The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-06 00:00:00

THE FUNDS.

Both the English and Foreign Stock Markets opened
steady at the closing quotations of Saturday. Consols
for the Account are 88i a ; Three per Cents. Reduced,
84-4 ; Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Reduced, 984. Ex-
chequer Bills, 10 al2 premium. Spanish Active Stock,
231 ; Passive, 5/ i; Deferred, 11 i ; Portuguese Five
per Cents., 33i i; ditto Three per Cents., 1744 181 ; Co-
lombian, 204 ; Mexican, 25 ; Dutch Two-and-a-
Half per Cents., 52 a 521 ; ditto Five per Cents., 99 a 99i
PRICES OP SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE.
BA IWLAYS. Paid. Per Share.
London and Brighton 5O ...... 35114 to
London and Birmingham

Ditto A Shares -
Ditto Thirds - to 54A
Ditto New
London and South Western 3Bl 56 ...... to
York and North Midland.
Ditto New Shares.... l5 -
PRICES OF IRISH STOCKS, DUBLIN, DiC. 4%.
3 per Cent. Consols
Three and Half Stock 9-7i
Ditto Reduced ...... -
IRGarann kdSctoat
Stock.
.....
.. ... ...0
.1 i
Ditto New 1830... 9B Ditto 4 per cent •
3i pm' Cent. Debs. qO4 Royal Canal Stock --

HALF-PAST ONE.
There has been but a limited business doing in the
English Securities this morning. Bank Stock has been
done at 165 i ; Three per Cents. Reduced, mil ; Three-
Cot 1 E.Redneed 9 ;Exchequer Bills, 10

12 premium. There have been few transactions in Con-
sols for Money and New Three-and-Half per Cents. The
former have been done at 894, and the latter 99A- and
Consols for the Account have been done during the
morning at 884 ex.. div. ; and are now 884-g.
In the Foreign Market there is also but little doing.
Spanish Active Stock hare been marked as low as
; they have, however, improved, and may now be
quoted 23Th ; the Passive 514 ; Mexican Bonds 2.5 i ;
Portuguese Three per Cents. 20 ; Dutch Two-and-a-
Half per Cents. 52 ; Ditto Five per Cents. 994.
In the Share Market the transactions are very limited.
London and Brighton are 34 ; London and South
Western 56 ; London Birmingham Thirds 544.
TWO O'CLOCK.
Consols, 881 ex. div. Mexican, 25/ 26 ; Portu-
guese, 334 ; Spanish, 23% /.

LAW IN

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY

RUMBALL V. LORD RIVERS.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, which was argued before the Court a short
time since. His Lordship said that the case came before
him upon exceptions to the Masters' report. There
were exceptions in point of form, and also in substance.
With respect to the exceptions in point of form, the first
was that the affidavit in proof of the debt, which was a
bond one, did not state the consideration. The affidavit
in the case of a simple contract debt, as a matter of
course, stated the consideration. It was a subject of
controversy at the bar whether, according to the
practice of the Masters' office, the affidavit in
the case of a bond debt should also state the
consideration. •Mr. Smith's book was cited in sup-
port of the affirmative of that proposition; on the other
hand it was stated that such was not the practice of the
Master's office. Now, his Lordship had applied to eight
of the Masters of the Court, and had received a certifi-
cate signed by all of them, stating that, according. to the
practice in the offices of the Masters, the affidavit in sup-
port of a bond debt must state the consideration. Ano-
ther objection was, that the subscribing witness to the
bond was not called upon to prove the execu-
tion in the usual way ; that it was proved only
by affidavit, and the question as to this point
was, whether any objection was taken as to that
mode of proof in the Master's office. Upon that point
there was a difference of opinion among the gentlemen,
who attended before the Master, but the Master had
certified that he did not recollect any such objection
being made. It was admitted on the part of the claim-
ants that before Mr. Martin, when the case was in his
office, an objection was made to the form of proof, and
that the proof ought to be viva voce. The attention of the
Master was therefbre directed to the subject, and it was in.
cumbent on him to see that theproof was made in the usual
form. Another objection was as to the form of the excep-
tions : it was stated that the reasons assigned for the excep-
tions had taken the shape of exceptions, and that such
being the case, the Master ought not to have reported
that the debt was proved. With respect to the excep-
tions, in point of substance, it was certified by the Mas-
ters that in their offices, where a reasonable cause of sus-
picion was raised, it was a matter of course that the

Masters should require the party proving the bond
should establish its validity by proving the consi-
deration. There could be no no doubt of that.
The question now was, whether such a reasonable cause
of suspicion had been made out as to call upon the
Master to require the proof of the consideration. Now,
looking at these affidavits, the first objection that occurred
to his Lordship was, that the greater part of them swore
as to information and belief as to facts, without stating from
whom that information proceeded, or the grounds for
believing it. Such affidavits his Lordship thought were
of very little good in the administration of justice, and
the question was, whether, laying aside those parts of the
affidavits, there was a sufficiency of facts stated to raise
a case of suspicion. Now, as to the facts, it appeared
that Sir William Rumball was in partnership with the
house of Palmer and Co., who carried on business in the
East Indies; that house some years ago failed, and upon
that failure Sir W. Rumball came to England, and it
was sworn distinctly by Captain Arabin that Sir Wil-
liam Rumball was engaged in no commercial or mer-
cantile transactions from that period to the time of his
death. In lii2s or 1826 it appeared that he had
accepted bills of exchange to the amount of
10,5001. Who was the drawer of those bills

did not appear, but those bills were cancelled in con-
sideration of Sir William Rumball giving promissory
notes to Nicholls and Co., and Gore and Co., for the
same amount, and the payment of those notes was secured
by the bond in question, together with other securities,
one of which was an assignment of certain property that
he possessed. Now, the first question was as to that
assignment : Sir William Rumball had solicitors, and if
this transaction had been a regular one those solicitors
would have been employed; such, however, was not
the fact ; other solicitors performed the duty, and one
of the partners of that house was actually a
subscribing witness to the bond. Added to this, although
Messrs. Ransom and Co. were the bankers of Sir W.

,urnball, none of the large sums of money obtained on
iese bills passed through their hands. On the part of

those who opposed the claim, it was asserted that the
transaction was a stock-jobbing one, and that the bills of
exchange were given for the payment of the diffe-
rences. Now, was such a case made out ? It was
said that Mr. Norris, of Bond-street, was the broker
in these transactions. Now, what appeared upon

the case ? Why, that on the 29th of October, Mr.
Young, of the firm of Hadgate and Company,
on the part of Sir W. Rumball, paid to Messrs. "Wild and
Co. half a year's interest on the two bonds. Now, what
took place upon that occasion ? Why it was suggested
that the money might be paid in India ; and upon that
suggestion Mr. Norris undertook that, if it was so paid, to
return the money. It farther appeared, that on a par-
ticular occasion Sir W. Rumball having stated to Cap-
tain Arabin that he had been engaged in stockjobbing
transactions, and paying differences in which he had been
overreached, that Captain Arabia was sent to
settle stock differences. This led to the suspicion
that these bills of exchange were given for transac-
tions of that kind. But that was not all, for, after
the death of Sir William Rumball, when disputes
arose with respect to the transactions, Mr. Norris called
upon Captain Arabia in Paris, and stated that he was
responsible for those transactions. Taking all these
circumstances together, his Lordship must say, that they
raised a suspicion in his mind, strong enough to lead to
the conclusion that the consideration of the bond ought
to be investigated; how that investigation was to take
place the Master must decide. Upon the whole, therefore,
his Lordship was of opinion that the matter must be re-
ferred back to the Master to review his report.

BOOTH V. CHESWICK.
The rest of the morning was occupied with the argu-
ments in this part-heard case.

VICE-CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
CARTER V. NELSON.

His HoNouß was occupied during the whole of the
morning in his private room with hearing the arguments
in this part-heard petition.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
TULLOCK V. HARTLEY.

The Court was engaged, during the whole day, in
hearing the arguments in this cause.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGIIIAM:)
TOMLIN V. TOMLIN.

The arguments in this cause were resumed this morning.
Mr. COLVILLE, for the plaintiff, contended at great
length for the admissibility of the accounts in which
the testator, Thomas Belcey, had charged him-
self as a debtor to his sister Elizabeth, in the
sum of 50,000/, and afterwards to Mary in the sum of
24,0001. It was laid down by Mr. Starkie, in his book
on evidence, that private writings in the handwriting of
a party were to be taken as an acknowledgment by the
party that the facts contained in them were true, parti-
cularly if the admission were against his own interest.
Mary Belcey, it was said, had released for the protec-
tion of her brother's estate the large claims which she
had upon it, in order to indemnify him against a mistake
in the accounts. It was quite clear, however, that
that act could not affect the rights of the legatees
under Elizabeth's will, because, all that it Proved was,
that Thomas Belcey had believed there was a mistake,
and that she released his interest in conseqUence.

Mr. SHARP addressed the Court for the defendant. The
Learned Counsel objected to the decree sought by the
plaintiff; on the ground that it would preclude the de-
fendant from going into all the evidence. It might happen
that James Tomlin had documents in his possession
which would show that die testator had owed no sum
whatever to the estate of Elizabeth. His conduct

throughout showed that he was not anxious to disprove
the claim made by the plaintiff. Evidence would have
been given on the part of the plaintiff to show how the
two ladies became possessed of so large a sum as 50,0001.,
and what was the value and origin of the debt ; but
there was not the least evidence to show how he
became entitled to it. If the testament were true,
that each of them were entitled to fifty thousand pounds,
the whole estate of the brother would be swept away ;
there was nothing, however, to show how they became
possessed of that sum. The only evidence upon which
his Honour was asked to make the decree, without fur-
ther inquiry, was the residuary account given in after
Thomas Belcoy's death.
The arguments were not concluded at the rising of the
Court.