The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-04 00:00:00

THORNHILL V. TIIORNHILL.

This case came before the Court upon the petition of
the infant, Miss Thornhill, praying that her mother
might be continued her guardian, notwithstanding her
subsequent marriage. The mother was appointed the
guardian of her daughter by a codicil to the will of her
late husband, and the petition prayed that she might
continue to be so and receive the allowance.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR made the order.

Mr. B ET- H ELL , who appeared for the petitioner, stated
that provision had been made on this subject in the
mother's marriage settlement.

FERMOR V. POMFRET.

This case came before the Court upon the petition of
of the present Earl Pomfret, praying for a reference to
the Master to inquire whether it would be for the benefit
of the petitioner's estate, that certain timber should be
cut down, and certain repairs made.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR made the order as prayed.
IN THZ MATTER OF THZ SHREWSBURY ESTATE ACT.

This was the petition of the trustees of the Shrewsbury
Estate, praying for a reference to the Master to inquire
whether the funds in court should be laid out in the
purchase of certain lands.
The Counr made the order for the reference.
vaairir V. MINCIN.
The Court was occupied the remainder of the day
with the arguments in this case, which came before the
Court upon motion for the new trial of an issue directed
by the Court to inquire whether certain persons were
trustees under a local Act, passed in the reign of George
IL of certain premises in the neighbourhood of the
Acielphi, between Villiers-street and Buckingham-street..
called York-buildings, and whether, as such trustees,
they had a right to levy rates on the inhabitants of the
neighbourhood, for the purpose of keeping those build-
ings in repair. The issue was tried before the Lord
Chief Justice, and a verdict found for the plaintiff,
and the present application was for a new trial of that
issue.

Mr. Walker and Mr. Elmslie were in support of the
application, and Mr. Bethell and Mr. Schoenberg ap-
peared to oppose it.
The arguments not having concluded at the rising of
the Coart, the case will be proceeded with to-morrow.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)

CAMPBELL V. THE BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a bill filed against the Brighton Railway
Company to test the question whether the holders of
notes, issued on the loan of 300,0004, can claim the
conversion of their notes into shares, if due notice be
given of this intention previous to the year 1847. It
appears that the company in 1842 resolved to raise a
loan of 300,0002, and issued 40/. loan notes for five
years at five per cent., and on the back of the note was
an endorsement which gave the acceptor the option of
converting his notes into quarter shares of 104, upon
due notice being given before the 15th February, 1845.
The defendants contend that these stipulations were
-ele.arly embodied in the advertisement for the loan,
the tender, and the endorsement on the loan
note, and that while the option to convert was
given, it was yet limited in time to February, 1845, and
that the holders who have allowed this period to pass
have thereby lost their right to shares in the company.
Mr. Romilly, Q.C., Mr. Rae, and Mr. Adams, were
heard this morning for the defendants.
Mr. BETUELL (with who:n was Mr. Goldschmid) re-
plied for the plaintiff, contending on his part, that all
that could be viewed by the Court as a contract, was
that stipulation which appeared on the face of the loan
note.
The arguments having been finished, judgment was
deferred.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco.)
RAILWAY SHARES ON WHICH A CALL IS DIJE.-
IWEIVEN V. WOODS AND OTHERS.
Mr. KNOWLES, Q.C., applied for a rule to show cause
why a nonsuit should not be entered in this case. The
case was tried at the last Liverpool Assizes before Mr.
Justice Cressweil, and a verdict was entered for the
,plaintiff with the permission of the Learned Judge sub-
sequently to enter a nonsuit. The acticn was for money
had and received. The defendants pleaded non
assumpsit. The ground on which Mr. Justice Cress-
well agreed to the application for a nonsuit was the dis-
puted question, whether an action for money had and
received, would lie under the circumstances. The
defendants are sharebrokers at Liverpool, the plaintiff; a
gentleman, residing at Aberdeen. On the 13th of
August, 1845, the plaintiff wrote to the defendants, re-
questing them to purchase for him 20 or 38 shares
A the Limerick and Waterford Railway, and
abarY the amount to the next account.
Mae defendants, who were brokers only, purchased the
shares from other brokerst in Liverpool, which they
notified to the plaintiff, the same time sending him an
invoice, and on the 24 a 1
of August, a few days before
the account day, which took placegust at the end of the
month, the plaintiff remitted the defendants 1461. 10s., to
defray the purchase of the shares, therefore
j this was not
a transaction between them as priaci rd not ,
sell themas they pur-
'chased the shares for the plaintiff, and
tto him. If they had been the sellersthseimepase would
l
have been different, but the money was
full a contract into which they had entered onyantto
be-
half. It is true they made themselves personally liable
to the
.brokers of whom they purchased these shares.
Thv shams were to be delivered to the plaintiff by the
and. of Auwust, but between the day of the purchase
and the Jay for their delivery they were
cal' Led
in iy the promoters of the coni-
the' purpose of being registered, preparp
pa ay for