The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF, CHANCERY, Dxc. 4.
• [First Scat after Terg.l
scaw
,il,OltEO. CREWE v. TRONV.
The defendant was 'tenant on one or the plaintiff's farms,
and an injunction-had been obtained, against him to restrain
him from cutting down timber, destroying plantations of young
wood,, ornamental shrubs &,c. Mr, HARTI oh the part of
Lord Crewe,.now applied to the Court to vary the minutes of
the order, and to confine its terms to the langtage of the lease.
Mr. AGAR, on the part of the defendant, opposed the motion
but the Court directed that the order should be varied accord.
ing to the language of the lease.
P. eitsistnEns.
This is a motion which respects the Opera-house, and in-
volves questions which have already, been so frequently before
the pubic.—Mr. HART said, that he was prepared to submit
a motion in this case for the appoint:nem of a Receiver, but he
doubted that it would occupy too much of his Lordship's time
to hear it at this Seal. He would, therefore, postpone the ap-
plication until the next Seal.
LLSTRANGE V. THE HAWK Olf ENGLAND.
Mr. hasty applied On the part of the defendants, for an in-
junctiOn to. restrain the plaintiff, George Carlton Lestrange,
from receiving the dividends on 4,0001., standing in the books
of the Bank of England in the name of George James Carlton.
The plaintiff claimed to be next of kin to George James Carl-
ton, and in inquiry had been Instituted before the Master with
respect to that claim.
The Lorin CHANCELLOR observed upon the practice of ap-
plying al; War; to the 31aster, to institute inquiry into ques-
tions of this nature. It was necessary that some evidence
should be produced to chew to the Court that the party had
some claim to be next of kin. If a bill were tiled by the
next of kin, and the administrator chose to admit the fact,
then the Court could act upon exact admission, as if satis-
factory eVidence had been produced. The present being an
arparte application, he was unwilling to grant it immedi-
ately, but unless before the next seal the other party appear-
ed, he should certainly allow Lordship rose at half.
past one, and the remaining motions were postponed until
next seal.

VICE-CHAN'CELLOR'S COURT, Dzc. 4.
Lonbillniittt ti. GOING.
Mr. rxmaunTozi moved on the part of the plaintiff, who
is executor of the Marquis of Cornwallis, to restrain the defend-
ant, who is widow and executrix of a person of the same name,
to whom the late Lord Cornwallis lent 4001., which is still un-
paid, from selling the farming stock on her late husband's farm,
which it was sworn she was about to do. The affidavit also
stated, that in the event of such sale being madeohere would
not be visible effects of the testators sufficient to pay the plain-
tiff'S claim as executor of Lord Cornwallis:
The VICE•CIIANCELLOIt said these injunctions were really
becoming terrible instruments 'against the community; he could
not grant an injunction to prevent un executrjx disposing of the
effects of a testator, without notice being given to her.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dzc. 4.
HEAU.4OI4T v. VALE.
This action was brought by Charles Beaumont, a coital-
maker, against Mr. Thomas Vale (assignee), to recover the
value of five carriages ; Viz. a Cabriolet, two tilburies, a dennett,
and another vehicle, which the plainuffalleged to be his pro-
perty, taken and sold by the defendant.
The defendant said the ca'rriages were not the property of the
plaintiff; but the property of John Beaumont, also a coach-
maker,who had become a bankrupt, and against whom a COm.
mission had issued. The question was, whether these carriages
were the property of Charles, the plaintiff; or his brother John,
the bankrupt.
After a long examination of witnesses on both sides, the Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiffoamages 2711.

ASHLEY V. rftcnoLLs.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a master builder,
against the defendant, one of the trustees of the Kilburn turn-,
pike trust, to recover the 'amount Of his deMand for work-done'
to a bridge in the IC'burn-road, over .and above his contract
With the trustees, by order of the defendant.
Tlui plaintiff entered into a contract with the trustees, dated.
July 211, 1821, to build a bridge on the road near Kilburn-
Wells, agreeably to the terms of e specification furnished by
them, for a certain stipulated sum. After the work had com-
menced, and one side of the bridge, which was to be citified,
according to the working-plan, nye feet above the level of the
old road-, was completed, the plan was taken from the work-
men and an alteration made in it, by which the arch was to be.
carried seven feet, instead of five, higher than the line of the
old /clad, which the defendant ordered to be done.
Evidence to emtabliiiii this fact having been gone through, It
wits suggested that the justice of the claim could be better as-
certained by reference to an arbitration.
The fiditcyrOn-Ovrirmiet., for the defendant, said that
withoutat all admitting that any alteration had been made in,
the plan, or that any extra work had been done, he was ready
' to accede to the proposal of a reference.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff of 1,0001. subject to
arbitration.

COUItT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dac. 4.
Mr. Justice -Hu tt novott sat at Arial Priem, anti tried seve,
ral Account causes, none of which were of the slightest interest
except to.the parties concerned.

. .
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, DEC. 4.
Tilt .ritErititick, Ittanisr MASTER. •
This was a case of seaman's wages, which we have already
noticed. It had been argued at great length'on 'a former day ;
and now the Noble anti_ Learned Judge (Lord SirowELL).de.
livered along and interesting judgment, of Which we Shall on a
future day give a full report. At prtsent we hive only room
to state that his Lordship determined the conduct of the seamen,
thotigh highly'reprehensible, not to 'amount to an' actual deser-
tion, and therefore gave them the small sum claimed as wages
in their summary petition, but 'under the circumstances Or the
case awarded them ,no, costs or other allowance.
The J 0)0E' doniiidered that the cause had 'been loaded With
ulterior proceedings through the fault df the Proctor for .the
mariners, and therefore condettned him perionally in the fur.
ther costs of the suit.