The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-13 00:00:00

COAL INIARKE'

Bate's West Hartley... 19s Odl
Holy-well Main
New Pelton .
Nelson's West Hartley 19s Od
North Percy Hartley l9s Od
Ord's Redheugh
South Peareth
Tanfield Moor ..... I7s 6d
Townley lis Od
West Wylam
West Hartley . l9s 6d
Wall's End, &c.
Bewicke and Co l9s 9d
Elm Park
Gosforth l9s 9d
Hotspur
Hebburn l9s 3d
Hilda
Northumberland
63 arrival.

THE CHARING-CROSS -atTnG
COMPANY.—(THIS DAY.)
A Special Meeting of the Shareholders ofilietlll.
0.
Company was held to-day, at their offices, 0,
street, Strand, at one o'clock, for the purpose of for
firming the resolutions passed at the last meeting',
raising 20,0001. by the creation of new quarter
shares. ere
The resolutions, after some discussion, W
agreed to.
We shall give a full report of the proceedings in
in our next edition.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY °west'
The Lord Chancellor sat in the Court go bear
minster to-day, to give several judgments, at'd
appeals.
osIENT'
IN RE BUTTERFIELD, A BANKRUFT.---
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave jud
this case, which came before his Lordshipsomeft'°'
In
tbe
ment to-day,
since upon a special case from the decision °co.
Court of Review, reversing a judgment of Mr', the
missioner Holroyd, rejecting a proof of 6,000/.11
widow, in her character of executrix, against
and
estate of her son. According to the statements; sou
the special case, it appeared that the widow ne,,tbt
of the testator carried on the business after his de,7h,
and ultimately the son became a bankrupt. "fai
testator by his will declared that it should be lavv!.
for his widoW to use the sum of 6,000/. in car*
on the business as long as she should think fit, 613
the residue of his estate he gave to his widow, 813 of
after her death to her children. Upon the death ,0
the testator the widow took the stock trsoclic
at the value of 3,0001., and she also ti,`.er,
her son and co-executor into partnership vvith,;id
and all money on account of the concern Was:field
sought to prove for the 6,000/ against into the banker's hands, in the name of Butt ,doe
and Son ; the son becoming a bankrupt, the /v.,.te.
Mr. Commissioner H I • * the Pr—
n-st the esmf
but the Chief o royd refused to allow .
Judge of the Court of Review (thieve%
Chancellor Kilight Bruce) upon the case COdin-ths
before him reversed that judgment, and order e case
proof to be admitted, and from that decision thef
an
came before the Lord Chancellor in the nature °
appeal.
t s°llle
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after going nfir..t 8
length into the case, and citing the case of ex 5 his;
Garland as the ground of his decision, sql,teurt of
cleari opinion to be that the judgment of the Catmtaedvieewbywthasatwcroonugrt;
musttlie obrdee discharged,rtherefo,9
Las
otd"fi°t
thawt of
Mr. Commissioner liolroyd restored.
MANN V. STEPHENS.—JUDGMENT' tin ail%
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judginell t apou
case, which was heard before him in April Iss,aocel°
motion to discharge two orders of :the the
for of England °
, one grantin an injunction, r the
other ordering the committal of the defendant 'housn
breach of it. The plaintiff is the occupier of tphillt
in Constitution-crescent, near the Windtn"ortien
Gravesend. The defendant is the lessee of itreboa
of the shrubbery in the vicinity of the hill, wusenienti
been converted into a place of public emus a
a
under the name of the Tivoli Tea Garden whom
covenant in the lease to Thomas Smith, uncle;
_ectioe
the defendant holds, it was stipulated that ne, 2:0, or
should be made in the shrubber except one ni.u'og to
cottage, of an ornamental character; and OP Dell-
a
be built in a place known by the name of cee e
The defendant, after he obtained possession, 111.„° Ws!
to erect a building, which the plaintiff understnsoilles
to be used as a brewery, and conceiving that it for 511
be an injury to his property, he filed the bli__oeller
injunction, and obtained it from the Vice-Cuv,eica
on the 28th of July. The defendant enn'rection
that the injunction applied solely to the,.e.,, tb
of a brewery, proceeded, notwitbstanawbschicb
order of the Court, to finish the building,
.Nyaset
he alleged to be intended for a to
and the plaintiff then applied for an order rdef
mit 0
mit him for breach of the injunction.
erection' v:
was granted on the ground that the e as poD
whatever kind, or for whatever purpose, 1' ,dens
in the Dell, but in the pleasure ground of thebls-ohien
The discharge of these two orders was t eve judge
of the motion on which his Lordship now gtb,t the;
ment. His Lordship was clearly of opinitn__ orieci
injunction ought to stand, but that it should
the
other"
dwelling P
by. omitting the words "ornamental ratherrhtnraeuspect to:
wise to the surrounding property."
Wit
ht it ougliP
the order for committal, his Lordship thong re°
to be discharged, thinking that the evidence wtecie?s
spect to the breach of the injunction was 'lntl,. fii9
to justify the Court in committing the Paw