The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-24 00:00:00

CbtrO Utittton

CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster
to-da3.
THE DEAN AND CIIA.PTER OF ELY V. BLISS.

The further arguments in this part-heard case occu-
pied his Lordship the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE DRAPERS' COMPANY,

This was the petition of the defendants, praying that
a decree made in this cause might be sc t aside, on the
ground that the Master't; report, upon which the decree
was made, aas based upon erroneous information, by
which the defendants were charged 1661. 10s. more than
they were liable for. The decree in question directed
that the defendants should pay into court the rents
of the Kendrick Charity, of which they were,
the trustees, derived from the house property in
Fleet-street and Fetter-lane, and the grounds upon
which the Master formed his report were two affidavits
of an officer of defendant's, who now by affidavit denied
the accuracy of his statements.
Mr. KINDERSLEY and another Learned Gentleman
appeared for the petitioners, and Mr. Horace Twigs re-
presented the Attorney-General.
The petition was dismissed with costs.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
BIRCH V. JOY.—JUDGMENT.

At the sitting of the Court this morning his HONOUR
delivered judgment in this case, which was distinguished
by the multiplicity of its cross-pleadings. In order to
reduce the whole to some degree of order, the Learned
Judge disposed of the more extraneous matter which
had been allowed to encumber the original cause, and then
stated that it appeared to him that by the original bill of
February, 1812, a Mr. Colquhoun had agreed to sell an en•
cumbered estate for a sum to be taken as 95,5001., the
purchase money to be raid in periodical instalments of
16,0001., 4,0001., 25,000 L, and two of 16,500/., extending
over a period of six years, a mortgage beirg
granted for the balance. A subsequent agree-
ment was entered into in October, 1813, and
it was on this agreement that the present question
turned. His Honour, after referring to the neglect
which was exhibited by the principals and their solicitor
in the framing of the agreement, proceeded. to say that
he did not see how it was legally possible for the Court
to do other than to affirm this agreement, although he
would personally have been glad it he could have come
to any other conclusion. He should therefore affirm the
Master's report, at the same time, he did not consider
this a case in which he would be warranted in ruling
that the defendant should pay the costs of the action.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir KNIGUT BRUCE.)

IN RE SHEFFIELD AND DONCASTER RAILWAY COMPANY.

His HONOUR made an order i,his morning upon peti-
tion presented by five of the directors of the company
for the repayment out of Court of 22,0001. This sum
was paid in under the Act 9 and 10 Viet., but the Bill
having been withdrawn from the House of Commons, the
order upon certificate from the Speaker was made as a
matter of course.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
HILTON V. LORD GRENVILLE. _ _

In this case, which was an action in the name of the
Crown, to recover compensation in damages for certain
injuries sustained to some house property belonging to
the plaintiff by the works carried, on in.a mine in Stafford-
shire, belonging to the defendants, the Attorney-General
had Obtained a rule to remove the venire from Stafford-
shire into Middlesex, and for a trial at bar here on the
21st of June.
Mr. Godson Q.C., Mr. Stammers, and Mr. Brown
were now heard at considerable length in support of an
application to rescind the rule on the ground that
justice would not be done unless a jury were had from
the spot, and that the Crown did not possess` the prero-
gative, though he admitted it had the power of doing so
before a case was tried.
The COURT considered that the rule in this case ought
to be rescinded, as the prerogative of the Crown did not
extend to this case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL handed in affidavits to
show that a fair trial could not take place in Stafford-
shire, and intimated that on a future day he should move
for a new trial on this ground.