The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-16 00:00:00

ZrIORRIS V. HOWSE.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, in which the question was, whether a power of
appointment given to a lady during her coverture had
been properly exercised, it having been executed between
her first and second marriage. His Lordship decided
that the power of appointment had not been properly
exercised, and dismissed the appeal, with costs.

ANDREWS V. LOCKWOOD.
The arguments in this part-heard appeal were re-
sumed and concluded to-day; and
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment.
WATTS V. HYDE.
This case came before the Court upon appeal from
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce.
From the statements of counsel, it appeared that the bill
was filed by Mr. Alaric Watts, who is a literary gentle-
man, against Mr. Hyde, who is a solicitor, under the
following circumstances :—Mr. Watts having been en-
gaged fur several years in the publication and prepara-
tion of various expensive literary works, became greatly
embarrassed, and, at the latter end of 1841, those em-
barrassments had become so great that Mr. Watts was in
prison for debt. The defendant, Mr. Hyde, who had
been Mr. Watts's solicitor for some years, advised him to
make some arrangement with his creditors ; that
arrangement was, that Mr. Watts should execute a deed
of composition, by which, in the course of three 3 ears, ar
sum of 1,5001. should be divided among his creditors.
This arrangement was carried into effect, and accepted
by all the creditors in lull of all demands. In order to
ensure the payment of the 1,5001., it was provided that
Mr. Watt should ensure his life for that amount, and the
policy of insurance was to be deposited in the hands of
the trustees of the deed of composition. The defendant,
Mr. Hyde, in 1842, executed the deed of composition, as
did also several of the other creditors. In the year 1843,
a quarrel having taken place between the plaintiff and
defendant, the latter delivered to Mr. Watts his bill of
costs, and brought an action against him, for the purpose
of recovering the amount. In answer to that action
the deed of composition was pleaded as a re-
lease, but that plea was considered as of no
avail, on the ground that the covenants in the deed of
composition had not been complied with, inasmuch as
the plaintiff, Mr. Watts, had not kept up the insurance
on his life. The bill was then filed, praying an account
of all the transactions that had taken place between the
plaintiff and defendant, and also an injunction to restrain
the defendant, Hyde, from proceeding with his action.
The injunction was granted upon the terms of the plain-
tiff paying into court the sum the Master of the Court of
Exchequer had found due to the de!trylant, upon the
taxation of his costs. The suit then procet ded to a
hearing, and upon its coming on before the Vice-Chan-
cellor Knight Bruce, lie gave it as his opinion that the
plaintiff was entitled to consider the deed of composition
as a release ; but in consequence of some suggestions
with respect to the construction of the bill, a special
order was made by the Court below giving liberty to the
plaintiff to amend it ; that bill was amended, and
answers put in to the amended bill.
Mr. ANDERDON submitted, on behalf of the appellant,
that the order to amend was against all authority and
practice of the court.
Mr. BACON supported the course pursued by the Court
below, and cited in favour of the proposition that the
Court had power at the hearing to order the bill to be
amended, a case that occurred in the House of Lords

in 1720.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the subject so im-
portant that it was desirable that all authority upon it
should be brought before the Court, and for that purpose
his Lordship ordered the case to stand over to this day
week.
It was expected that his Lordship would have risen
at an early hour to attend the Privy Council at Windsor,
but he did not do so, being anxious, es we understood,
to proceed as rapidly as possible with the business of this
Court.

POLLS' COURT, Nov. 14.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE MAYOR AND CORPO•

RATION OF NEWCASTLE.
This was a case in which a suit had been instituted
against the defendants respecting an estate belonging to
a charity. An application was made to-day respecting
the costs, which his Lordship ordered should be divid_d
as between solicitor and clients.
PERRY V. NEADOWCROFT.
Mr. llonnsoN resumed his arguments for the defend-
ants in this cause, and contended that the Consistory
Court was not at all deceived by the alleged suppression
of the evidence of the parish clerk's daughter, who had
made the mistake in writing down the name of Meadow-
croft. It could not even be shown that the evidence
was material. If it were otherwise the counsel of Mrs.
Gregory would not for a moment have permitted the
omission here complained of to pass unnoticed. There
was little doubt but that the case had been brought in a
bona fide matter before the ecclesiastical Courts. It was
not denied that the marriage was clandestine,
and was solemnised under very suspicious circumstances.
Mrs. Gregory had inclosed her name with that of
WilliamMeadoweroft for the publication of the banns on
a paper to the clerk of the parish, and there the mistake
in the name had occurred. It was evident that the law
had not been complied with, which required that the
names of the parties should be correctly stated. He
contended that the father of William Meadowcroft, the
younger, was by no means satisfactorily shown not to
have been the original promoter of the suit ; and the
authorities cited in support of the plaintiff's case were
not conclusive.
Mr. COLE followed on the same side.
Mr. KINDERSLEY followed in support of the report,
and had not concluded his arguments at the rising of the
Court.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Nom 14.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
NEALE V. PINK.

The further arguments in this part-heard cause peti
Lion occupied his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of Eng
land the whole morning.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. IVIcaAISI)
WOOD V. MACKIE—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR, in delivering judgment, said that this
was a case in which a purchaser refused to fulfil a con-
tract. Several authorities had been cited to show that
he was justified in doing so. It was admitted, however,
that the coaditions of the sale were correct ; and such
being the case, the only point for discussion aas re-
specting the investigation as to title ; but as it was
stated that there were other objections to be raised, it
was impossible for the Court to decide the question
without a reference to the Master. Supposing he was
right in this, the only question was as to whether•any
other case had been cited in the answer. Now the only
case made out was, as to the right of the purchaser to
declare his contract void, lie would not say what
would have been his opinion on the case ; in the par-
ticular case mentioned, it was there stated that the title
was not made out on the day that was agreed upon,
and therefore, the purchaser was at perfect liberty to
refuse to fulfil the contract. But here such was not the
case. The case must be referred to the Master, to in-
quire into a report upon the title.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 14.
MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS.

Lord DENMAN intimated that on Monday the Court
would give its judgment in most of the motions for new
trials with respect to which the decision of the Court
had been deferred.

The Court then proceeded with the Crown paper.
THE QUEEN V. THE RELIEVING OFFICERS OF THE PARISH

OF CROMWELL, HANTS.

This was an appeal by the officers of the above-men-
tioned parish against an order of two Justices of Surrey,
for removing a pauper, named Martha Croucher, and her
eight children, from the parish of Elstead to romwell,
that parish they considered being chargable with their
support. It appeared that she was married in Cromwell
parish in 1826, and that she and her husband lived
there until 1837, when they removed to Elstead,
in which parish her husband died. She was exa•
mined by two justices of the county, who made an
order for her removal, but the cfficers of Cromwell re-
fused to receive her, on the ground that she was not ex-
amined in accordance with the provisions of the poor-
law, which enacts that a copy or copies of the examina-
tion or examinations of a pauper should be furnished to
him or her - whereas they maintained that the Act was
not complied with, as she was examined twice—first, on
the 27th of February ; secondly, on the 6th of March,
1845, when the order was made, and that she was only
supplied with a copy of the la-t examination.
The case now came on for argument.
Mr. WALLINGER was heard at length against the
appeal. He stated that the first examination was in-
complete, that it bore no date, and that it was not
signed by the justices, and that what occurred on the
first examination was repeated and completed on the
second, and that therefore the words of the Act had
been fully complied with.
Mr. TAYLOR followed. He cited cases to show that
no violation of the Act had taken place; and held that
there was virtually but one examination. No doubt the
attorney for the respondents went to the residence of
the pauper, and took her statement, merely putting the
month " January " to it, leaving the day blank, think-
ing that the case would come before the justices in that
month, when the date would be added, but it appeared
the case did not come before them until the 27th of
February, when the examination was commenced, but
left incomplete until the subsequent examination.
Lord DENMAN intimated that the Court would not
then hear the other side, as they wished time to consider
the subject. By doing so, he anticipated the matter
would assume a more simple form, and a correct decision
be more easily arrived at.
THE PROBATE DUTY.—THE QUEEN V. THE COMMIS-
SIONERS OF STAMPS AND TAXES.
A mandamus had been issued by this Court, calling
upon the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes to show
cause why they should not return 651. to the executors of
Lord Wallace, to which they held they are entitled under
the following circumstances :—Lord Wallace died in
February, 1844. Two probates were subsequenly proved,
one in Canterbury for 45,0001., on which 6001. duty was
paid, and in York for 8,0001., on which 1401. was paid,
making altogether 7401. The real effects, however, of
Lord Wallace were afterwards found to be 43,3271.35. 6d.
in the province of Canterbury, and 7,5671. 18s. 2d. in
York, making an aggregate of 50,9471. Is. 8d ; the
debts which were paid amounted to 2,689/. 68.10 d., leaving
a asbalance67sl., of
which4B,2 was
51. 71645. less than
5.110, on which h
t e the
formerprobate
dutamount!y
i The Crown had filed a replication, setting forth that the.
Commissioners were empowered to levy the probate duty