The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-19 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 18

The VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND, after disposing
of the case of Coombes and Foulkes, which stood on the
paper to be spoken to, proceeded to hear motions.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)

This being motion-day the paper contained none but
short causes, which presented no feature ofpublic interest.

THE CORPORATION OF LONDON V. COOMBES.

Mr. SPENCE, Q. C., applied to the Court to have a
day fixed for the hearing of this cause. It was one of
considerable importance, and likely to occupy in its dis-
cussion, a more than ordinary length of time.
The several Counsel engaged in the cause having
agreed on Friday the 3d of December as the most con-
venient day, the hearing of the cause was accordingly,
with his Honour's permission, settled for that day.

LODGE V. NICHOLSON AND OTHERS.

This suit was instituted by the plaintiff, as adminis-
tratrix Batham, against the executors of Mr.
Baker, who, during his life, had acted as her agent for
receiving certain rents and dividends of stock.
The object of the suit was to obtain the re-investment
of a sum in the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., equivalent
to a sum of 2501. Navy Five per Cents., which it was
alleged Baker had transferred in his own name, without
the consent of Mrs. Batham, to have the arrears of the
dividends paid.
His HoNoun, in delivering judgment, said, in this
cause Baker, a tradesman resident in London, acted as
the agent of certain friends of his, named Batham,
of the same class of life as himself, and residing
in the county of Hereford. Among other things, in
1810 a power of attorney appeared to have been executed
by Batham for the purpose of Baker receiving the divi-
dends of certain stock, which was acknowledged to be-
long to Batham, and standing in the name of the person
whom he represented. There was added to that power
of attorney an authority, which certainly mast have
been with the perfect knowledge of Batham, to Baker,
not simply to transfer the general moiety of the stock,
but what appeared somewhat singular, to transfer it in
his own name. Why that was done did not appear.
There was no evidence whatever that there was any con-
sideration for such transfer ; no evidence of a contract
for it, nor that it was intended by way of gift.
Now, when he found Baker agreeing to pay to Mrs.
Batham the dividends on the whole sum, as he had pre-
vious to the transfer, and not referring to the authority
given in the power of attorney, but to an authority in
his own strong-box for that purpose, which he never pro-
duced, the inference was unavoidable, that the moiety of
the stock which Baker transferred in his own name, was
so transferred as not to be in equity a change on the pro-
perty; and his Honour's opinion was, that Baker, at his
death, remained indebted in that moiety to the estate of
Batham. The decree then to be made in the cause would
declare that Baker at his death, was indebted to Batham's
estate in the sum of 2621. 10s. New Three-and-a-Half per
Cents. ; and that the executors of Baker shall be bound
to transfer in the plaintiff's name that sum, with the divi-
dends which had accrued on it since the death of Baker,
an account to be taken if the parties differed. With
respect to the question of costs, his Honour saw no rea-
son for departing from the general rule, which directed
that a creditor, successfully suing an estate, however
properly the executors might resist the demand, should
be paid his costs.

Some other cases wholly devoid of interest were dis-
posed of, and the Court rose at four o'clock.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
SUTHERLAND V. BRIGGS.
In this cause his Honour decreed that the plaintiff was
entitled to a decree according to the prayer of the bill.
If the defendant required it, he would further declare
that a deed might be executed, and refer it to the Mas-
ter to settle the same in case the parties differed. The
defendant must pay the costs of the suit up to and in-
cluding the hearing. He would make no order, then, as
to the subsequent costs, for the conduct of the parties
might influence the decision of the Court upon that
point. Liberty to apply must be reserved by the decree.

MOLT/ISEY V. BURNHAM,

His HoNoun gave judgment in this cause.
The plaintiff, who is vicar of Orothorn, in the East
Riding of Yorkshire, prayed an account against the de-
fendant of the tithes of clover and clover hay since the
6th of December, 1839. The defence was, first, that the
tithes of hay and clover hay were rectorial and not vica-
rial tithes, and that the defendant was entitled by pur-
chase from the impropriator to the tithes in question ;
secondly, that by an indenture of the 24th of
March, 1836, the plaintiff had granted a lease of lands
including the tithes, to Mr. and Mrs. Coe, and had vested
all interest in the same in Mrs. Coe for her separate use.
His Honour, after commenting upon all the circumstances
of the case, said he thought the tithes in question were
vicarial tithes, and that the decree, therefore, must be
made for the plaintiff. If the defence had been put upon
the deed of the 24th of March, 1836, he would certainly

have given him the costs in this case ; but as the whole
defence had been put upon the denial of the plaintiff's
right, the costs must fall upon the defendant.
An application being made to his Honour as to part of
the costs by the defendant's counsel, the cause was or-
dered to stand in the paper to-morrow.
His HONOUR disposed of several unopposed motions.
RAINE V. CAIMES.

The hearing of this cause was brought to a conclu-
sion. His Honour deferred his judgment.

BOWSER V. COLBY.

The Court was occupied with this cause until its
rising. We shall give a summary of it at a more ad-
vanced stage of the hearing.
The Court rose at half-past three o'clock.

BAIL COURT, Nov 18.
THE QUEEN V. THOMAS HILL.

Mr. ARCHBOLD applied for a rule to show cause why
the writ de contumace capiendo, sued out by the Ecclesi-
astical Court, should not be set aside, and why the de-
fendant should not be discharged out of custody. By
some absurd mistake the writ directed that the defendant
should be detained in custody until the Judge of the Ec-
clesiastical Court should pay a certain sum of money
and costs.—(A laugh.) Be therefore submitted, on that
ground, that the defendant was entitled to his discharge.
But the whole proceedings were bad. Nothing could be
more slovenly than they were from beginning to end.
The defendaht had been ordered to pay the sum of 361. with
costs and fees on or before Thursday the 22d day of
April, 1841, so that he had the whole of the Thursday to
pay the money in, and yet the monition cited him to
appear on ' that very Thursday in the Ecclesiastical
Court, at York, to hear himself pronounced in contempt
before the time had expired for the payment of the
money. Moreover, the amount of costs and fees was not
stated in the monition, which it ought to have been.
Mr. Justice PATTESON-It is very odd that he should
have been cited to hear himself pronounced in contempt,
instead of being cited to show cause. Is that the usual
form in which monitions run?

Mr. ARCHBOLD—I really do not know, my Lord. I
hear they are very slovenly. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded with his arguments. Of course his client did
not appear on the 22d of April, but he was not in con-
tempt on that day. The proceedings were adjourned
for a fortnight, and of that adjournment no notice what-
ever had been given to the defendant, nor had any new
monition been issued. The fortnight having expired no
proceedings whatever were taken on the day to which
the cause had been adjourned. The case had never been
called on, and there was no trace of any proceedings in
the books of the Ecclesiastical Court; but on the 22d of
May some person gets up in the Ecclesiastical Court,
asks that the defendant may be pronounced in contempt,
he is pronounced in contempt accordingly, and the Court
•rders a significavit to be made, in order to sue
out the writ de contumace capiendo. It was
not until the defendant was taken into custody, that he
had any notice of these proceedings. The significavit
itself, he contended, was bad. It ran in the name of the
Archbishop, instead of running in the name of the Judge
of the Court who issued out the citation, as it ought to
do, in accordance with the provisions of the Act 53d
Geo. 111., c. 12, s. 1. It set forth that the defendant
had been guilty of contempt, in not pa) ing the money
and costs, according to the monition thereinafter made,
while in the significavit no monition was made at all ;
or—and he begged his Lordship's particular at-
tention to the word or—" or in not appearing be-
fore Granville Harcourt Vernon, our Surrogate."
So that it would appear that the Archbishop
had not quite made up his mind as to what consti-
tuted the non-payment or the non-appearance.
The writ de contumace capiendo followed the significavit
in all its errors, and therefore was equally bad. On these
grounds he moved that the defendant be discharged out
of custody, and that the writ de contumace capiendo be
set aside.

Mr. Justice PArrEsoN—Take a rule to show cause.
Application granted.
THE QUEEN V. BRISTOW.-CERTIORARI.

Mr. BARSTOW moved that an indictment against the
defendant for perjury, should be moved by certiorari
from the Central Criminal Court into this Court. This
was a case connected with an action for ejectment, tried
before the Lord Chief Justice in the sittings after last
term, and as in the course of the trial many questions
of law were likely to arise, on the decision of which the
possession of property to the am ount of more than
200,0001., in some degree depended and as it was de-
desirable that the Judge who had tried the action of
ejectment should also try this indictment, and that it
should be tried by a Special Jury, he hoped his applica-
tion would be granted.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Certainly.
Application granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 18.
WALTON V. POTTER.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL having replied in support of
the rule for a new trial,
The Lord CHIEF JUSTICE went elaborately over the
evidence and arguments, and the rule was discharged.