The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-17 00:00:00

LAW DITELLIGEN
COURT OF CHANCERY, April 16.
HALL V. LUCK.

The Lon]) CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case
this morning. Rhich came before his Lordship ye,ter-
day upon a question as to the costs of the appeal. His
.rdahip was of opinion, under all the circumstances,
that there ought to be no costs of the appeal, and ordered
ace, irdingly.
IN THE 31ATTEIL OP DIVE SOMBRE, A LUNATIC.
This case stood on the paper for the production of the
evidence of the claim of the Baron Solana to 15,0001.
His LORDSHIP being satisfied with the evidence,
directed the claim to be allowed.
IN THE NATTER OF THE PRINCESS BARIATINSKI,
A LUNATIC.
This case came before the Court upon the petition of
the committee of the lunatic, praying an order for the
see of so much stock as would satisfy the last half-
yearly amcunt allowed by the Court for the maintenance
of the lunatic.
The Court made the order as prayed.

ICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, April 16.
(Before the VICE-CHArrcE►LLoR of ENGLA)D.)

RUSSELL V. SMITH.
Mr. STUART applied in this case upon motion to dis-
solve an injunction that had been granted by his Honour
during the Easter recess, restraining the defendant, who
is a public singer, from singing or publishing. or other-
wise mblzing use of certain songs, some of which had
been written, and others set to music, by the plaintiff.
Among these songs were " Old Fools and Young Ones,"
" I've been Roaming," and " I'm Afloat." &c. The
L arned Counsel was proceeding to read the affidavits
on which the application was made, when he was in-
terrupted by
Mr. BETHELL, who requested that the case might
stand over in order that the plaintiff might answer some
of the affidavits filed by the defendant yesterday.
Mr. STUART at once agreed to postpone the motion,
the defendant being anxious .that the plaintiff should
have the beuefits of all that he had " said or sung."
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that the present was a
case to which the motto of audi alteram partem most
aptly applied.—(Great laughter.)

- (Before, Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
THE ATToRNEY -GENERAL v. THE CORPORATION 01

CONGLETON.
Mr. ROMILLY continued his arguments to-day on the
motion ror an injunction to restrain the Corporation of
Congleton from appointing a Master to the Free Gram-
mar School of Congleton, and from changing the order
of the school, or otherwise interfering with it.

ROLL'S COURT, April 16.
LORD WELLESLEY V. THE EARL OF NORNINGTON.
It was ant-eel by counsel that an arrangement had been
mad, between the parties in this cause. The case came ori-
ginally bet ire Lord Langdale on the 28th ult.,in the shape
of a motion to restrain the carrying into execution a
contract, by which the defendant had agreed to sell Mr.
Morris 3,500 oak trees. An application was made yea-
terday, on the part of the plaintiff, to make Mr. MNrris
the defendant in the case, which was ordered to stand
over till to-day, in the expectation that an arrangement
would be made. Mr. Morris has consented to give up
his contract, which of c mir-se terminates the law pro-
ceedings in this case, which has excited some little in-
tere*t from the rank of the litigants.
His Lordship then proceeded to hear the unopposed
petitions, of which there was a large number on the list.

session of a piece of land held by the plaintiff, which it
was alleged was a portion of the glebe belonging to the
rectory. The piece of land was a slip of land alongside
of the highway, and had been inclosed about forty-seven
years ago. It was originally a waste, and inclosed by a
person of the name of Llenot, who also built a cottage on
it. It had since passed through the hands of three
parties. The possession had been acquiesced in by four
successive incumbents of the rectory. A verdict had
been given for the defendant, there being no evidence to
show that the land was ever considered a part of the
glebe, and the Learned Judge (Mr. Justice Erie), before
whom it was tried, having left it to the jury to consider,
in the absence of such evidence, and the acquiescence of
four successive incumbents in the possession, whether
the possession was not good, the Learned Counsel now
asked fir a rule to show why this verdict should not be
set aside, on the ground that as sixty years in such
eases was the statute of limitations debarring the re-
covery of such property, whereas possession had only
been held for forty-seven years, and the acquiescence of
the previous incumbents did not at all invalidate the
title.—Rule to show cause granted.

GAMBLE V. KURTZ.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict of the special jury in this case
should not be set aside and a new trial granted. The
case was tried last term, and occupied three days. It
was an action for the infringement of a patent for an
improved method of making sulphate of soda and mu-
riatic acid, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff, to
the effect that though the principle was not new, the ap-
plication of it was. The Learned Gentleman now moved
fur the defendant.—Rule granted.
The Court then adjourned till to-morrow.

BAIL COURT, April 16.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
ERPE V. FERRERS.
In this case Mr. BAusrow, on the part of defendant,
moved for a rule to enter up judgment, a. in case of a
nonsuit.

It will be remembered that in the action for breach of
Eromise of marriage, brought by Miss Smith against
arl Ferrers, it was shown that the grandfather of the
plaintiff (Mr. Erre), had advanced 1001., on the supposi-
tion that he was lending that amount to the noble de-
fendant. Subsequently an action was brought against
Earl Ferrers for the amount, which was set down for
trial in the Michaelmas sittings. The case, h-wever,
never came before the Court, and hence the present ap-
plication.—Rule granted.
No other motion of public interest came before his
Lordship.

COORT OF BANKRUPTCY, April 14.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE NEAL.
The bankrupt in this case came up for his certificate.
He had kept the Royal Oak Commercial Inn, Port--ea,
and had also been a coach proprietor. His schedule
showed debts to the amount of 3,6171. 11s. ; but there
were no assets for the creditori.
He was opposed by Mr. Phinn for the assignees ; and
also by a creditor, a cigar dealer. Mr. Bagley supported
the bankrupt.
The grounds of opposition were, that he had kept no
books ; that his expenditure was at least one-fifth more
than the profits ; that he had assigned all his property
to his brother and sister, who had swept all away,
leaving the creditors without a shilling. It was al.()
stated that the bankrupt had kept a thorough-bred horse,
and was lavish in the display of diamond rings and other
jewellery.
Mr. BAGLEY said that it was chiefly for the want of
ability, and partly for the want of time, that the bank-
rupt had kept no books. His great excess of expendi-
ture over his income was ascribable to his coaching trade
being destroyed by the establishment of the South-
We,tern, &c., Railway, while the assignments of his
brother and sister had been executed as far back as the
year 1842.
His Hostoua said. that although innkeepers and coach
proprietors seldom kept books, he bad generally found
those most prosperous who did so. The great excess of
expenditure over income was less excu,Jble; for, al-
though it was well known that railways had been injuri-
ous to such versons as the bankrupt, yet there had be-n
full notice to enable persons going down hill. nut only to
put the drag on, but absolutely to stop. The assign-
ments to the relatives, though of a somewhat remote
date, and equitable in the eyes of the bankrupt, had
nevertheless enabled him to get into debt with others.
Under all the circumstances, he thought the justice. of
the case would be best met by adjourning the certificate
for twelve months, but with protection to the person of
the bankrupt.

SHERIFFS' COURT, A4pril 16.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
TUCKEY NAY.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
61. 6s. lid. for goods sold and delivered. The defendant
pleaded that he was never indebted, satisfaction, and
set-off.

Tee plaintiff is a grocer in, George-street, Portman-
square, and the defendant is a surveyor. The satistec-
don was for making an appraisement for the plaintiff.
An action was brought for the amount, which action is
still pending.
M-. Tnostas, for the plaintiff, contended that the
appraisement, even if the defendant was entitled to
charge for it, could not be pleaded in satisfaction, as the
work was done previously to the goods being delivered.
Mr. HAWKINS admitted that there was a tt chnical dif;
ficulty as regarded that plea, but he should rely on the
other two pleas. He contended that no d, bt arose on
the delivery of the goods, as they were sent in as part
payment for the work done by the defendant.
Witnesses were called who proved that it was cus-
tomary for appraisements to be paid for at the time, but
that the amount was allowed to stand over at the re-
quest of the plaintiff, who when he was applsed to for
_the payment of 141. ss. for defendant, said that he had
sent goods to the amount of 61. 6s. 3d. on account, bin
he was aware that the defendant was not a licensed ap-
praiser, and therefore he should refer him to his (plain-
tiff's) attorney.
The UNDER-SHERIFF suggested' that a juror should
be withdrawn.

Mr. Montss said he would agree if, the other action
was discontinued.

Mr. HAWKINS said he would rather take a verdict.
Mr. THOMAS then urged that the plaintiff was en-
titled to be paid for his goods, and the detendant ought
to be left to his own remedy.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF, in summing up said,
that it was not a question tor the jury, whether
the defendant was licen.,ed or not ; if not, he might be
liable to a. fine, but at all events, any person t
him was bound to pay. The question therefore was,
how much he was entitled to, for he clearly had a right
to set up his claim as a set-oft
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

Mr. ilikwinis said, now the case was closed, he was
desired by the defendant to state, that the proe offing!,
in the other case wouli be discontinued, as it was not
the defendant's wish to press the plaintiff, but only to
protEct himself.