The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-23 00:00:00

MORWOOD V. WOOD.

Tiiis was an appreation to dissolve an injunction to re-
strain plaintiff from trcspissing upon certain lands of the
defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff claimed a right
to certain mines of coal under the lands of the defendant,
and had entered upon them for the purpose of pr..curing
and carrying it away.
After hearing Mr. Jacob and Mr. K. Bruce, the appli_
cation was postponed until Monday, to see if the parties
could agree upon the order to be made.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 22.
SIIIRER V. WALKER, CLERK.
Mr. Sergeant TA',Form!), on the part of the defendant
in this case, moved for a rule to rescind an order of Mr.
Baron Alderson, granted under the following circum-
stances :—Mr. Walker is a clergyman, and proprietor of a
boarding-school near Cheltenham ; and the plaintiff, who is
a tradesman in that town, furnished him with goods to the
amount of 1221. for which he took in payment two bills of
exchange, one of 601., and the other of 621., being of six
months and twelve months date. The first bill was duly
paid, but the date of the second sill not expire until May
next. The plaintiff, however, having learned that Mr.
Walker was about to go to the Continent during the last
vacation, procured affidavits to that effect; upon which the
Judge granted a writ of summons, and eventually an order
for the payment of the debt, and, the costs of the pro-
ceedings, amounting to 61. The defendant had
no alternative but to pay the whole sum, and now applied
for the rescinding of the order, whereby he would recover
the costs and the interest of the money up to the time of
the bill becoming due.—Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 22.
CLARK V. THE EARL OF HARRINOTON.

Mr. PLATT showed cause against a rule for a new trial
which bad ben obtained by Mr. Kelly in this case last
term. The plaintiff was a house-agent, who, upon the
death of the late Colonel Leicester Stanhope, wrote to the
Noble Defendant, enclosing his card and terms, in rela-
tion to Putney House, which was willed to him by his
brother. In consequence of that letter Colonel Lei.
costcr Stanhope called at the shop of the plaintiff, and
gas e him the particulars respecting the house. Even-
tually it was bought by the College of Civil Engineers,
the Secretary of which had once called upon the plain.
tiff. Mr. Platt now contended that the evidence justified
the verdict for the plaintiff, inasmuch as he had been em-
ployed as agent by the brother of the defendant, whose
visit was caused by the letter written to the defendant.
Without hearing Mr. Kelly,
The COURT said the rule must be made absolute, as
there was no evidence of the plaintiff having ever been
employed by the dcre.ndaut iu the traussetion.—Rule
ab-
solute.

ARCHES COURT, APRIL 22.
LUSIIINGTON V. LUSIIING TON.
The Court, in this case (which is a suit for divorce
brought by Mrs. Lushington against her husband), pro-
nounced the sentence as prayed for by the wife. The Court
had had originally some slight doubt as to the identity of
the party, but it was now completelysatisfied on this point,
as it was of the husband's adultery. Tile sentence of di-
vorce was accordingly decreed.
FIELDING 5. STANDING AND COOK.
This was an application to the Court to issue a monition
against the Churchwardens of Ilcadcome, in the county
of Kent, calling upon them to show cause why they do
not hold a vestry of the ratepayers of the parish to make a
rate for the necessary repairs of the Church, alleged to be
in a very dilapidated condition.
Dr. HAGGARD, in support of the motion, cited a simi-
lar case, which occurred in 1731.
Motion granted,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, APRIL 22.
WRIGHT'S RANK, COVENT-GARDEN.

This ryas the day named to take the adjourned examina-
tion of John Wright, ono of the partners in this bank-
rupt firm, and a good many creditors attended to prove
debt'.

The Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company
Froved Ole understood) 46,1711. bs. lid. against the joint
estate, and claimed to receive back certain bonds which
had been deposited for advanced. These were ordered to
be given up by the Court.
Mr. Jaudon, on the part of the United States Bank,
sought to prove, under power of attorney, for 12,0001.
upon bills of exchange drawn upon letters of credit. This
was also against the joint estate,
As the assignees did not object to the proof, it was ad.
mitted by consent.
The remainder of the sitting was occupiel with the fur-
ther argument of the alleged breachas of trust, the parti-
culars of which had been before reported, Mr. Dixon ap-
pearing for the assignees, and Mr. Bacon for the sur-
viving executor, Mr. Burton.
The Court deferred judgment.
Mr. Hamilton said that Mr. Wright was not at present
in a situation to pass, and he therefore prayed an adjourn..
meat. His accounts had only beer delivered in that
morning, but he thought the assignees would have ex-
an ined them by the time fixed for the audit and dividend,
the 4th of May. Would the Court e3nient to that day
being named ?
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD assented.
Atnatt 72,0001. was proved against the joint estate tr.
day, and 2,0001 against the various separate estates.
Mr. Anthony George Wright Biddulph appears before
the Court tomorrow to pass his accounts. It is under.
stood he is perfectly ready.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, APRIL 22.