The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-21 00:00:00

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster
to-day, aid heard appeals. His Lordship rose at an early
hour to attend the Council at. Buckingham Palace.
Ills Lonnsmts postponed his judgment on the motion 01
Christ's Hospital v. Granger till Saturday.

SOULS' COURT.—(Tnis
His Lordship resumed the hearing of the remaining pen-
lions. raster,
This was a petition impugning the decision of the 1%
with reference to the taxation of a bill of costs of 165/. 115. S(1!t
and praying for an order to that effect. It appeared tha
the petitioner, Mr. Alford, had employed Mr. Bolton, the
respondent, a solicitor, as agent to conduct some law pre'
ceedings, and item of bill of costs of 251. was objected to
by Mr. Alford, on the ground that it was'an unnecessary el-
pense, and that the case had not been properly conducted.
Lord LANGDALE, in giving judgment in the case,,said .
was content to make the order, though he considered thaD
Mr. Bolton was placed in a situation of areat hardship.
had no doubt that the decree referred to was defective, tuf
consequence of Mr. Bolton having relief on the promises °
a gentleman to do something which he had failed to execute.
He would now make an order for the payment of the sea
fuund by the Master, deducting the sum of 251.

IN RE
This was a petition on the partSA3IE. of Mr. Bolton, praying for
the costs of the petition as well as the costs of tasation.
Loiti LANGDALE considered the petitioner entitled to r
order to the effect required, which he would accordiagli
make.
The hearing of these petitions occupied the greater Part of
the day, and the remaining petitions were quite uninteresting'

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY')
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of EN,MAND.)
'
THE MAYOR OF LOUTII v. THE WARDENS OF LOUTII
F
SCHOOL.
The arguments in this case were resumed, and occupied the
Court the whole day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wicasm.)
PARSONS V. SPOONER.
It will be remembered that the plaintiff, the prof ford
and solicitor to, the Southampton, Manchester, and 00°
Railway, instituted the suit to establish a lien on the deP(ro
sits of the shareholders, and that the cause was heard °

demurrer by the defendant. e'n
His HoNoun, this morning, overruled the demurrer 1.
usual terms.

BAIL COURT.-(T HIS DAY•)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
13,
TILE QUEEN V. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF TILE CITY AND

ROUGH OF LICHFIELD.
Sergeant TALFOURD moved for a rule to show cause vlll
an attachment should not issue against Charles Simpson for
,
disobedience of an order of this Court. This was a Pr°66,40,
tion, by way of mandamus, on the part of Mr. SirnP—te
against the Town Council of Lichfield, commanding diet?
ed
make compensation for the loss the applicant had sustlej,
by being deprived of his office of town-clerk. It apPea
however, that he had been dismissed for misconell.le.
and was not, therefor;, entitled to any compensate!:
The rule for a mandamus was made absoln;
and the return to it alleged a disobedience of
order. The claimant had traversed the return, and the e;73
came on for trial at the last Stafford assizes. Before es,
period appointed for the trial the order on which this (ILO
tion arose had been made. Although the claimant had ,0
dismissed from his office, he had thought proper to retnintbs
his possession all the memoranda and books belonging to de'
Town Couneil. As it was considered necessary for the
er,j,
fence of the mandamus that an inspection of these P$P se
with the view of making extracts, should be allowed,
application was made to Mr. Justice Wightman, who ordgbcii
that full opportunity for inspection should be allowed. iyl
order had been so worded, that when the case came for t,roe
Lord Denman had postponed trial in conseq,',..
until the following assizes. Since that time various en"e
1011
yours had been made to persuade Mr. Simpson to co
with the Order, but without success. An applications Wet,
therefore, made last term to Mr. Justice Matteson fora tics
tachment against Mr. Simpson, but, although Mr. olot
Wightman's order had been made a rule of Court, it had der
been served, and Mr. Justice Patteson thought that, nartiiii
the circumstances, an attachment could not issue. The ecl,
had since been served, and as the order was still disobey
the present application was made.—Rule granted,