The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-11 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

SCOTT V. PASCALL.
This case came before the Court on an appeal mo-
tion from the Vice-Chancellor :of England. It ap-
peared that Mr. Scott was formerly a guardian of the
parish of St. James's, Clerkenwell, but having been
accused of embezzling the funds of the parish to a
large amount, an indictment was preferred against
him, upon which he executed a deed for 10,0001., and
admitted that there was a balance due by him to the
parish. Mr. and Mrs. Scott subsequently instituted
proceedings against the parish, the result of
which was that the deed was set aside on the
ground of having been obtained under duresse.
The present motion was on the part of Scott, to set
aside an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England,
which reversed a decision of Masters Lynch and
Senior, finding that Mr. Scurgill, who was formerly
a guardian of the parish, but had ceased to be so since
1841, was an interested witness in the cause.

His LORDSHIP affirmed the order of the Vice-
Chancellor of England, and directed the costs to be
paid out of the fund in court.

COLTER V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction which
had been granted by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor
of England, restraining the defendant from taking by
compulsory process certain land near the city of
Gloucester, of which the plaintiffs were the trustees.
His Lordship rose at half-past one o'clock, when
the arguments had not concluded.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir J. WIGRAIII.)
SKIRRATT V. THE NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY

COMPANT.—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR, gave judgment in this motion to-day.
The plaintiff in this case was the owner of certain
land, part of which the defendants, under the powers
of their Act, were at liberty to take for the construc-
tion of their railway. After some dispute between
the parties, an agreement was entered into, which
was put into the form of a memorandum, to the effect
that the value of the land, as well as of residential
and ether injury, should be left to arbitration. The
costs that were necessarily incurred were also to be
decided by this tribunal. On the 19th of March,
1847, the arbitrators were appointed, and on the
28th of June, 1847, they made their award, whereby
the company should pay the plaintiff 547/. 1 ls. 6d.
as purchase money for the land, a sum of 801. for the
injury inflicted by the defendants, and 1081. 9s. 11d.
for costs. A motion was then made to set aside the
award, and upon that motion the Court now gave
judgment. His Honour was clearly of opinion that
the award had not been made in the terms specified
by the Act, and that justice could not be done if it
were confirmed. He would therefore order it to be
sot aside.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER V. THE NEWCASTLE-

UPON-TYNE JOINT STOCK BANK.
This was a proceeding under the Joint-stock Bank
Act by the public officer of the London and West-
minster Bank against Mr. Walter Scott, the public
officer of the Newcastle Joint-stock Bank, which
suspended its payments in 1846, to recover the sum
of 3,300/. A rule was subsequently obtained from
this Court, calling on a Mr. Brook, Mr. Pawson, and
other persons who had held shares in the bank to show
cause why a scire facias should not issue against them
to recover the amount of their respective liabilities.
Mr. 'WATSON contended at great length that Mr.
Brook was not liahle, as he had sold all his shares in
the concern in 1845, and complained that the parties
connected with the bank hail been guilty of collusion,
inasmuch as they had set forth persons as responsible
who were mere men of straw.
Mr. CLEASBY followed on the same side.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Court in
support of the rule.
The COURT considered that this was expressly a
case in which a scire facies should issue, because it
would enable the parties affected to show when they
ceased to be shareholders, and other matters, which
might be of advantage to them.
Rule made absolute generally.
EXCHEQuER._(THis DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
GOULDY V. DUNCOMBE.
Mr. WILLis renewed his application for a rule to
is case
tshet. aside the order of' Air. Justice Williams, made in
The Sun,, and
which has already been reported in
The COURT took time to consider, they being of
opinion that as the assembling of Parliament was
announced for the 18th, they did not see of what
benefit it would be to grant the rule prayed for.
BAN

KRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner aOULUURN.)
IN RE COGDON.
In this case Mr. Taylor, a solicitor, attended be-
fore his Honour for his decision as to his costs, the
consideration of which stood over on the uestion,
whether the solicitor to an insolvent could be allowed
costs for preparing the schedule, there bein
vision in the Insolvent Act to that effect. gno pro-
His HONOUR held that in cases of doubt they were
to he treated in the same manner as those in bank-
ruptcy, as far as the points were analogous. In this
case he therefore considered that costs ought to be
allowed in the same manner as costs to a petitioning
creditor, or to a person suing out fiat against himself,
on the attorney making an affidavit that he had not
received any money in account, or was in expectancy
thereof from the insolvent, or any other person in
respect of bill.
Mr. LINDSAY, the solicitor to the trade assignees,
applied for costs in respect of their expenses, &c.
He said the case was a very bad one, as there was
nothing for the creditors, and his Honour Mr. Com-
missioner Fane had adjourned the case for eighteen
months, unless the insolvent had previously under-
gone a certain term of imprisonment. Mr. Lindsay
also contended that the costs of the assignees ought
to be paid before those of the insolvent.
His HONOUR said there was an express power by
the 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, s. 14, allowing costs at the
audit; but in this case there would be no audit, for
nothing had been realised for the creditors. If costs
were allowed where nothing resulted from the busi-
ness done, a small estate would be absorbed. There
was a great reason for granting the costs of the in,
solvent, as it protected the estate from being wasted
by the insolvent paying unreasonable costs, which
were by one grade of attorneys frequently extorted.
Mr. LINDSAY said the trouble and expense were
the same, although no estate was realised, and unless
costs were allowed, trade assignees would not in-
terfere.
His HONOUR then sent for the taxing master, and
after discussing the question, decided that he could
allow the costs under the 10th rule framed under the
Insolvent Act, but the insolvent's solicitor was first
entitled to be paid in the same manner as a petition-
ing creditor, or a person presenting his own fiat.

SHERIFFS COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Alr. Under-Sheriff BURCLIELL.)
ROBERTSON V. HICKIN.
This was an action to recover the sum of 301,
money lent. The plaintiff is a licensed victualler,
keeping the Acorn public-house, in Thames-street,
and the defendant was formerly clerk to Messrs.
West, Green, and Sedgwick, corn merchants, Rut-
land-wharf, in the same street.

The action was originally commenced in the
Palace Court, but had been removed into the Court
above, as beyond the jurisdiction of the Palace Court.
The defendant did not now plead.
Several letters were put in, fully making out the
plaintiff's claim.
The UNDER-SHERIFF held that interest could not
be allowed.

WRIGHT V. JARVIS.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
141. 16s. 9d., for rent of a house and shop in Pul-
wood's-rents, Holborn. _ _

The defendant pleaded the general issue.
The plaintiff conducted his case in person, and
stated that the defendant had taken the premises at
the yearly rent of 401., and there having been two
quarter's rent in arrear, a distress was put in, but
only realised 51. 3s. 3d., and the action was brought
to recover.
A witness proved having called on the defendant
and demanded the rent, and telling him that unless
he paid the one quarter's rent before the next quarter
became due, a distress would be put in, but the rent
was not paid. After the rent was due, witness
offered, on behalf of the plaintiff, to allow defendant
to leave the house without any rent, but he said he
would not, but would " stick to the crib," and he was
Mill in possession.

The 'defendant said he did not dispute that the
amount was right, if they were right at all, but the
matter would not end here. The action ought to have
been brought in the county court.
The UNDER-SIIERIFF said he could not entertain
that question ; the defendant must apply to the Court
above.
Verdict for 141. 16s. 9d.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)
MR. lIORRY AND ins ALLEGED CLERK.-- Mr.
Ilorry having intimated a wish to the court to render
ome explanation with respect to certain observa-
tioua which had been made on Thursday,