The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-27 00:00:00

vzzAT r•Ea.lammTs.

SOUTHALL, JAT/726.—We had a firm trade to-day,
and prices had an upward tendency. Beef from 4s to
45 101; Mutton, 4s to 53 2d; Veal, 4s 4d to 4s 10d;
and Pork, 4s to 4s 8d per 81bs, to sink the offal.
ROMFORD, JAN. 26 —Each kind of fat stock sold
freely, at higher rates. Beef from 3s 8d to 4s 8d;
Mutton, 4s to 5s 2d; Veal, 4s 4d to 4s 10d ; and Pork,
4s 2d to 4s 8d per Sibs ; Quarter-old Store Pigs, 19s to
24s each.

LEWES, JAN. 25.—Beef, from 4s to ss; Mutton, 4s 2d
to 5s 4d ; Veal, 4s to 5s ; and Pork, 4s 2d to 4s 8d
per 81b. A short supply and steady trade.

BL AT DIAILMETS.

SMITTIFIELD.—Meadow Hay, 21105 to 31 12s ; Clover,
ditto, 3/ lOs to 4/ 12s ; and Straw, 1/ 4s to 1/ 108
per load. A moderate supply and a sluggish demand.
CUMBERLAND.—Meadow Hay, 2/ lOs to 31 15s ;
Clover ditto, 3/ lOs to 41105; and Straw, 114 s to 1/ 108
per load, Supply rather limited, and trade dull.
WEITECRAPEL.—Meadow Hay, 21 lOs to 31 13,;
Clover ditto, 31 lOs to 4l 15s ; and Straw, 1/ 4s to
11 lOs per load. Trade heavy, at the above quotations,

COAL MARKET
Adair's Main
Bate's W. Hartley... 19s 6d
huddle's W. Hartley.. 20s 3d
Carr's Hartley
Chester Main lB5 Od
Dipton Tanfield l4s 6dl
Hedley's Hartley
Hasting's Hartley 2os 3d'
Holywell Main ... ..... Ids 9d
North Percy Hartley 195 6dl
New Tanfield 155 6di
Ord's Redheugh
Pontop Windsor ....
South Peareth
Wylam
West Wylam
Wall's End, &c
Acorn Close
Bell and Brown ......
13ewicke and Co 2ls 6di
Brown's Gas
,
Gosforth 2ls 6(11
Hotspur 2os 3dl
Hilda 2os ad
Killingworth 2lB Od
Northumberland
Riddell's 2ls Bd,
Washington
Lden Main 22s 3d

'.-YESTERDAY.

Harraton Main ...... Od
Belmont 22s 3d
Braddyll's Hetton 22s 9d
Bell
East Hetton
.Hasvrell 23s 3d
Hetton
Lambton
Lumley
Rus ell's Hetton
(Richmond 2lB 3d
Shotten
Stewart's
Cassop.. .....
Caradoe 228 9d
High Thornley
Heugh Hall .
Kelloe . ..... 22s 6,1
ITrimdon ... 21s 6d
lAdclaide Tees
.;Cownden Tees
.ISeyrnour Tees
.!South Durham 2ls 6d
'Fees
West Corn f orth 21s Od
Whitworth l7s 6d
I'DerwPntwaterHartley 19s 9d
II Ships at market 2OO

CORN AVERAGES.
GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN
For the Week ended Jan. 27, 1848, made up from the Returns of the
Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and Wales
per Imperial Quarter.
I WHEAT. [BAREY.' OATS. I RTI. I 388 N BS.d8S.d
I SIAS.
PRICE .. 53s 1 d 30sL
4d 21s Id 30s 8d I 4ss 2d

The Duties on Foreiin..9fain are now suspended

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The LORD CA.NCELLOR took his seat in his Court at
Westminster:at half-past eleven o'clock to-day, and
gave judgment in several cases.
.STRICKL4.ND V. STKICKLAD.7-*JU.DGMENT,
The L CAANCEiLOIV-galiP RafiMent to-day in
this case, which came before his' Lordship twelve
months since upon an appeal from the di cision of the
Master of the Rolls dismissing the bill of the plaintiff.
The suit was instituted in November, 1839, by Henry
Eustatius Strickland, a son of the late Sir George
Strickland, against his brother, the present Sir George
Strickland, and other members of the family, and
asked that the will of his father, made in the year
1808, might be established, and that it might be declared,
that upon the death of Walter Strickland the plaintiff
became entitled to all the estates, including Win-
tringham, East Heslerton, and Knapton, which, by
the- will of the testator, were expressed to be devised
to George Charles and Walter Strickland respectively
for life ; and that the defendant, Sir Geo. Strickland,
who had held since the death of Walter, and still con-
tinued to hold, the said estates, might be decreed to
render to the plaintiff an account of the rents and pro-
fits of them, and give up to him all th- title deeds.
The Master of the Rolls in his judgment, delivered
in August, 1842, said that the title of the plaintiff
depending upon the will of the testator was a purely
legal cute, and, therefore, this Court cluld have no
jurisdiction in the matter until such title had first
undergone the ordeal of an investigation at law. The
question, therefore, was, whether the Court should
retain the bill until that issue had been tried. The
practice of the Court was not to retain a suit which
involved the mere legal right to property, unless the
assistance of the Court were equitably invoked for
the purpose of making out such title at law, such as
restraining the setting up of outstanding terms, or
compelling the parties to make certain admissions.
In this case, however, no such assistance was
asked from. the Court ; and although the plaintiff
claimed an equitable interest in the property,
no such interest had been shown. The Master of the
Rolls, therefore, ordered the bill to be dismissed.
without costs, as far as concerned the defendant Sir
George Strickland, but with costs as to the other
defendants, and against this decree the parties appealed
to this branch of the Court. The Lord Chancellor
this morning, in giving judgment, went at consider-
able length into the facts of the case, and stated his
opinion unhesitatingly to be, that the Master of the
Rolls had come to a sound conclusion in dismissing
the plaintiff's bill. He must therefore affirm that
decree of the Master of the Rolls with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
PARKER V. MORRELL.—JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also-gave judgment in
this case, which came before his Lord-
ship previous to the long vacation, upon
appeal from the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce. The bill was filed by the plaintiff to
cancel a bond, by which the plaintiff !undertook to
be security for his brother, who at that time owed a
sum of 2,500/. to the defendants, who are hankers in
Oxford. The bond was dated in 1831. Subsequent
transactions took place, by which the plaintiff's
brother became more deeply indebted, and it was
alleged by the defendants that the bond rendered the
plaintiff liable, as it was given for a continuing ba-
lance, and therefore a general guarantee. The Vice-
Chancellor directed issues to try the question, and on
a verdict being given in favour of the plaintiff made
a decree. The defendants appealed on the ground
that the issues were imperfectly framed, and that they
did not embrace the whole question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in givii:g judgment, went
at some length into the facts of the case, and after
adverting to several points of practice involved in it,
directed an issue, to try A-,hetila is bond and war-
rant of attorney of the lath April, 1834, were ob-
tained fraudulently from the plaintiff, or by false

misreprasentions giving liberty to endorse special
circumstances on toe plstea, and reserving all costs
until the issue was tried.

TIIE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES.-

JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in
this case, which came before him upon an appeal from
a decree of the Vice-Chancellor of England.
It appeared:that, as long ago as the year 1774, the
Grand Junction Canal Company had obtained an
Act of Incorporation, under which they concluded
purchases of land, and took leases for the purpose of
carrying out the line of inland navigation, in-
cluded in which was a piece of copyhold land
purchased of one Skidmore, tenant by copy of court
roll to the lord of the manor. Dimes, the defendant,
had come in first as mortgagee, and subsequently
had bought the manor with all its rights. Skidmore
had for thirty years been tenant to the lord, render-
ing him customary services and fines, and then died,
and the heir of Skidmore being an infant, the lord
of the manor seized the copyhold land until he could
have a tenant capable of rendering him the cus-
tomary services, treating the company as trespassers
upon their own line of navigable canal, and bringing
a large quantity of bricks with which he threatened
to impede the navigation. The lord then informed
the company that he should not desist from this course
unless the company should agree to buy up his
interest. In this state the case came before the
Vice-Chancellor of England, who, in giving judg-
ment, stated that he considered the whole diffi-
culty had arisen from the fact that when
the Act of Parliament was passed, under which the
plaintiffs had power to make their canal, sufficient
consideration was not given to the circumstance that
a portion of the land tObe.,taken was copyhold ; if that
fact had been larOught toathe attention of the framers
of the Act theft, Would lave been more special pro-
visions intro luced.,.. As it stood, his Honour thought
that the sect had authoriser_ any person who had the
right, title, or interest. in the land, by such a con-
veyance, the form of whi&l was pointed out, to con-
vey all their right, title; and interest. Jos. Skidmore
was the copyhold tenant of this land, and the corpora-
tion purchased from.,hita;- for valuable consideration,
and the land was cOriveyed under the Act. He con-
sidered that this Act provided for the conveyance by a
party who had an interest of his own and no more, and
it could not mean that where a party by that form
conveyed his interest, that he should be taken to have
'passed anything which trespassed on the rights of
others. Joseph Skidmore, in conveying his interest,
had perfect right to demand that his copyhold should
be continued to his grantee by the admission of his
heir, but it could never have been intended by the
Act that he should pass the absolute interest in the
land which, in fact, would be passing what did not
belong to him. His opinion was, that the heir 'of
Skidmore was a trustee for the company, and the
company could compel the lord to admit such heir.
He therefore declared that Thomas Edmund Skid-
more, the heir of Joseph Skidmore, the copyholder,
according to the custom of the manor, was the person
who ought to be admitted tenant on the court rolls,
and, when admitted, that he would be a trustee of the
estate for the company, and that there should be a
reference to the Master to decide what fine was to be
paid by the company upon the admission of Skid-
more's heir, and that the company should pay his
costs, and recover them from the defendant Dimes.
The Lord Chancellor, after adverting to the facts at
some length, stated his opinion to be that the decree
of the Vice-Chancellor of England was perfectly
correct, and ordered the appeal to be dismissed, with
costs,—Judgment affirmed, with costs. •

JONES V. ROSE.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in
this case, which came before him upon appeal from the
judgment of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram. The
main question in:the cause was, whether the plaintiff
Jones had not, by neglecting to pay the calls, for-
feited 150 shares in the property called the Rosher-
ville-gardens, at Gravesend. The Vice-Chancellor
directed inquiries before the master, with which both
parties were dissatisfied, and both therefore appealed.
The Lord Chancellor thought the course adopted by
the Learned Judge was a perfectly correct one, and
ordered both petitions of appeal to be dismissed with
costs.