The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-05 00:00:00

KEMP V. HILL.

-tr.
inn PEMBERTON moved for an order to Mr. Rowson,
solicitor for the trustees of a gentleman named La
thityere, to deliver up certain deeds and papers relating to
the estate devised by him, which were detained by Mr.
Rowsori, for a lien which he claimed to have upon them.
his LORDSRIPi after hearing the facts in suppport of
the petition • •suogested that the deeds should be placed
in the custody of the Court, and that it should be re-
ferred to the Master to ascertain whether Mr. Rowson
had any and what lien upon them, but that they should
not go out of the custody of the Court, without uotice to
Mr. Rowson ; to which tirrangeinent Mr. Walker as-
sented, on the part of Mr. Rowson.

VICE-CHANCERY--(THIS DAY
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
HOPKINSON V. BRUCE.

This is a suit instituted by Messrs. Charles Hopkin-
son and Co., the bankers, on behalf of themselves and
others, the creditors of the late Mr. John Prosser, the
army accoutrement maker, of Charing-crosS.
Mr. Prosser died insolvent in 1837, and an adminis-
tration was granted to his daughter, Mrs. Bagster, in
March, 1838, and a bill having been filed against her
and her husband by the creditors of the deceased, a de-
cree was made, directing the intestate's personal estate
generally to be applied to the payment of his
debts and funeral expences ; and, in ease the
personal estate should be deficient for those purposes, the
Master to take an account of the intestate's personal and
real estates, and the rents and profits derived from them.
It appeared that the intestate's property, consisting of
the stock-in-trade, the fixtures, and utensils, and the
interest in the leasehold premises, were sold by the ad-
ministratrix, Mrs. Bagster, to her brother Mr. John
Prosser, the intestate's son, who had remained in posses-
sion, and continued to carry on his father's business, for a
sum of about 2501., which the plaintiffs considered to be
only one-fourth of its value. The
,decree made it in-
cumbent on the Master to carry on inquiry as to whether
any sales of the property had taken place,and if so whether
those sales had realised the utmost value of the pro-
perty. The defendants had taken exceptions to the in-
terrogatories of the Master, and the present application
was to have those exceptions overruled, and to allow that
the interrogatories should stand.
His HONOUR apprehended that the question to be de-
cided was whether these interrogatories did not extend
to matters upon which it was not incumbent on the
Master to report. The power to examine parties was
given to the Master for the purpose of obtaining, evi-
dence, in order to enable him to inform the Court
upon the matters into which it was Incumbent
on the Master, aecordipg to the decree, to iminiree The
interrogatories must extend to all those matiers,, but
would not go farther. On looking at the decree, it ap-
peared to his Honour that the interrogatories did extend.
to some matters upon which the Master was not requir
to report ; and, therefore, the parties objecting had a
right to do so. He did not decide that'the interrogatory
was wrong ; but as it stood, it went beyond the Masters.
functions ; he did not, however, therefore think it neces-
sary to send back to the Master to review the,
report. But he thought it right to allow the excep-
tions so far as related to the fourth interrogatory.
At the same time, he wished it to be understood that it
was his opinion that it would be entirely competent for
• the Master to continue the inquiries into which he had
en.ered. The present order of the Court merely allowed
to the interrogatory.
the exceptions with regard
- -
QUEENS BENCH—(THIS DAY.)
LANE V. DEWSON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendant, an auctioneer, for the sum of 411., being
the value. of certain trees, purchased by the plaintiff; and
which the defendant refused to deliver up. The case
was heard before Mr. Baron Parke at the last as-
sizes for Lincoln, and a verdict was had for the defendant,
with leave to enter a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant LuDLow now moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict . should not be set aside. It ap•
peered that a person named Bankes was indebted to the
plaintiff in the . sum of 2001., and on being applied to for
payment of the debt, he said he was about to sell a
quantity of trees, and that the plaintiff might ge and pur-
chase some to reduce the amount of the debt. The plain-,
tiff accordingly attended to purchase trees, which he 4ad
measured the following day, and ascertained that the
value was 41/., but the auctioneer refused to allow .him
to take them away, stating that he had a lien upon them,
and justified his detention by reason of that lien.
At the trial a question was raised as to whether