The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-20 00:00:00

VIOE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 19

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND was
occupied the whole day with unopposed petitions, short
causes, and the further arguments on the part-heard case
of Salisbury v. Morrice. The arguments in the latter ease
were not concluded, and will be resumed to-morrow
(this day).
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BnucE.)
RYAN V. DANIEL.

His HoNoun (in continuation from our Evening, Edition
of yesterday) said—He was nut satisfied that at the time
they were meant as contracts, in the legal or equitable sense
of the term. It was very probable that neither of the
parties understood what they were doing. He was not
satisfied that the instruments Were not testamentary ;
but on that, however, any positive opinion was not ne-
cessary.. Looking, however. to the nature of the instru-
ments, the probable ages and position of the parties
in society, and at the correspondence at a very
remote period from the transaction, which took place
relative to it between them, in which they expressed:a
wish either to cancel the contract, or have it completed in
a legal form ; it was impossible for the Court to treat
the debt as an equitable one, as it was not a legal debt.
If it were a legal debt, of which he was not satisfied, it
would be his duty to give effect to it as against the de-
fendant's assets ; but in his view of the case he could
not do so. He therefore proposed to retain the bill for
twelve months before the Court, with liberty to bring
an action.

Mr. BoTELEr. (with -whom was Mr. Wmcocx) having
argued the defendant's case at some length,
IloNouß repeated the observations given above,
and said that lie could not take from the plaintiff the
right to prove the legality of the debt, and he should
therefore decree that the bill be retained twelve months,
with liberty to bring an action; and if the plaintiff
should bring an action within six weeks from this day,
upon the alleged debt stated in the bill, let the defen-
dant for the purposes of that action admit that it was
commenced on the day when the present bill was filed.

HOARE V. HORNBY.
In this cause, William O'Brien Hoare was the plaintiff,
and William Ilornby, the defendant. The bill ref, rred
to a marriage settlement, of which the defendant was the
trustee. The object of the bill was to have it declared
that the plaintiff was absolutely emitted to the sum of
2,700/, and any other sums now in the ha::ds of Clu
defendants.

Mr. CuANDLrat appeared for the infants, under the
marriage of the plaintiff with his wife.
After some discussion amongst Counsel, as to the right
of the several parties interested under the settlement.
His Hotcoutt ordered that it ba referred to the Master,
to inquire what sum or SUMS were in the hands of the
trustee, and whether Caroline Hornby, now Mrs. Hoare,
had any and what interest in the same at the date of
the marriage settlement, the Master to be at liberty to
state special circumstances, and the inquiries to be con-
ditional upon the Master finding that all the children
were before the Court.,

SCAAVIN V. SCAWIN.

The plaintiff in this case was William Scawin, the fa-
ther of the late husband of the defendant, Sarah Scawin.
The other defendants were the Managers of the York
City and. County Banking Company, and the object of
the bill was to compel the defendant, Sarah Scawin,
to transfer to the plaintiff fifty shares in that Bank,
and to have it declared that James Scawin, the late hua-
band of the defendant, was trustee for the plaintiff of
tho said fifty shares.
Evidence was read by the Counsel for the plaiutiff to
show that the husband of the defendant had never been
entitled to the shares.

On the part of the defendant it was contended that in
the purchase of the shares, there had been an evident
intention on the part of the father to advance his son,
and that, the presumption of law, therefore, was in the
defendant's favour.
His HoNoun. gave judgment for the plaintiff, without
costs.—The Court rose shortly after four o'clock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
BOWSER V. COLEY.

The Court was occup.ed the whole of the day in hear-
ing the arguments and receiving exhibits in this cause.
The case does not appear to be one of such public inte-
rest as will justify us in giving more than a brief outline
of his Lordship's judgment, which we shall do when it
is pronounced.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 19.
JOHNSON V. FAULKNER.

In this case an action had been brought against the
defendant, who held a rent-charge of the plaintiff,' for
having seized a quantity of hay and corn by virtue of
the authority given him upon the aforesaid rent-charge,
and a verdict had been given iu favour of the plaintiff.
Mr. Richards had obtained a rule calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why that verdict should not be
set aside, and a new verdict had, on the ground of mis-
direction, as the statute of William and Mary provided
that hay and corn were not liable to distress.
Mr. MARTIN, on the part of the plaintiff, now
showed cause, and contended that, although the Act of
William and Mary provided that hay and corn should be
exempt from a warrant of distress, still, subsequent
Acts had provided that in such cases where the property
could be restored in the same plight as when seized, such
seizure should be good. The statute of William
and Mary provided that no distress should be
made upon
hay and corn in consequence of its
being not returnable in the same plight as when
seized. But the distress in the present case did not
come under that statute, as the hay and corn in question
Isere seized in a cart, and therefore could be returned in
the same state as when seized.
Mr. Ricus.ans having replied, the Court took time to
consider.

SECONDARIES'SHARPv.L COURT,ntsi
AND
A N ONT
jo
iv
E. R
.19 .
This was an action to recover compensation of the
defendants who. are managing Directors of the Thames
Steam Navigation Company, for injuries sustained by
the plaintiff through their negligence.—The damages
were Mid at 1,0001.