The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-04 00:00:00

Mr. Alderman WILSON—But there might be a third
party behind, or More persons in the back-ground, who
were supplying Mr. Smith.
Mr. BODKIN—Just so, Sir—that was the impression
on the minds of all.

A book was here produced and examined, but no entry
of the bills could be found of such a character as to sa-
tisfy. the minds of the Aldernien.
Mr. BODKIN explained:that the entry wag not under
the date of October, but merely consisted of the date
and numbers of the bills.

Mr. Alderman WILSON —lf the prisoner were
that honest man which his caunsel . represents
him to be, it is in his power to show a fair mercantile
entry of the transactions] hel had with these bills,
that would have much weight with me, but he
has failed to do so.- Had these transactions
taken place through a regular sworn broker, they never
could have been carried on so long. It was a case preg-
nant with suspicion. How long do you ask for the re-
mand ?

Mr. WADDINGTON—I apply, sir, for the committal of
the prisoner. .
Mr. Ald. WlLsori—l don't think there is sufficient
evidcnce for that yet.
After a long discussion between the Counsel as to the
time to which the prisoner should be remanded, and
whether bail should be taken, it was finally agreed upon
that the prisoner should be remanded till Wednesday
week, his solicitor to have full access to his books.

Mr. MORGAN—Its having appeared in the statement
made by Mr. Rapallo, that " Morgan and another broker
knew it all," lam most anxious to ask him whether he

meant—

Mr. BODKIN—You cannot put any questions to the
prisoner. I can state, however, that he exonerates you
from all blame. _

The prisoner declared that Mr.. Morgan knew nothing
of the transactions except in the regular way, nor was
he at all acquainted with Smith, neither had Smith's
name ever been mentioned to him. _ _

Mr. Perceval begged to explain. A question had been
put by Mr. Bodkin in such a manner as to leave him no
room to give an explicit answer. He wished to say, such
were the precautions taken at the Exchequer Office, and
such the checks in force that it was next to an impossi-
bility for genuine duplicate bills ever to be put in circulation,
but as for a consecutive series of duplicate numbers to
appear, was •as near to an impossibility as anything hu-
man could be.
Mr. Morgan, stated that he was a sworn broker, and
from 120,0001. to 130,0001. worth of these bills had passed
'through his hands.
The prisoner was then removed in the custody of the
officer. The Lord Mayor's private room was densely
crowded during the examination. Many of the
first merchants of the City and members of the Stock
Exchange were present.

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.)
His Lordship was engaged the entire morning, up to
the time of the rising of the Court, in hearing the argu-
ments in a bankrupt petition.
His Lordship rose at one o'clock, before the arguments
in the case were concluded.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

MAITLAND V. DROWNRIGG.
This was a petition for payment of a portion of certain
funds raid into Court in suits now pending. Mrs. Mait-
land was, by a settlement on her first marriage with Mr.
Simpson, entitled to a life interest in certain funds,
with a power to appoint to her children. On her
second marriage with Admiral Maitland her life
interest in this settlement was Made the subject
of a second settlement, and in this last settlement
a covenant was entered into. by Admiral Maitland
for payment of a sum of 10,000/, which was alio to be
settled; and in which his widow was also to have a life
interest, with remainder to tbe relations of Admiral Mait-
land. This covenant was not performed, and after the
desith of Admiral Maitland, his widow accused Mr.
Bateman, the trustee of the second settlement, of neglect
of his duty, for not compelling the performance of it, and
filed a bill against him to compel him to make good the
loss thereby sustained. The whole sum, however, was
not lost, as a sum of 1,2001., of Admiral Maitland's estate
was recovered by the trustee and paid into Court.
and Mrs. Maitland from time to time received the divi-
dends on the funds in Court. Mr. Bateman, the trustee,
on the commencement of the suit by Mrs. Maitland, in-
stituted a cross suit, and costs were from time to time
incurred by him in these suits. Mrs. Maitland being
desirous to advance some money to her son for his ad-
vancement in the Church, executed an appointment in
his favour of one third of her life interest, and was desir-
ous that the money should be paid out of Court. This
was objected to by the trustee, on the ground that the
settlement gave him a lien on the funds for the costs
that had or might be incurred by him in the above suits,
and in the execution of his trust.
His LORDSHIP, after hearing Mr. Pemberton and Mr.
Sidebottom in support of the petition, and Mr. Kinders-
ley and Mr. Hullet against it, said that he did not think
he should diminish the trustee's security to any extent
that would be prejudicial to him if be made the order
prayed for, leaving it to him, if he should be advised to
do so, to apply to the Court to stop the order by which
her income was paid to Mrs. Maitland.
- GREEN V. BADLEY. _ _

This was a petition by the representatives of the
trustees under the will of a gentleman named Thomp-
son, who died in 1814, to have a reference made to the
Master, to make certain inquiries. Mr. Thompson, by
his will devised his estate, called the Sedgeley Hall
estate, in the neighbourhood of Dudley, in trust, that
after his trustees had ascertained'whether there was any
and what minerals under it, to make sale of the estate,
and divide the proceeds among his children, and he em-
powered his trustees,if his personal estate was not sufficient,
to borrow money by mortgage on the estate for the pur-
pose. Attempts were made from time to time to ascer-
tain what minerals were under the estate, and consider-
able expences incurred thereby, which were defrayed by
money borrowed from a banker for the purpose, the tes-
tator's personal estate not being sufficient. It was ascer-
tained by these experiments that there were
mines of very great value under the estate, and
that, in consequence of this discovery, the
value of the estate had been doub led. A bill having
been filed against the trustees a decree was made in
July, 1831, directing the usual accounts of rents and
profits received by the trustees and of all incumbrances
affecting the estate, and also directing a reference to
.in-
quire whether it would be for the benefit of all parties
that the estate should be sold, reserving the mines and
minerals ; and the Master was directed to allow the
parties all just allownces, but the decree did not
provide tfor an inquiry as •to the expenses
that had been incurred by the trustees in ex-
ecution of the trusts. The Master's report, from
some cause or other, had not been made, and it was now
prayed that an inquiry, as to the sums expended by the
trustees, should also be made.
Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Renshaw appeared in sup-
port of the petition, and Mr. Kindersley against it.
His LORDSHIP said, that it not being denied that money
had been expended, it would be unreasonable and ine-
quitable to exclude the parties altogether from the
inquiry prayed for, because, by some oversight, it
had not been included in the decree, and that the parties
should have the benefit of the investigation made by the
trustees, and nokpay the expenses. He thought, how-
ever, they had reason to complain of neglect on the part
of the defendants, in not bringing the matter for-
ward at an earlier period. He should, therefore,
direct an inquiry whether any and what sums had
been properly laid out by the defendants in
search for mines, and that a report should be made
thereon, with the general report, without delay, and that
that report should be brought on for confirmation when
the case was brought on for further direction, on the
report then to be made. He thought the petitioners
ought to pay the costs of the application, but that the
question of the costs of the report should be reserved.

VICE-CHANCERY—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
The Court was engaged the whole morning in hearing
causes which involved no feature of public interest
whatever.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
his HONOUR took short causes this morning of no ge•
neral interest, and rose before 12 o'clock.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY

WALTON V PENFoLD.
This was an action brought by the lessee of turnpike
tolls in Surrey against the Trustees of the Surrey Roads,
to obtain possession under the 29th Geo. 111. The case
was tried at Kingston at the last Assizes, and a verdict
found for the plaintiff.
Mr. WRANGHAM now applied for a rule to set aside
the verdict, on the ground that under the statute in
question the plaintiff had no property in the tolls.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that this ease involved
an important question, which was already under the con-
sideration of the Court in the case of a Bridge Company,
and wished therefore that the present case should stand
over. However, take a rule to show cause.
CHAPMAN. V. WHITE.
This was an action brought upon some bills of ex-
change and a balance by the Newcastle, Shields, and
Sunderland Union Bank, and the Sunderland Sail Cloth
Company. The case was tried before the Lord Chief
Justice, and a verdict found for the plaintiff in
9,1781. 6s. 9d.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to
enter on a nonsuit on the points reserved, of which we
understand the principal to be, that one of the plaintiffs,
and was also substantially one of
was manager of the Sunderland Branch of
Mther.
the defendants, inasmuch as he was a Director, and had
uCnhiaoyntecro,
generally acted as Chairman of the Sail Cloth Company,
at the time the transactions out of which this action arose
took place, and that he had since divested himself of
the latter character with a view to this action. The
Attorney-General contended that against the defendant
White especially, who had become a Director since, the
plaintiff Chayter could not transfer his own liabilities.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the question was one
of considerable importance, and he recommended the
parties to make a case.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who was for the defendants,
would confer with the Attorney-General, in order to
agree upon the course to be taken for a determination o
he law points.