The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 15.
(Before Vice• Chancellor WIGRAM.)
M'GREGOR V. THE DERBYSHIRE, STAFFORDSHIRE, AND

WORCESTERSHIRE JUNCTION RAILWAY.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment in this
case, said it was a bill to establish a lien upon money
paid by way of deposit. The plaintiff was the solicitor
to the East and West Junction Railway, which subse-
quently amalgamated with the Derbyshire, Staffordshire,
and Worcestershire Junction Railway, and the bill al-
leged that a contract was entered into between the East
and West Junction Railway and himself, whereby a lien
upon the deposits was created for his costs and expenses
as solicitor. Upon the amalgamation, a large sum of
money arising from the deposits passed to the new com-
pany, and the plaintiff now sought to charge them with
the payment of his bill of costs. The plaintiff had en-
tirely failed to establish that lien by evidence; nor was
there any admission in the answer to supply that defect.
It was clear no trust could be established against the
new company unless the contraot for the lien to the first
company were proved. The plaintiff must pay the costs
of the suit, and by consent he should refer it to the
Master to tax the plaintiff's bill of costs, the defendants
new offering to pay the amount when taxed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec.li.
WALFORD V. PAYNE..
This was an interpleader issue, to try whether certain
property, seized by the: Sheriff of Middlesex, at the suit
of the defendant, a grocer, in Regent-street, was or
wag not the property of the plaintiff.
It appeared that the plaintiff, Mrs. Walford, an aged
lady, had been for many years the confidential
servant of the Baroness Dillon, now deceased, and
that in consequence of her having been in that capa-
city since 1801, and on account of back wages, and
the loan of a sum of 2001., she assigned to her the unex-
pired lease of the premises which she occupied in
Quebec-street, and the entire furniture of the house.
Subsequently the defendant distrained upon the pro-
perty for rent and for sums owing by the Baroness. The
original agreement was put in, and evidence adduced to
show that the property really belonged to Mrs. Watford.
Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Ball appeared for the
plaintiff.

Mr. HUMFREY, who appeared for the defendant, stated
that the case of the defendant amounted to this, that the
assignment was a friendly one, and was adopted for the
purpose of preventing the property from being taken
under a Chancery suit then pending.
The evidence, however, did not support the defence.
The jury found for the plaintiff.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 1.5.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE JOHN D'MONTE ARBUTHNOT.
This insolvent, a young man, who had been a member
of the firm of Arbuthnot, Latham,: and Company, mer-
chants, of Great St. Helen's, was opposed by Mr. Stur-
geon, for a Mr. Wood ; and Mr. Sargood appeared for
the trustees of the Albany for the possession of some
chambers ; Mr. Coke supported.
The case occupied some hours. The debts in the ag-
gregate were upwards of 19,0001., but the consideration
debts were under 5,000/. The insolvent had won on
" play" and betting transactions about 3,000/., and had
lost about 5,0001. ; whilst on railway matters his losses
exceeded 12,0001. When he became of age, about four
years ago, he had 22,800/. under his father's will, and
whilst he was in partnership his share of the business
was 12,0001. a year. He left to follow the " turf." His
stud of horses had cost about 6,000/. After the last
" Derby" he received about 1,0001., and paid away a
good deal more. He had about a dozen betting books,
which he had not filed.
The COURT said the insolvent had answered the ques-
tions very fairly, and eventually the case was adjourned
to file the betting books.—Adjourned accordingly.