The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 13.

THE ATTORNEY-CENhRAL V. THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which came befure his Lordship some time since,
upon two appeals from the decision of the Master of the
Rolls. The first information was filed for the purpose of
fixing upon all the: property held by the Fishmongers'
Company, under the will of Sir Thomas Kneebs t.iorth,
the character of charity. Sir Thomas Kneebs.worth gave
the property in question to the Company in the first in-
sauce for the purpose of applying it to charitable pur-
poses, and in the next to lend certain sums to the mem-
bers of the Company that might require them, provided
ta:ev said certain ayes and pater-nosters for the rest of the
testator's soul. The Master of the Rolls decided that in
the first instance the property was charity pro-
pel ty, but in the second that, under the Ist of
Edi.eard VI. it was void, and went to the King, as
being left for superstitious uses. His lordship, after
going at considerable length into the facts of the case,
which we gave at the time of the arguments, stated his
opinion clearly to bo that the decision of the Court below
was correct, and ordered the appeal to be dismissed with
coats.

The other information was filed for the purpose of hay.
iii it declared that certain property in Leadenhall-street
Lombard street, which had been held absolutely by
the Fishmongers' Company for 400 years, was charity
property. The Master of the Rolls on the case coming
before him dismissed the information, and the LORD
CHANCELLOR to-day, concurring entirely with that deci-
sion, dismissed the appeal with costs, observing that it
was greatly to he regretted that the informations had been
filed with so little research having been made, as the rosult
of that research would have rendered them totally unne.
cesaary.

ROLLS' COURT, JAN. 13.
The COURT heard motions.
WHITTAKER V. HOWE.

This was a motion to restrain the defendant from prac-
ticing or carrying on business as a solicitor in any part of
Great Britain. The motion was founded upon an agree-
ment which had been entered into by the defendant with
the plaintiff, but we forbear publishing the circumstances
of the case until judgment shall have been delivered by
the Court. At the conclusion of the argument,
The MASTER Of the ROLLS said he would reserve his
judgment until Saturday.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 13.
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR proceeded with the
hearing of the remaining cause petitions.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JAN. 13,
(Sittings in Banco.)

Tun BRISTOL AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY COMPANY V. LOCK.

Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which was
an action for tho recovery of certain calls on shares, in
shish a verdict was had for the plaintiffs. A rule for a
sew trial was subsequently obtained, and objection was
made to the t ight to recover by the plaintiffs from the mode
of keeping the registry book. That objection had
been considered and disposed of in a judgment which had
just been pronounced in the Exchequer Chamber, in the
case of " The Londo❑ Grand Junction Railway v. Free-
man," where it had been held that each of the holders of
the scrip certificates had been properly entered as pro-
prietors and original subscribers before the passing of the
Act, although they had not signed the Parliamentary con..
tract. It was also contended that the plaintiffs were de-
barred from suing the defendant as proprietor, in conse-
quence of their having declared his shares forfeited ; but
the notice of forfeiture does not excuse payment of calls,
and is not valid until it has received the sanction of a general
meeting of proprietors. The rule for a new trial, there-
fore, must be discharged.

LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY C3MPANY V. GRAHAM.

The COURT also gave judgment in this case, which
turned upon the same objetioris, none of which, fur the
reasons just mentioned, would be sufficient to bar the right
of recovering. The rulc for a new trial was then:discharged.