The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-08 00:00:00

• ,
-
_
I I
•
/
t t
• ----
)1'
AG* 1144 t-
.
, •
's. * 1/1... NI. •- • Ar-lt.,
•
•
,
(111,1111,11 4
.11,111-
7 L '
‘r
11111-
o i
. I
4.tt'
,Sa-•••-•'" 41e
) 1 4

V'Z

~~IZ~
- ----,,~

PRICE SD.

l/s

t.
'
of the formality he common sea Vt. tobravyng
affixed upon ir;and but for whicg 1 have an un-
doubted, an imprescriptible right '4l7:4oPlifir. before you—if
you refuse to hear us on these , then,
by the misconduct of the dir gye. no
milder term refuse us an oppo
..:9i4rtkela I al;
legations. if the corporate seal 11ten
affixed to that petition we should, o hstipauraio
be heard; and, are we then to be
the mismanagement of the directo "MtSslcro
perform the duties which devolved; upon them
namely, that of affixing the comment seal
of this company to the petition ? Suppose that
this were a question between this company - and
another, then that company which had a measure . before
Parliament affecting the interests of the first parties- -sup-
pose that the parties or directors of the company wens en-
trusted—from Some motive or other should refuse to affix the
seal to the petition to Parliament, could it be said that The
absence of a mere formality of the company's seal would be
allowed to stand in the way of the company being heard
upon the petition? From the time I made myself Ac-
quainted with the allegations of the petitions, and that
the seal of the company had been improperly withheld,.
I thought that it would be impossible for the
Committee to refuse to hear the petitioners; and I
thought it was impossible that they should not allow the
parties to stand in the same position as though that which was
necessary had been done, seeing that upon the petition
to which I shall call your attention, all these matters
will arise which is necessary to be brought before you. -One
single word with respect to the prayer of the petition. The
petition is in the common form of petitions, and I believe all
my experience warrants me in making the assertion, that the
statement of the grievance is always contained in the
body 'of • the petition, and the prayer of the
petition is in the usual form. If we are allowed to go
into the petition the fate of the Bill will net remain long in
suspense. The facts of the, tition can all be proved. I
trust, therefore, that you will n-01-establtsh a fatal precedent
in this case, and I trust that you will think that we ought to
be heard in support of the prayer of the petition..
The Learned Counsel having concluded,
Mr. WHATELEY addressed a few observations to the
Committee against the right of reply on the part of the
opponents.
The Committee then adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, May 7.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAX.)
MONICYPINNY V. DEKING.
This cause turned upon the construction of a will. Th•
facts have already appeared in this journal, and the question
came before this Court with the view of overruling the deci-
sion of the Court of Exchequer. which determined that the
word " son" in the will of one of the devisees limited the
estate to the last male.

His HONOUR said it was the practice of the Court in cases
such as the present to carry out the intention of the testator,
but he should refer the case to a court of law.

It w•as then arranged that the case should be brought
before the Court of Common Pleas.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HARE V. ATTWOOD.
In this case an application was made for a new trial on
the ground that the plaintiff omitted material evidence at a
previous trial, when a verdict had been entered for the de-
fendant. An application having been made at the time, the
point was reserved for argument.
The COURT refused the application, as it was not supported
by affidavit.
Several other cases of no importance were then disposed of.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 7.
(Sittings in Bnnco )
MISCHKIN V. AOSCI.

In this case an application was made for an attachment
against a Mr. Levi, a Sheriff's officer of the county of Mid-
dlesex. It appeared that the plaintiff owed 161. 18s., and that
this officer continued to levy sums of money to the amount
of 251. 10s., and afterwards made a seizure on the goods of
the plaintiff, a Mr. Rosci, a merchant residing in Regent-
street, to the extent of 12/.

The COURT were of opinion that a rule should issue calling
on the Sheriff and Mr. Levi, or one or either of them, to re-
fund the money.