The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-14 00:00:00

NEW ORDERS.

bIEUX V. BELL.
The arguments in this case were brought to a con.
elusion.

His Hotioun, after intimating his intention to deliver
judgment on Thursday, made the following observations
in reference to the Masters' Report in this case,
and Masters' Reports generally, as affected by
the new orders. When the Court directed an inquiry
before the Master, he was required to find facts upon
which the Court might act ; and not merely to examine
witnesses and take depositions, and then send them to the
Court to make such use of them as it could. If the evidence
were sent up to the Court without any precise finding,
it was impossible to say upon what ground the Court
should proceed. The 48th of the new orders was in-
tended to guard against cases of that description. He
had been informed that that order had been under-
stood by the A. asters as directing them merely to
state what affidavits were filed, what statements of facts
were carried on, and what witnesses were examined.
That was certainly not the intention of Lord Cottenham.
Before that order was framed the Masters might state
depositions and states of facts, and draw conclusions from
the evidence, and give the grounds of their judgment.
There was nothing whatever in the order which pre-
vented the Master from finding that certain evidence had
been laid before him, finding certain facts, and drawing
his conclusion, and stating the reasons upon which they
wero founded. Having taken part in the suggestion of
that order he could confidently say that Lord Cotten-
ham's view was that the Court derived no benefit from
the Master finding depositions and affidavits, and that
what the Court wanted was the Master's con-
clusion, judging for itself whether that conclu-
sion was borne out by the evidence. The 48th
order, it directed the Master not "to state depositions
or states of facts • but it did not prohibit him from
stating wills or deeds. The reason of the distinction was,

that the former were, while the latter were not, kept in
the Master's office. The order was framed with thegreat-
est care, so as to leave the Master at liberty to do every-
thing except find the affidavits and other matters recited.

QUEEN'S BENCII.--(THIS DAY.)
:Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice WIGILTXAN and

a Common Jury.)
HAYWORTH V. BOURNE.
This was an action upon a mortgage deed, brought by
the plaintiff, a solicitor of Beckington in Somersetshire,
against the defendant, a gardener at Frome. It appeared
that the defendant obtained a sum of 1501. upon a mort-
gage of his premises in Warminster-road, and of that stun
with interest up to the 20th
501. principal had been paid,
February 1836 ; and the present action was brought to
recover the interest due from that date up to the present
period, amounting to 261. odd.
For the defendant it was shown that notice had been
given to the plaintiff, that on the 20th February, 1836,
the defendant was ready to pay up the principal due,
amounting to 100 L, and requiring the deeds to be de-
livered up. On that day the defendant and a friend
waited upon the plaintiff with 100/. the balance admitted
to be due, but the plaintiff refused to take it, stating that
the deeds were in London, and that he would write for
them, and have them sent clown in a few days, adding
that he would not expect to receive any interest after
hnt in thee money was afterwards placed
hands of his attorney, Mr.
tblyt e 2thOeth
dizeefebnrdn
aa
Whittaker, who called more than one upon the agents
in London, who. held the mortgage deed, and
ndoffered the
money requiring the deed to be delivered up. The
agents, however, refused to give up the deed until 1501.