The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-18 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY•}

(Before Sir J WIGRAM.)
SNOAD V. LARDNER.
This was the petition of William [Miller, and
Louisa, his wife, praying for the discharge of
order of the Court. It appeared that the plaintiffs' bY
the will of George Snoad, of Brookland, in the
county of Kent, who died in 1829, became entitled
to a sum of 7,5001. at the decease of the testator a
widow. The defendant, John Haddock Lardner,
who was the surviving trustee of the testator's WWI
married the widow Mrs. Snoad, and, in 1830, investe
the 7,5001. on the security of a mortgage on a free"
hold estate, conveyed to him by Samuel Finn, the
owner, by an indenture of release of April,
18 40,
subject to redemption on the pre-payment of the
sum of 7,5001., with interest at the rate of four per
cent. The money remained ever since invested,
the interest being applied in the paYnlent
of an annuity of 3001. per annum to the defendant a
wife. By an order of the Court the indenture of
mortgage and the title-deeds to the estate in question
had been deposited with the proper officer of the
court, but on the Bth of September, 1847, the de'
fendant, Mr. Lardner, presented a petition, stating
that John Finn, to whom the said estate had been
devised, in the month of November last contracted to
sell it to Sir Edward Knatchbull, and stated his in-
tention to defendant to pay off the 7,5001. An order
was made in conformity with prayer of the defendant :6
petition, and the money was invested at four per cent-
on certain property in the county of Sussex. cab
on
present petition stated that when this order
made they understood that it would be submitted fbr
their counsel's approval, hut when it was laid before the
said counsel, he not only refused to give his assent to i!",
but stated that it was informal and irregular, and thar
would, if acted upon, be prejudicial to the intere:ts
of his clients. It was then discovered that the dei,
fendant, Mr. Lardner had obtained the title deeds ,°_
the estate, &c., from the office of the Clerk of WI
Records ; and, though the petitioners were informed
that the defendant had received the 7,500/., and b.e!
been frequently applied to to pay it into court, n:
had refused to do so, alleging that he had not re
Iceived the money.
His HONOUR delivered judgment this morning, tell
directed that the order of the 10th
should be amended, not discharged, and that
W
Lardner should pay the money into court. He oulo
give no costs. of Novena_
(Before Sir J. L. K. BRUCE.)

SHACKLETON V. SUTCLIFFE.
This was a bill filed to enforce the purchase of an
estate. Pending the preparation of the deed of c 011"
plaieeon:
veyance, &c., the defendant gave notice to the
tiff to the effect that he considered the title-d.‘q
were defective, and must, therefore, refuse to illy:,
the agreement. The defendant :replied that hee the
fects in question were not of a nature to vitiat.a nt
agreement in law, and offered to make the defendant
compensation for the defects ; to which, bove,ve,.:' the
latter did not accede, and refused to comp
purchase.
id
His HONOUR delivered judgment to• day, and 53
not Con'
he considered the defects were of a nature
templated in the agreement, and therefore sboulat at
compel the defendant to complete the agreeinen iioe
the same time acquitting the plaintiff of any W
ll en
with
to act fraudulently. He would dismiss the
costs, except those that had been incurred inse; the
vouring to establish a charge of fraud ogsins"
plaintiff.
QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DA-17.
(Sittings in Banco.) eases At
The Court gave judgment in the following
the sitting of the Court :
THE QUEEN V. ANDREA• tried
ti Lord DENMAN said his Brother Coltman vv-er, art,
the case, was satisfied with the verdict, ahci thgrane Co art,
having well considered the case, could tint
rule.
DOWLING V. COWLING.
This -case was tried at Bristol. The Court granted
a rule to show cause.

GILES V. GROVES.

A rule.

EDWARDS v. COOPER•

No rule.

BEDFORD V. COOPER.

No rule.

HUMBLE v. HUNTER•

A rue.
DOE ON THE DEMISE OF ROBERTS V. GlgEs2l.
No rule.

NEWTON v. LIDSEARD;

AThreuldeTe.
ifleEndgaunEt,Erta
rva.iicOSaEyPenngsicnuez.;x:b..a b:r;
convicted of perjury, committed in testimonY gllre two
him in a trial to recover a bill for maPe, l'E'crAptich
years ago, was brought up from the Queen's "-
to receivel the judgment of the Court. ~ dont.
Mr. CROMPTON prayed sentence upon the dereilivisi
It appeared that he was employed by ,it 1.91,n be
company who ordered a number of maps irsr°,:irior
well-known house of Mr. James Wryld, of 'l,7loice
cross, and that the defendant wrote on theo
010-t ors
opposite a charge made for some maps
dered." At the trial he swore that then illarept
question were ordered, and when the paPe sca' filo°
intor his hand he swore as distinctly that the toe
anda was not in his handwriting. A reed'
A number of affidavits were handed. in and ruined
iTnhhaitsohfutshineedsse,feannddanhtasdtahteeednthatfihe
dha.d btheeenhar::?-re
Bench four months in conseqcuoenncne---e tihn "t,„ or
paper was put into his hand he consequences
takenu le fell
and not having seen it for some months ace
?oh
serror, and that his wife,
onf t" e pan in consecidussels
misfortunes and those proceediegst 11
ill 11
into health.
said Sir F. THESIGER, who appeared for the defellaesonut:
the offence of which the prisoner be
thoughtbeeirj the
victed was not a premeditated one. Ile r
Court, \O hen it looked to the whole of the orcasos
stances, to the long imprisonment of the defento..-1
to the ruin of his business, could not
his case one deserving of its most merciful cou.stileserge
tion. He knew that such conduct polluted i wit:
at its very source, and that it Was the dutY %leo ot
Lordships frequently to make seriotts eialujr
fail to e°.acif..