The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-03 00:00:00

cause, is the innumerable increase 'of slugs, which will
make' dreadful havoc with the blade."

A Namur journal observes, that the unusual quantity
of rain fallen during the present month, has caused so
great a number of snails as to create considerable fears

for the barleys.
ECCLESIASTXCAL.
In the Arches' Con: t yesterday articles were exhibited,
at the instance of the Bishop of Oxford, against the Rev.
W. H. Langley, perpetual curate of Wheatley, for
" brawling in the Church." On the 9th of May last, it
appeared after reading the Gloria Patri, the curate ad-
dressed the congregation, and among other expressions
the.follOwing was objected to by the Bishop :—" `lhave
been charged with adultery, but the fact is, that one
night as I was coming from my tenant's at Lobb Farm,
I saw a drunken man ill-treating his wife, and Linterfered
for her protection, for my being a clergyman did not
prevent my acting with humanity towards a female under
such circumstances; the man told me I might be dammed,
what was it to me, what had I to do with it ? lle
then struck me, but the Lord gave me power, and
I knocked the man- down,': at the same time using
the action of striking with your fist, in illustration of
the manner in which you struck the said man." And again
"That you then adverted to her Majesty's Ministers,-
and the proposed alteration in the Corn-laws, and de-
clared that the Ministers deserved prais:, for enabling
every one to worship God according to their own con-
science, and for wishing to give to every man a cheap
loaf ; that all who had rotes would soon be called upon
to give them, and you urged them to give them in favour
of the then Ministers, and added God bless the pre-
sent Government.' "—lt would be difficult to point out
an act more praiseworthy than defending a helpless
woman, or language more becoming a Minister of the
Gospel than that embodying the latter charge. The
articles, however, were admitted, and Mr. Langley was
ordered to give an issue next Court day.

PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE.
RAILWAYS. Paid. Per Share.
Great Western
Ditto New bo s6a •"to 57i
Ditto Fifths
London and Brighton
London and South Western 3s lona .. to
South Eastern and Dover
to 19i
York and North Midland 5O
Ditto New Shares... ..... ...... 15
QUARTER TO TWO.
Consols, Money, 884 i ; Ditto, Account, 88k 89.
Mexican, 2541 ; Spanish, 21i 1.
QUARTER TO THREE.
We are again alarmed here by rumours that the sur-
reptitious ExiAiequer bills will not be paid. If true, this
must cause much individual embarrassment.

CHANCERY COURT—(THIS DA-
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat in his Court a.
Westminster to-day shortly after ten o'clock. The
Court took Lunatic and Bankrupt petition's ; before,
however, the regular business was proCeeded with,
consequence of the appointment of the New. Vice-CliainA
ceilors, and many cases which had been in the VieCil"
Chancellor of England's paper having been transferret
to those of their Honours the new -Vice-Chancelor4
several applications were made to restore those causes
to the paper of the Vice-:Chancellor Of England. In
Lordship ordered thO following cases to be s° t
restored :—ltichards v. Lord Macclesfield, and Ikutley,
v. Callrynd, which had been transferred to the paper °E
Mr..Vic:::Chancellor. Knight Bruce ; and. Crock -"t"
which had been placed on the paper of Mr. Vice-Chan:
cellor Wigram. Lloyd v. White was ordered to be trails"
ferred to the Lord Chancellor's paper from that of Mr',
Viee-Chaneellor Wigram. ,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, V. WIMBURNE MINSTER.
This case which was an information filed under
the tv's
certificate of the Charity Commissioners, was, on
plication of Mr. Blount, on behalf of the Attot:Pere
General, ordered to stand over generally in order:
At
that Learned Gentleman an opportunity of Oen'''
ing. ,
The Court then proceeded to hear lunatic petition.'
taking the unopposed first.

Y.)

. . ,
ROLLS' ,COURT.—(THIS DAY)u:
His. Lordship was engaged the greater part of ' t'e.
• .r'
morning with hearing unopposed petitions.
NELSON V. NELSON. •
This was a petition praying for an increased allowance
for the purpose of education for Earl Nelson, a nlirwr'
now at Trinity College, Cambridge ; and also, that Ole
cost of a reference made to the Master to inquire whether, ;
the late Earl had power to decree the _Dukedom ?`
Bronte to his daughter, should be paid out of funks In:0
Court. His Lordship said he should require details "„i
be furnished him before he decided as to the first pot to"
the petition, but assented as to the latter, with respect , A.
costs properly incurred. .!

HENLEY V. STONE AND OTHERS.
This was an action to set aside certain instruments, a-
the ground of fraud. Plaintiff alleged that she viss4 -
titled to a small estate, subject to a mortgage of 3v,, - ; ,
and that defendant Stone procured her signature
instrument, which he represented to be one to enabl°
„.cr
him to collect the rents, but which was,in fact,
of attorney, authorising Stone to sell the estate oil " r.
behalf. It appeared that, in pursuance of this Possicsiti'.i!
Stone had sold the estate, and that the purchaser had
assigned the mortgage. The present motion was to set 151 she •,
the instrument for fraud ; and that, on payment et 10
mortgage money, the estate might be re-conveyed t°
plaintiff; the mortgage re-assigned, and the defends
pay the costs of the suit.
for t_AhB
His LORDSHIP, after hearing Mr. Kindersley
plaintiff, and Mr. Pemberton for the defendant, ordeir;
the documents to be cancelled, the other parties r°
the
quishing their claims on the estate ; the. amount 0` R
principal and interest due on the mortgage to be B 5CV.
ri
tamed; the costs to be ascertained; thedifferencebetwe`or
them to be ascertained; the amount owing -one vela,
the other to be paid, and the matter thus finally .fiett`e
VICE-CHANCERY—(THIS nAl().
(Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.) , the
His HONOUR was occupied the greater part et:,-ate
morning with hearing the case of a ward in his Pr;jed ,
room. His Honour on coming into Court • preee r,
to dispose of all of the Unopposed petitions in his
after which the Court proceeded to hear the further,o,
guments on the part-heard motion of Toledo et Yltio
the object of which was to obtain an injunetiontorestr-
the transfer of Stock.
• „vip
The case was proceeding when we went to press:'4o4
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCB)
- •t,:5
BRANDON V. BRANDON. per
This was an application on behalf of several Pe /I
to have the funds in the case in Court distributed Itrilids
them. The order formerly made directed that the „%uing
should not be paid out of Court without noticerrne
given to the sureties or their representative& Sp-
the,sureties had died, and as there was no partYAe,;ol'
pointed as the representative of the deceased, to
was aware that an order, such as he was direeteivere
apply for, could not be taken out ; but all partie9 rt is
desirous that the case should remain in the Ceti
which it had been hitherto heard. alce pn
His HONOUR was not aware that he could coo
order to that effect.; but he could direct that erberty
.should stand out of his paper for the present, with,
.ht be
to the parties to make such application as they
ig
advised.
Some other cause-petitions,
greater portqc4
Pal interest, were disposed of ; in the
however, on the list, the parties on the paper being call
over were not prepared ; and in consequence, the '''-
rose at twelve o'clock. having no feature ofge.o,eo:

(Before Vice-Chancellor \VSGRAN;) olf
The Court sat at ten o'clock, but there being -n ter
few cause-petitions on the list for to-day, and the„ reaor
number having been directed to stand over, his -110°
rose before eleven o'clock.

QUEEN'S BENCH.--(THIS DA"
HARFIELD V. O'NEARY.
The ATTORNET-GENERAL moved in this case, • feet
had been tried before Lord Denman at the Sitting gt for
last Term, for a rule to show cause why the .erhe„e
the plaintiff, for 4781. 11s., should not be set aside, g"e-
new trial had. It was an action for an attorneY'iesiati!f
and the circumstances were as follow :--ThePLitiis*,
was employed as the attorney of Mrs. Dunn,'as $1";:i eas
tratrix of her husband, the late Major Dunn, 411
embarked in some Chancery- suits. The busine.,s3 and
carried on during her (Mrs. Dunn's) widowliooo, Jr.
for some ,• time after het marriage with t," the
fendant, O'Meara, which tool r 'place n„x.
month of December, 1830. In the following /e"0411!
business wholly ceased, and an. action was • „,"" rarrle
l
against the defendant, Mr. O'Meara, whoan
the administratrix, for business dune before.thr nes,6 bi Id
and for a short period afterwards. There ig.V- 'de out
of costs sent in, and every one of these wa.s.7nrne tee
against the wife. Mrs. O'Meara, not at all recogefeeet
iv
husband, although it was denied that he "s lint' it'
of the business, and had given directions regar
Now he (the Attorney-General) submitted that ;tile pout du
having been brought against the husband w'tee,l bee"
notice to the wife, in whose name all the hills it i%
Trade out, the plaintiff could not recover, because-010"
laid down in various law authorities that " the'
elver;
cannot be sued alone for debts contracted before
an
riage." Even supposing there was a continnancienr
that the husband had made himself responsibl., weal
business done subsequently to the marriage still."'" arse
not make the husband liable if sued alone; 'Thelee hY
Counsel, after quoting several authorities, conenl4 are'
submitting that he wits entitled to a new trial,
_s one
duction of the verdict to the amount of the busine'
before the marriage. to the
Mr. KELLY, for the plaintiff, had no objection o tie)
reduction being made, if that would put an en too
ease ; but the Attorney-General having: decline. oider
cede to the proposition, the Court took time to
the arguments.
trio
Mr. MOORE AND TYNDALL V. COOK.E. tr-
Mr. CRESSWELL moved in this case, which I/ s 110
at the last York Assizes, and in which 'a
Verdieti'vf3oe the
for the plaintiffs for 901. on the first count, anu„, 0.1)1
defendant on the seeond, for a rule to show ce.e`l„-lie 11°1
judgment should not be entered for the rile'a4)io
obstante veredicto. The question for their Lerded the
decision was one of some importance as regsrborities'
liability of churchwardens and other parish gut feral
It appeared from the evidence at the trial thatteire, bad
vicar of the parish of Pocklington,
got sonic iron stoves, gas-pipes, and brass Ole
}corksir' 5, riff .
een"
up in the church for the purpose of lighting into owl
Wing it. A subscription was entered int° e,
the parishioners for deft ping the exPe"yse been
many persons thinking that it might to een"
done in a more economical manner, refuse ilia own
tribute, and he then paid the balance outing
left the
pocket. Some time afterwards, the vicar ha
„ try wa,s
living, and removed to another Fart of the c?en ices ae,
induced to remove these fixtures, and an aefeenot
cordingly brought against him, on the grolnuleijendelle"
were the property of the church. Tne
Of and
pleaded that he had received the sanction 0' 'of "II
one of the Churchwardens, for their for' the the
plea (the second) there was verdict her the
fendant. The question for the Mie rt was whett, license`, 4'
consent of one of the churchwardens; and th oile!
given by him, was binding upon the churchwarte .:oi,ateei
formed a bar to the action. rile
• CA"
A
The. COURT thought the question required
Aeration, and deferred its judgment. og?"eV
MORRIS V. ,TtiE PRESTON AND WYRE RAILWAY - ,0 10);p
Mr. KNOWLES moved in this case for a rule.ll,o
cause why a verdict should not be entered for time
",at'
tiff upon the count for work and labour done. It for
action brought by the plaintiff against the Cello efts°
certain work done upon their line of railway. , _ piece'
was tried before Mr. Justice Wightman at, t!:ree
shire Assizes, and a verdict entered for the Ola,ion__"o the de-
the count for goods sold and delivered, and
fondants on the other counts, with liberty- to eor
ch etoir;re
diet for the plaintiff on these counts fo.l,*__ udefeeild,,,eg
as an arbitrator might deem proper. I,_,9„iitele
ants pleaded that they were never indebwiteeree
and a set-off. It appeared that• I
t w Pre~lllra"
special contract entered into with the plaintiffa
certain portion of the line for the locomotsthe note
and this was marked upon a plan signed
r
cipal engineer, Mr. Stephenson. Shortly
part of the line was in such a s
orieina"Y ep
quire a great deal more work than
obliged
threw d
tract was commenced the plaintiffta(tleiscobvattrietd:ihiusito:i
• It wt%3
mated, and that he would be ob fat• opene
of th©
then agreed that Mr. Stephenson andson3vve
the oficuitt)lol
tors should go over the line, and seeeheteat Nicirs
Ivivraosulodripgrienvaenn; tchoentleninlep
vireo_
thea the time 117111i/11
wd
might be obviated. It was proved in d
Viine bad n'%ll
aSntepabletenrsaotiiiohnimisneltf,heafpteirangoliT
igthleiir the s
pencil
agreed
t.
ittl,ia..thadtheboenpla„itlhitoi_tfslielocullidginneyelt:ariod,4Oto;:
and further, it was agreed that fur the work which