The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-10 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT._ (THIS DAY.

HOLMES V. SU:NH.IN. • • ,
This was a suit instituted .by the mortgagor for the
forclosure of a mortgage. The defendant Blenkin, was
indebted to the Banking Company, and deposited
with them, by way of mortgage, the tide-deeds of the
property in question ; and subsequently also, the title-
deeds of another property. On the 28th of March,
18n, Blenkin contracted with a gentleman named
Graham, One of'the defendants, to sell to him, the pro-
perty to which the deeds in the first deposit related,
and undertook .to convey the same to him free
from incumbrances on or , before the 6th of April
then next ensuing. Thisigreeirent was never carried
into effect, although Graharn had advanced a portion of
the purchase money, and had entered on possession of
the property, the company having refused to deliver up
the title-deeds, although they supplied an abstract of
them, unless the whole of their debt due to them from
Blenkin on the two mortgages was paid out of the pur-
chase money. Blenkin had subsequently become bank-
rupt, and this suit was instituted by the Company against
his assignees, and Mr. Graham, for the foreclosures of the
mortgage.
_ Mr. PEMBERTON having stated the plaintiff's case,
Mr. KINDERSLEY was arguing that of the defendant
Graham, when, by consent, the cause was postponed to
allow the parties time for consultation, with a view to an
arrangement.

Y).

VICE-CHANCERY-(THIS DA
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His HoNoun's paper this morning contained pleas,
demurrers, exceptions, and further directions ; but in
consequence of the parties not being prepared, the Court
was enabled to make but very little progress, and rose
before one o'clock. The, ease of Brown v. Brown, which
was part heard, was ordered to stand over, in conse-
quence of the absence of Counsel.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
SEDDON V. PRINCE.
This was a bill of exceptions taken by the plaintiff to
the insufficiency of the defendant's answer to a bill ori-
ginally filed by the plaintiff.
Mr. Cooper, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Heathfield,
supported the exceptions; Mr. Sirupkinsan, Q.C., and
Mr. Lowens appeared for the defendants.
The arguments were of considerable length, but the
case was of no general interest.
His HONOUR allowed the exceptions.

QUEEN'S BENCH':--(THIS DAY.)
THE QUEEN V. THE LEICESTER AND NORTHAMPTON UNION

, • A CANAL COMPANY.
In this case a rule had been obtained against the
..de-
fendants, calling upon them to show cause why a manda-
mus should not issue directed to them, and commanding
them to make a uniform rate of toll or tonnage upon all
coals to be conveyed along the line of their canal, or
to taluee the rate of tonnage charged upon coals con-
veyed from Northampton to Market Harborough along
a portion of the line.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING now appeared to support
the return that had been made to the mandamus.
The return set out, in the first place, the various
Acts under which the Company had been incorpo-
rated. The first Act, passed in the 33d year of the
reign of George the Third, by which certain parties
were empowered to make a canal from Leicester to
Northampton; by the 45th of, the same reign the Com-
pany were empowered to alter the line •of their canal;
and then there was a third Act passed in the 50th Geo.
111., incorporating .another Company with power to
make a canal from the Grand Junction Canal to the
Leicester and Northampton Union Canal, thereby
uniting both. Now the canal originally proposed from
Northampton to Leicester was only carried eighteen iniles,
and from thence there was a collateral cut to Market Ha-
borough, making the distance 24 miles, and for that dis-
tance the Company were authorized to charge ss. per ton,
and did charge 4s. 4d. A different rate of tolls was
charged along the remainder of the line, and the people
of Market
.11arborough, by whom the mandamus had
been applied for, complained that they were charged a
higher rate of toll for the distance than was charged for
coals going a longer distance on the line. Now lie sub-
mitted, that there was no pretence for saying that the
defendants could make a uniform rate of toll along the
entire line, inasmuch as the remainder of the line had
been formed by another Company, with ditferent.powers,
and authorised to levy different rates of toll. An attempt
was made, by his learned friend Mr. Hill, to make the rule
absolute in the first instance, on the ground that the defen-
dants had violated the provisions of the Act, and he (Mr.
Manning) had not an opportunity, on the occasion, of
addressing their Lordships, as he was at the time before
Mr. Justice Patteson endeavouring, but unsuccessfully,

to effect the liberation of a prisoner.
Lord DENMAN—Probably, if you had been here, the
prisoner would have been set at liberty.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant MANNING submitted, that under the pro-
visions of the 3d Act of Parliament, by, which the Grand
Union Canal was formed, the Legislature expressly
sanctioned the principle of charging a rate of ton-
nage, modified by circumstances, and the destination
of the coals or other goods to be carried thereon.
The Learned Counsel, after referring to the various
authorities on the point, submitted that the return was
good, and the rule for the mandamus. ought to be dis-
charged.
:Mr. PEACOCK, in support of the mandamus, contended
that the return was false, inasmuch as the defendants set
out that they were authorised to take and levy certain
rates and tolls. The prosecutors complained that the
rates were unequal, and the defendants in the first place
alleged that they were authorised to levy these varying
rates, and secondly that they had never been applied to
to equalise the rate of tonnage. The question before ,the
Court was whether the return of the defendants was a
sufficient answer, and he submitted that it was not.