The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-13 00:00:00

W WHITECHAPEL.
We had only a moderate supply of Meat on offer to-day.
en the whole the trade was firm, at full prices. Beef, from
211104 to 3s 84 ; Mutton, 3s 84 to 4s 8d ; Veal, 4s to 4s 104;
and Pork, 4s to 4s 104 per Sib, by the carcase.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
BETTING AT INIANCIIESTER—TuEsDAY.
CHESTER CUP.
50 to 1 On the field—offered.
15 to 2 DERBY.
agst Van Tromp—offd 35 to 1 agst Wanota
13 to 1 agst Epirote—offere,l 35 to 1 agst Allertonian
17 to 1 apt Planet—offered 1000 to 15 agst West India
25 to 1 agst Glentilt Planter
27 to 1 agst sis to Cobweb colt -1000 to 15 agst colt out of
33 to 1 agst Old Port—offered Calyrso's darn.
35 to 1 agst Lunedale

CHANCERY.—
The Lord Chancellor sat i
to -day anti heard cause pet
ceased,&e d any points of interes

-(THIS DAY.)
in his Court at Westminster
titions, none Of which pos-
it except to the parties con-

VICE-CHANCERY —('PHIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. GAMBLE AND

The ar NOTT. •
guments On this motion for an injunction on
behalf of the plaintiffs, the Electric Telegraph Company,
were resumed and concluded to .day-
His HoNoun, wi:hout calling upon the counsel for
the defendant stated that, in his opinion; the best course
to be adopted, would be to direct the motion to stand
over, in order that the validity of the patent might be
determined at law. This suggestion met with the ap-
Probatifin of all parties, and the case rests at present.
His 110NOUR then proceeded to hear motions, and
!tated that it was his intention to proceed with the hear-
lug of them to-morrow.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
EWART AND OTHERS V. KENSIT AND °TIMIS.—
JUDGMENT.
i IloNoun gave judgment in this case to-day, grant-
"ng the injunction. The facts appeared in this journal
Monday.
STARKIE AND OTHERS V. BLAKE AND OTHERS...—.
lIisJUDGMENT.
IIoNOUR also gave judgment in this case. The
ceased were the younger children of Dr. Starkie, de-
fL.sised, and the defendants were purchasers of the estate
The °h° Edward Starkie, the eldest son of Dr. Starkie.
, object of the suit was to rectify a deed which had
`Seon,n executed on the 23d of December, 1830, between
,11T1 Edward Starkie and Dr. Starkie, by inserting the
411-le .2f Maria Barbara Starkie, the mother of the
funturs, in the body of the document. The terms of
Me deed Were to the effect, that John Edward Starkie
pay Dr. Starkie during his lifetime 1,200 L per
:tan1111:1, and a sum of 6,5001., as well as other demands,
. Consideration of which he resigned to, him (John
11
Edward Starkie) his interest in certain copyhold pro-
Periy. It appeared that the estate at this time was sub-
tot a debt of 22,0001., and another of 8,0001., &e.,
Zwhich John Edward Starkie was obliged to pay. John
IWard Starkie also covenanted to pay two annuities,
°lle of 750/. and another of 2001. ' • and there were several
other liabilities to which John Edward Starkie bound
himself by the deed in question.
Ilosourt was clearly of opinion that the only mode
Which any relief could be granted was by a declaration
to the effect asked.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
SPENCER V. HENDERSON.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS moved for a rule calling
;AXIL the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict found
or her in this case should not be set aside and entered
to for the defendant, or for a new trial. It was an action
recover compensation in damages for an illegal dis-
traint, levied at the instance of the defendant, who had
bei.t
.house in Albany-street, Regent's Park, to the
r*lntlff, Mrs. Spencer, who set up that the goods be-
iongFd to her daughter, she having removed her own
fitliTtiture. The defendant pleaded the general issue, but
coding that the statute had not been strictly complied
1t1?, he now sought leave to amend his plea to one
letting forth that the plaintiff had clandestinely re-
move d her furniture, and, consequently, to have a new
trio
Re admitted,' however, that the application was
unprecedented in the books.
Lord DENMAN thought it would be dangerous to
create a precedent, and refused the application.

NONSUITING.
In a running-down case, involving no point of public
interest, in which Mr. WHITERURST moved for a new
trial,•
or forleave to enter a nonsuit,
Lord DENMAN said it was now too late to move for a
rtonsuit. When he first took his seat on the Bench, he
Was given to understand that the Court entertained a
different opinion, but he had thought that his view of the
matter was well understood. Ile would give an illustra-
tion of his view :—A counsel, in the course of a cause,
moved for a nonsuit, and the judge acceded to his appli-
cati,9n; but, instead of availing himself of this permis-
sion, he called more witnesses, and showed, for instance,
by their testimony, that the plaintiff was entitled to a
yerdict, was the judge in such a case to do so foolish a
thingt as to permit, after that, to the defendant to move
for leave to enter a nonsuit?

TISGLEY V. DALTON.
This case was tried in this Court during the last term.
Twas
an action brought by the plaintiff, Sarah
;ingley, against the defendant, a butcher at Westmore-
and, in whose service she had been as a domestic
te.l'Vant, to recover comp.nsation in damages for injuries
;El'6 she alleged she had sustained in consequence of
°0 detention of her clothes by the defendant. The
Jiti„rY found a verdict for the plaintiff for 371. 10s., being
10s. for her clothes, and 201. as damages.
Air. Sergeant SIIEA now moved for a rule calling upon
the plaintiff to show cause why a nonsuit should not be
catered,
pursuant to the leave of the Learned Judge who
w
tlied the case (Mr. Justice Erle), or for a new trial, on
and Be ground that the verdict as against the evidence,
on account of the excessive damages. The point at
2600 between the parties was whether a month's notice
tray or was not given, and therefore whether the con-
tract between them was at an end or not at the time the
phad laintiff left the service of the defendant. She said she
given him the usual notice, but he said she had not,
and when she stated her intention of leaving, as her
notice had expired, he refused to allow her ; she, how-
W"er, did leave, but he detained her boxes, for which,
olvever, she made no subsequent application. There
as no direct evidence to show that she had given notice.
bier uncle stated at the trial that she told him she had
done so.
Lord DENMAN said Mr. Justice Erle was dissatisfied
with the verdict. The Court considered it right that
the whole matter should be re-opened.
Rule nisi granted.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)
LANE V. DIXON.-IMPORTANT TO LODGING•HOUSE
KEEPERS.

This was an action brought by Mr. Lane, a medical
practitioner, against the defendant, for a trespass. In
1844, the plaintiff rented the first floor of a house in
Westrainster,,and with the permission of the tenant of
the premises, he put up a brass plate on the front door.
Shortly after this, the premises were let to the defendant,
but before his t::rm for the occupancy of the rooms had
ended. On the defendant taking possession of the
Premises, on the 12th of May, and when
,t}?e plaintiff was absent, the defendant removed
up brass plate, and occupied his rooms. When
11''n plaintiff rurn, the defenda resisted
,15 entrance, alleging that he had not taken the rooms
'rem him, and should not therefore be allowed to con-
tinue. Plaintiff brought his action and recovered da-
mages, 301. In Trinity term last Mr. Sergeant Byles
obtained a rale to set aside the verdict.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins was to-day heard against the
rule, and Mr. Sergeant Byles in reply.
Lord Chief Justice WinDE said the rule had been
Moved for on two grounds—first, that in relation to the
alleged trespass there was no evidence adduced on the
trial to sustain the verdict of the jury. Now, on this
point, it had been proved on trial that the
Plaintiff took the rooms from a previous tenant
for a certain period, and that the defendant
Came into possession of the premises before
that term had expired. It had also been shown that
when the plaintiff came in, one day before the expiration
of the said term, he found the defendant occupying his
rooms, who told him he had no longer possession, and
refused him admission. In his (the Lord Chief Justice's)
opinion, therefore, the evidence of trespass was of such
a character as to warrant the verdict which had been
Withthat on this head the rule should be discharged.
With regard to the other point, in which it was con-
tended that the brass plate was attached to the
Premises, and not in possession of the plain-
tiff, he must, say he could not view the matter
in that light. The door-plate was the chattel of the
plaintiff, and must follow the right of property, as it
did not appear that the defendant had fixed the plate,
while there was every ground for supposing that the
plate was fixed on the door by the plaintiff, to remain
there FO long as be occupied the lodgings. Ou this
ground also he considered the rule must be discharged.
The rest of their Lordships concurred, and the rule
Was accordingly dischargud.

SECONDARIES'--(THIS DAY.)
There was only one undefended case tried to-day.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
CHAMBERS AND CHAMBERS.
TO.day was appointed for an audit under the estate of
these
bankrupts, who, it will be recollected, were bankers
,fl Bond street.
In the course of the pl.( ceedings, which were of no
general interest,
Espin, the solicitor to the assignees, called his
°flour's attention to the case, observing that a dividend
meeting will be held on the 19th inst., but as the cora-
l/3481°n of bankruptcy was issued twenty years ago, it
Was very probable that it would escape the notice of many
of the creditors who had not proved. The dividend 'which would be declared on the 19th would not be the
!ast, but unless the whole of the debts were then proved
11 would not be probable that sufficient assets would be
left to pay on the next occasion.
The Learned COMMISSIDNER asked whether tha meet-
ing had not been advertised.
Mr. Espin said it had, but his object in addressing his
?honour was in the hope that his observations would find
their way into the newspapers
for after so great a lapse
_
ti_rne creditors forgot to look after the estate. The
40%1 debts were 240,0001., of which under 220,0001. were
Wired.
PaidThlll e Commisnerma asked what dividend had been
?
ealMx. Espin said 9s. The next dividend would be 45.,
7zthere would be a final dividend of 3s. in the pound
,0 funds arising from the Chancery suit in respect to
14,1L9pera House, &c.
Zia 1101i01111 said it certainly was a very old commis-