The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-24 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.)

I mons v. GIBBON.
Ti Loato CamireEt.Loa 'was ngageil all the morning in
hParing the &including arguments in this appeal r.-lacing
she trusteeship of estates cf Lord Strathmore. His Lord-
hip said he would give judgment on Wednesday next.
••••••,...
VICE,CH CR ANEY.—(THIS DAY.)

SMITH AND OTHERS V. COLEMAN.

In this suit a bill had been filed by the plaintiffs, praying
for an injunction to restrain deendant from taking legal pro-
ceedings to recover Money due upon several Bills of Exchequer
and other securities, on the gmund that the same cere fraudu-
lent, and praying that they might be delivered up to the
plaintiffs.
Mr. Knight Bruce and Mr. Heathfiehl for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Jacob and Mr. Little for the defendant.
It appeared from defendant's answer to the bill, that previous
to the year 1639 plaintiffs had carried on business as solicitors
and attorneys, -in Freemans Court, under the firm of Lock,
Smith and Alliston, but in the early part of that year the
firm was dissolved, and plaintiffs subsequently carried on busi-
ness under the firm of Smith and Alliston. In the early part
of the year 1835 the defendant, who had for many years pre-
viously carried on business in Leicester, came to reside in
London, and was applied to in July, 1835, by Lock,
with whom h • had a family connection, to discount bills
for clients. of the firm, who he stated were of the highest re:
spectability, to which defendant replied that he should have
no objection, provided Mr. Lock would give his came as 'secu-
rity, but that he would not advance money on the security of
the parties alone. To this Lock assented, and loans which were
to be temporary were n( iated by Lock at 10 per cent. for 5001.,
and 1,0001. for a Mr. Burton and Captain Harris, for which
bills were given and endorsed by Lock to the defendant. On
the 15th of July, in the same )em, Lock applied to defendant
fur another loan of 1.5001., and two days aferwards for another
45001 , for which checks were given bar Lock's name, at his
request, as he said be managed the cash transactions of the
firm, and for which defendant drew a bill, which was accepted
by Lock in the name of the firm. Subsequently, cn the 29th
of July, Lock obtained a further loan of 5001., for
which, in like manner, a check was given, payable to
Lock or bearer, and which Lock said he was borrowing for
clients of the" firm, who did not wish their names to appear.
.Upoir the former bills becoming due Lock applied to defend-
atit for their renewal, wt ich defendant contented to, on re-
ceiving as additional security the name of the firm, which
Lock accordingly gave, and the other bills were -afterwards
renewed in the same manner. ' Subsequently Lock ob-
tained from delendant a loan of 1,000/. for a person named
Sparks, and several other loans, for which Lock gave bills or
notes in the name of the firm. These were all frequently re-
newed, and Lock, at the desire of the defendant, deposited
with him annuity deeds and other securities as additional seen-
r.ty. Defendani,happening to call at the orrice of the firm, on
some business connected with their transactions, the plain-
tiffs stated that they were for the first time ac.
quainted with them, and tepuiliated the whole transactions
as fraudulent, and on these grounds subsequently applied to
defendant to deliver op or cancel the securities given in the
name of the firm, which was refused. Some of these bills bad
been paid, but the rest were dishonoured. Lock had since
brenme a bankrupt, and legal proceedings had been com-
menced against the plaintiffs upon the securities given in the
name of the firm.

On the part of the plaintiffs it was contended that there were
suffic:ent grounds of suspicion in these transactions, that Lock
was acting without the knowledge of his partners, and that he
wa; in collusion with defendant.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

QUEEN'S BEN CH.—(T Ills DAY.)
THE QUEEN /7. TUE BRISTOL DOCK COMPANY.
This was an appeal from a rate made by the . Church-
wardens and Overseers of the parish of Clifton, near Bris-
tol, for the relief of the per. The rate was made on the
fuli of November, 1838, and the defendants were rated for
the Cumberland basin, with its wharfs, quays, gates, &c., at
a gross estimated rental of 1,3501., producing a rateable
value of 1,080/. , which at Is. in the 11. amounted to 541.
The appeal came on for h.aring on the 9th of April, 1839,
when the appellants having cubed evidence and closed their
case, and the respondeuts having been beard, at the sug-
gestion of the Court it was agreed that the appellants should
be taken to have a rateable property wi bin the respondent's
parish, productive in the year, and for that rate only, of the
sum of 30W., and that the rate should be reduce..l to that sum,
subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench.
,t,ir FREDERICK POLLOCK now appeared on behalf of the
resporidents, to support the original rate. Ihe Bristol Dock
was a private ',peculation, in which large sums of money had
been expended for the benefit of individual shareholders, who
were entitled to 6 per cent. upon their money. They possessed
property to she extent of two furlongs and nineteen yards in
the parish of Clifton, and for that they had been originally
rated largely arid extensively, but that rating had been re-
duced; and the q uestion for the Court was, whether it
was to be reduced considerably l'Aver. The profits of the
Docks were one thousand pounds .per annum, but the amount
-which he (Sir F. Pollock) was seeking to maintain, as re-
gardei the parA of Citron, was calculated on a profit of only
3001. p r annum. The argument of the appellants was, that
the dock was only to be rated as 2' o much way land, on the same
principle as a railroad or canal, passing through land similar to
Chatinoss, between Liverpool and Manchester, which was
of no intiinsic value in itself ; but he (Sir Frederick Pol-
lock) contended that it was to be estimated at its value
as. an important station or depot, where goods and
passengers were shipped and landed, and that it must
be rat« d with reference to, , the beneficial valise of the
occupation to the Company, and as being productive of great
profit to the defendants, whether these profits were received
ter rates and dues paid in respect, of. Cumberland basin situ-
ated within the parish, or in resi'ect of profits derived trent
other portions of the docks without the parish. The Learned
Counsel cited several cases in support of his argument.
Mr. ER LE appeared on behalf of the appellants. The argu-
ments of the Learned Counsel were not concluded when the
Court rose.