The Sun.
London, England, 1840-12-11 00:00:00

WILLS V. GUIS.

The arguments of Counsel upon this motion, which
was opened yesterday, was resumed this morning.
The case, which is somewhat interesting, is this :
On the 1 Ith of June last, an order was made on the
defendant, Mr. Gibbs, to pay into the Bank of Eag-
land, in the name of the Accountant-General, the sum
of 1,4041. The plaintiff caused a memorandum of that
order to be entered with the Senior Master of the Court
of Common Pleas, under the authority of the Ist and
2d Vie. c. 110, the Act for the abolition of imprisonment
for debt in mesne process. The order not having been '
obeyed lie sued out a writ of attachment, but not being
aMe to execute it, he sued out subsequent
process, and finally a writ . of rebellion was
issued. On the 7th of November he ap-
plied for and obtained an order for the Sergeant-
at-Arms. In pursuance of that order the defendant
was taken, and on being brought into Court, was turned
over to the Fleet, where he now is. The applic❑tion
now made was, that. the order of the 7th of November,
and a warrant of the Lord Chancellor, dated the 12th
of November, made in pursuance of that order, and the
order for turning him over to the Fleet, might be dis-
charged ; that the entry in the Common Pleas might
be cancelled or vacated, or that the plaintiff might be
declared to have re:inquished all right and title to the
benefit of any charge or security they might have in
the defendant's estate.

In support of the motion, it was argued that an order
for payment of money into the Bank, in the name and
with the privity of the Accountant-General, was not an
order within the scope or pro‘iion of the Act of Par-
liament ; and, then, that there had been an improper
entry made, which the Court had jurisdiction to alter.
If it was within the scope and provision of the Act of
Parliament., then it was contended it was irregular and
iinpropzr to take the p rson into custody, after the me-
morandum had been entered ; or, at any rate, that that
could not he done without forfeiting the benefit of the
charge intended to be given by the Act of Par:lament.
His Lordship, the AINsTEn. OF THE ROLLS, thought
he had no authority to intercfere, in the way that
w<ls asked.

VICE-CHANCERY-(THES DAY.)

Unopposed petitions and short causes occupied the
Ccurt the vvi:oie morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

(Sittings at Guildhall before Lord DEN MAN and a
Commcn Jury.)
GILSON v. THE GRAND SURREY CANAL COMPANY.
Tills was an action brought by the assignee of a bank-
rupt, named Hedgcock, to recover the value of certain
goads and merchandise which had beeri shipped on
board the sloop Henry, and had been passed under a
bill of sale to a person named Davis, who was the real
dcfcndan in the case. The question was, whether the
sale was a bone fide one, and whether the property
which bad been so sold to Davis was part of the stores
and rigging of the vessel or merchandise shipped on
frvig-ht. The sum claimed was 1501., and, after a good
deal of contradictory evidence as to the nature and
value of the articles, which had passed under the bill of
sale, the Jury, by consent, found a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages 501.