The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-21 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

• CLARKE V. CLARKE.
Mr. TURNER moved to have the bill in this suit, which
had begin filed against the defendant as an executor, taken
pro confesso, for want of answer. The defendant was
in custody for contempt of Court.
Mr. DixoN opposed the motion, on the ground that
the requisitions of the Court in such cases had not been
complied with. The order of the Court required that
the defendant should be brought to the bar of the Court,
to clear his contempt, within thirty days after arrest,
if that time should expire in term, and if not, within
four days after the expiration of thirty days. The de-
fendant in this case had been arrested by a Com-
mission of Revenue on the 13th October last, being
in the long vacation, and had been taken to
the private residence of the Master of the Rolls on the
15th October, not, he contended, for the purpose of
clearing his contempt, but merely to be transferred, ad
interim, to the custody of the Flee', which had been
done. Under these circumstances, he contended that to
have complied with the order of the Court, the defendant
should have been brought to the bar of the Court on or
before the 12th Nov., whereas he had not been brought
to the bar of the Court at all.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said he had no doubt that
it was quite competent to him to transfer the prisoner to
the Fleet. His opinion was, that what had been done
was correct ; but, as it was a case that might frequently
occur, he would inquire as to the practice of the Court.

DUNN V. FLETCHER.
Mr. ELDERTON moved on behalf of the creditors of a
testator for a special injunction to restrain the defendant
Melville Fletcher, from receiving from the auctioneer
and purchaser of a leasehold estate that had been sold, the
residue of the purchase money, and to restrain the latter
parties from paying the same to him.
The defendant resided in Scotland, and was the sur••
viving executor of a person named Ramsay. On testator's
death, defendant came to London and proved his will,
and having possessed himself of considerable assets re-
turned to Scotland, taking the whole of the proceeds
with him, without satisfying or making any arrangements
for the satisfaction of testator's debts, as he had been
required by the will, notwithstanding he had
been applied to by the creditors for that purpose.
Since that period, a leasehold public house belonging to
the testator, called the Angel, and situate in St. Giles's
parish, had been sold by public auction for 1,500/., and
the purchaser had paid a deposit of 3751., and was about
to complete the purchase to-morrow, for which purpose
defendant had returned to England. It was alleged in
the affidavits, that if he were allowed to receive the
money, it was believed that he would again remove out
of the jurisdiction of the Court, and appropriate it with-
out paying testator's debts, or otherwise carrying into
effect the directions of the will.

The MASTER of the RoLLs—You may take the order,
subject to the right of the other parties to move to dissolve
the injunction it they shall think proper.

CREASE AND WIFE V. JOHNS AND ANOTHER.

This motion for an injunction to restrain defendants
from holding and working certain mines in Cornwall
was again mentioned this morning. The facts were re-
ported in The Sun some days ago.
Mr. KINDERSLEY having stated that Mr. Williams
would give an undertaking to appear,
The MASTER of the ROLLS granted the injunction,
the plaintiffs undertaking to keep accounts, and to work
the mines in a workmanlike manner until the trial, and
the defendants being at liberty to inspect the mines
twice a month, with liberty to apply.
These motions being disposed of, the Court rose.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
SIR JOHN MORRIS V. VIVIAN AND 'WILLIAMS.

This was an injunction to restrain the defendants, who
represented the Swansea Coal Company, from draining
the water of the Vern Coal Mine, in Glamorganshire,
into certain adjoining mines, the property of the plaintiff.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Stewart, who
appeared for the plaintiff, that, in the year 1839, a drain
was opened in the mine of the defendants, which con-
veyed the water from it into the mines of the
plaintiff, to the great injury of his works. Pro-
mises were made at the time that the evil should
be remedied. In the month of January, 1841, how-
ever, the passage was again opened, and the plaintiff
after having in vain made certain remonstrances felt it
necessary to bring forward the present motion.

Mr. LOYD, on the part of the defendants, applied for
time to answer the affidavits of the plaintiff, which had
not been filed until the 14th instant.

His HONOUR granted the request, ordered that the
answer should be filed by the 31st instant, and stated
that he would come down specially to Court to hear the
case on the Tuesday following.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
SEDDONS V. PRINCE.

Mr. COOPER showed cause against dissolving an in-
junction to stay trial. The Learned Counsel said the
cause had already been heard before his Honour on ex-
ceptions. Thomas Seddons and James Seddons were
the plaintiffs, and John Prince, Daniel Prince, and John
Bird, the defendants. The bill prayed an account of
dealings and transactions between the plaintiffs and the
defendant Daniel Prince, and prayed that certain promis-
sory notes, or bills of exchange, nine or ten in number,
might be delivered up to be cancelled, and that the de-
fendant John Prince, and Daniel Prince might be restrained
from proceeding on them. The motion against destroying
the injunction was made on behalf of the first defendant, J.
Prince. When the cause came before his Honour on the
10th of November, upon exceptions, all the exceptions
after the 6th were allowed. John Prince had made a
further answer, and on his behalf he now moved to dis-
solve the injunction. The Messrs. Seddons were extensive
upholsterers. In the year 1832 their circumstances be-
coming embarrassed, they came to a composition with
their creditors. By the deed of composition the creditors
of the plaintiffs gave them a license to carry on their
business, and the plaintiffs agreed to pay certain instal-
ments towards the liquidation of their debts, and also
entered into a special covenant that the defendant Daniel
Prince should keep their accounts, and be in the nature
of an inspector for the security of the creditors. Daniel
Prince was to receive 1501. a year for his services. Whilst
at the manufactory, the defendant Daniel Prince received
and paid several sums of money ; and the plaintiffs, who
became indebted to him on various occasions, handed
_ _ _

over to him various bias of exchange towards the satis-
faction of those debts. Some of those notes were the

subject of the present suit. The plaintiffs alleged that
the defendant Daniel Prince had not kept the accounts
in an intelligible way, and that it was impossible to as •
certain from them whether the sums which he alleged to
be due to him from time to time, were in fact due to the
defendant. There had been a settlement of accounts be.
tween the parties in July, 1838, and the result was that
there was then a sum of 2391, 2s. 2d. due from the plain-
tiffs to Daniel Prince, and for that balance the first of the
bills of exchange was given. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to state that John Prince went in 1837 to
China, and before leaving England appointed Daniel
Prince his agent ; but he contended that it appeared that
although the agent of his brother, Daniel had no general
authority to accept and indorse notes and bills of ex-
change. Upon the investigation of the accounts, it had
turned out that there was the sum of 2,808/. 10s. due from
Daniel Prince to the plaintiffs. He contended that he
only stood in the shoes of his brother. John Prince, on
his return from China, discovered that his brother had
defrauded him to a considerable amount ; he did not
appear to have been more faithful to his brother than he
was to the plaintiffs ; and John Prince having got into
his possession these bills of exchange and promissory-
notes, it would be for his Honour to say whether he was
to be considered in a better condition than his brother
with respect to those bills of exchange.
His HONOUR, after hearing Counsel on the other side,
refused the motion.

The Administration of Telegraphs is now in-
stalled at the Hotel of the Minister of the Interior. Be-
sides the principal telegraph at the summit of the tower,
there are four others communicating in as many different
directions on the walls of the same building.
LIEUTENANCY OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.—
'We have reason to believe that the dignity of Lord
Lieutenant of the county of Northampton has been
offered to, and will be accepted by, the Marquis of Exeter.