The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-02 00:00:00

LA W IN TELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. J.

This being the last day of Hilary Terin the Court took
appeal motions, after giving its decision on the different
cases that stood on the paper for judgment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION

OF BOSTON.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case,
which was argued before the Court some time since upon
appeal from the decision of his Honour the Vice Chan-
cellor. The question in the case was whether under the
Act of William IV. the Corporation of Boston had the
power to appropriate the surplus fund arising from the
tolls taken on the Witham and the Welland rivers to the
improvement of the port of Boston. The Vice Chan-
cellor decided that they had not, and from !hat decision
the present appeal was brought. His Lordship was clearly
of opinion that the judgment below was correct, and dis-
missed the appeal, but without costs.

PYM V. LeCKTER

His Lordship also gave judgment in this case, in which
the question was, whether, according to the rules and prac-
tice of the Court, and the decision that had taken place,
a portion advanced to a child was an ademption of a le-
gacy. The Lord Chancellor, after going at c ,nsiderable
length into the authorities, stated his clear opinion to be,
that the portion was not an ademption of the legacy, and
decreed accordingly. . . _

„ .
The Court then proceeded with the bearing of appeal
motions.

VICE-CHANCELLOR' S COURT, FEB. 1.
Motions of no public interest occupied His Honour the
Vice-Chancellor the whole day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, FEB. 1.
This tieing the last day of Term, the Court went
through the Bar, AS it is technically termed, commencing-
with the Junior Counsel. Motions of course only were
taken ; and no else involving any point of law, or of pub-
lic interest, came before the Court.

BAIL CO Ui?:!, FEB. 1.
(Before Mr. Justice WH.Ltams.)
THE QUEEN V. THE OVERSEERS OF THE HALIFAX
UNION—MANDAMUS.
Mr. WIGHTmAN moved for a rule cailin; upon the
overseers of ildlifax to show cause why a mandamus
should not issue, ordoring them to produce en account
of certain items of expenditure in their account to the
auditor appointed by the Poor-law Commissioners.
This application was made under the 67th section of
the Poor-law Act. The Overseers had produced their
accounts belore the auditor, and among the
items therein contained was an article for constables' ex-
pcnsci, 1041. 9s. 81d. The auditor had called for
the particulars of these expenses, which the overseers
had refused to give, and he now moved for a mandamus
to compel them to do so.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS did not consider this to be
a case for a mandamus ; the auditor had the remedy in
his own hands by refusing to pass any items for which
vouchers were not produced.—Application refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 1.
(Sittings in. Banco.)
HARRISON V. WARNEFORD.

This was an action brought against the defendant
as the Managing Director of the West Cork Mining
Company, which was tried so long ago as November
1 X 39, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. in
the present term a rule nisi to set aside the ver-
dict on the ground of collusion was obtained,
and on a former day Mr. Kelly and Mr. Hum-
frey were heard against the rule, and Sir F. Pol-
lock in its support. To-day, Mr. Henderson was fur-
ther heard in support of the rule, and argued that the
delay which had taken place did not put the diifendant
out of Court, as they had been seeking redress in
another way, they having applied to a Court
of Equity—so that in fact they had been only guilty of
an error. He would not detain the Court on the ques-
tion of collusion, if they were against him on the point
of time.

The COURT said the application came too late, and
the rule must therefore be discharged.
Rule discharged with costs.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WOOD.

Mr. JOHN JARVIS appeared on the part of the Crown
to show cause why a Commission should not issue to
examine witnesses abroad in this case. He, in the first
place, would wish his Learned Friend, Mr. Wight-
man, to produce any authority, showing that the re-
venue side of the Court had any jurisdiction in
such a case to grant the application. He had
made diligent search, and could not find any. It
would be a most dangerous precedent, for, if once al-
lowed, there would never be an Excise or Customs
cause in which there would not be some material wit-
ness abroad.

Mr. NVIGHTKAN relied upon the Ist of William IV.,
chap. 22; but

The COURT said they clearly got no jurisdiction
from that Act : they could not grant the applica-
tion, but they had the power of putting off the trial
upon a proper application.—Rule refused.