered the
appeal to be dismissed; the costs to come out of the
estate.
His Lordship then proceeded to hear the unopposed
lunatic petitions on his paper, and having disposed of
the whole of them, the arguments were resumed on the
part heard case of " Willey v. the South-Eastern Rail-
way Company," and occupied the Court the whole
morning.

ROLLS COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Motions and causes of no general interest occupied
his Lordship the blaster of the Rolls the whole of the
morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE•CHANCELLOR of England.)
His Honour heard unopposed cause petitions, short
causes, and cause petitions to-day, but no case call-
ing for a special report came before the court during
the day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour heard cause petitions and causes to-day,
bat nothing of any interest occurred during the morning.
(Before the Vice-Ohmicellor WIGRAM.)
'EBSTER V. BRAY.—JUDG3IENT.
His HONOUR gave judgment to-day in this case,pre-
f!rring it to the Master to take an account, and giving
liberty to state special circumstances.

LOADER V. CLARK—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR also gave judgment in this case, which
was heard before him some short time since. The
facts of the case into which his Honour went at consi-
rerable.length, may be thus shortly stated. In 1827,
five days only before the plaintiff's marriage, a sum of
40/. stock, belonging to the lady, was by her trans-
ferred into the joint names of herself and her father
and brother. The transfer was not communicated to
,tile plaintiff, but came to his knowledge some time after
ti
t 0 solemnization of the marriage. He, however,
afterwards acquiesced in the payment of the dividends
to 111 a wile till her death in 1843. Upon her death the
plaintiff demanded a transfer from the surviving
trustees, by whom a parol settlement was set
IIP in favour of the children of the m ar-
%age. The bill was filed in 1847 for a transfer
Tulle fund to the plaintiff. His Honour dismissed the
with costs, as far as it regarded the infants in
.the
7ase, and without costs with respect to the other parties.
Ills Honour, at the conclusion of the judgment,
observed that he believed he had now disposed of all the
cases which had come before him, which were waiting
for judgment.
The Court then proceeded to hear motions.