The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 10.
TALBOT V. THE EARL Or SHREWSBURY.

This case came before the Court upon two petitions,
one presented by Mr. Horace St. Paul, the next friend
of the infant children of the late Hon. Mr. Talbot, and
the other by Dr. Doyle, the executor and residuary
legatee of that gentleman. The latter petitioner prayed
the confirmation of the Master's Report, and the former
that that Report might not be confirmed. Our readers,
in consequence of the case having been so often before
the Court, will not fail to recollect the circumstances.
A bill had been filed by Dr. Doyle, as the executor
and residuary legatee of the Hon. Mr. Talbot, for the
purpose of the administration of his estate ; and also
with respect to the maintenance and education of his
two infant children, John Talbot and Augusta Talbot.
Mr. Horace St. Paul, the next friend of the infants,
also filed his bill for a similar purpose, and the question
was which of those suits rras the proper one to be pro-
ceeded with, having regard to the interest of all parties.
To determine this question, a reference wss directed to
the Mister, who had reported in favour of the suit,
instituted by Dr. Doyle and against that filed by Mr.
St. Paul.

His Honour the VICE-CaANCELLOR, after hearing
Counsel at considerable lengtb, decided in favour of the
Master's Report.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 10.
STEW ART v. CLUMP.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 354, to
which the defence was, that the plaintiff got possession
of the bill under pretence of getting it discounted, and
that the action was brought for fraud and violation of
flood faith. The verdict was for the defendant. Mr.
Knowles obtained a rule nisi to set aside the verdict.
After Counsel on both sides had been heard,

The COURT decided that this was not a per rse
verdict. There could be no doubt that the Jury dis-
believed the evidence. However, the case was one of
some difficulty, and justice might be done by a re•hear-
lug ; but a new trial should be granted, only upon the
plaintiff's paying costs.
lIUGIIES V. HANNAN.

The plaintiff having purchased at an auction the
' lease of the King's Head public-house, in Oxford-street,
paid into the hands of the defendant, a brewer, the sum
of 5361. as deposit, and auction duty, receiving from
Hannan an acknowledgment of the receipt, on account
of Higgins, the holder of the lease. Hannan subse-
quently paid over 1401. to Walters and Levigny, she
auctioneers, and the remainder to Higgins. But the
title of jthe latter not being made out, the sale went
off, and the plaintiff, on applying to defendant for his
money, was told it had been paid over to Higgins. The
plaintiff having given no authority for that payment,
brought this action, to compel Hannan to reimburse
him, and obtained a verdict.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS moved for a rule (on a bill of
exceptions), which the Court refused, on the ground
that there appeared to be a good case to go to the jury,
and they had found rightly for the plaintiff.
HERNIMAN V. SHATTOCK.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS moved for a rule to stay
execution which the plaintiff was about to enforce, upon
a warrant of attorney, which was given to him on con.
dition that he should pay two bills of exchange when
due. These bills were now due, and the plaintiff not