The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-26 00:00:00

SECOND EDITION
SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor did not attend Court to-day.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
SANDERS V. BENSON AND OTHERS.
The arguments in this suit, which were partly heard on
Saturday were resumed this morning. The suit ss as Ls i-
tuted to charge the defendants, Thomas Starling Benson
and others, with the rent and covenants of an indenture of
lease, bearing date 28th September, 1795, and made by
Samuel Sanders, deceased, father of the plaintiff, to John
Oxley and Frederick Tench, vinegar merehant.. The
premises leased consisted of a house, yard, and land, in
Cartwright-street, and Derby-street, in the parish of St.
Botolph- without Aldgate, and were leased for 34i years at
the rent of 761. per annum, with covenant for the tenants
to repair. The plaintiffs also sought to charge di fendants,
as assignees of the lease, with the costs, damages, and ex-
penses resulting from various ac ions and suits respecting the
rents of covenant; of the lease, and the dilapidation; of the
premise,.
Hi; LORDSHIP, after hearing Mr. Pembcron and Mr.
Loftus Wigram fJr the plaintitfo, and Mr. Kinderslay and
Mr. Bacon for the defendants, reserved his judgment to a
future day.

FRODEN V. KINDON.
This vva; an exception to the Master's report, by which
it was found that there was a legacy due upon an iast.
meat on which probate had been granted, and application ru
was now made to withhold payment until another suit,
ari,ing out of the same instrun e it, should be disposed of.
Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Bethel for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Kinde, sley and Mr. Dixon for the defendant.
His LORDSHIP said such a course would be dirt ctly con-
trary to the ordinary practice of the Court, and an order
must, therefore, be made for payment of the legacy and
costs out of the funds, with liberty to apply for their transfer.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
SMITH AND OTHERS V. COLEMAN.
The arguments in this case, which was an application
for an injunction to restrain the defendant from taking
legal proceedings on certain bills of exchange and other
securities alleged to have been fraudulently given, and
which was partly reported in our paper of Saturday, were
resumed this morning.
Mr. JACOB and Mr LITTLE, for the defendant, con-
tended that there was no collusion between his client and
Mr. Lock, nor any evidence that the money borrowed had
not been employed for the benefit of the firm. The plain-
tiffs bad altogether failed to show any equity in the case,
or any circumstances of suspicion sufficiently strong to
authorise their application for an injunction, which they
therefore trusted his Honour would refuse,
The VICE CHANCELLOR said it was his opinion that
the plaintiffs ought to have moved for an injunction, and
be also thought the money due upon the note
should be paid into Court. These gentlemen were
in partnership together, and the motion of a part-
nership implied a contract. Then if Mr. Coleman
knew that they were partners, he knew there was a
contract, and he had in that Court constructive notice of
all the terms which bound the partners together, one of
which was that no one partner should use the signa-
ture of the firm for any other than partnership
purposes. Therefore, when the defendant advanced money
to Mr. Lock upon the signature which Mr. Lock gave, it
seemed to him that it lay on the defendant to show that
the money so advanced was advanced for partnership pur-
poses. He might have supposed from some statement of
Mr. Lock that it was so advanced, but it struck him (the
Vice. Chancellor) that if the conversation that had been
given in evidence led to this inference, it also led to the in-
ference that the money borrowed was not borrowed
for partnership purposes. Enough, therefore, had ap-
peared for inquiry in that Court as to the circumstances
eonstituting the equity of the plaintiffs in point of law.
The injunction, therefore, was granted, and the money
paid into Court.
• -

---
QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our First Edition. )
THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF CHESTER V. BEARS.
The COURT gave judgment in this case, which was an
action against the master of a vessel, to recover a sum of
Is., being the amount of dues claimed by the Corpora-
tion, for entering the port of Chester. The Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiffs, and an application was made to set
aside the verdict on the ground of improper evidence, mis-
direction, and the verdict being against evidence. It was
urged that the toll being payable to the water bailiff, the
action should have been brought by him ; that the bailiff Icing
in the employmea of the Corporation, and the tolls being
allowed him in lieu of salary, he was merely the sertant of
the Corporation, and received the tolls for their use ; it
was also said that the toll had been originally an anchorage
toll ; but it had been given in evidence that vessels which
had never dropped an anchor bad paid the toll. The rule
for a new trial therefore must be discharged,
DRAPER V. SHURMAR AND OTHERS—LIABILITY OF CARRIERS,
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which was
an action brought by the plaintiff, a lace manufacturer at
Chard, to recover the sum of 4781., being the value of a
bale of lace forwarded by the defendants, who are car-
riers, to Nottingham. The property was conveyed by the
defendants in their waggon to Cheltenham, and there put
upon the railway to be convey ed to Nottingham, and in
consequence of some sparks being communicated from
the engines to the carriages, the property was consumed.
It was alleged for the deEntiants, that, the e being no
other mode of communication, they mere justified in send-
ing the goods by the railway, and that their liability ccaied
as soon as the goods had been transferred to the railway
carriages, and that the action should have been brought
rgainst the Cheltenham Railway Company. The Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, and a rule had been sub-
sequently obtained to set aside the verdict on the above
grounds ; but the Court was of opinion that the finding of
the Jury was correct, and the rule, therefore, must be
discharged.