The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-09 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

LOMAS V. WRIGHT.
In this case the question arose upon a settlement of cer-
tain leasehold and copyhold premises, made by the testator
in the cause in favour of his natural children. At the
time of the execution of that deed, he had considered that
he possessed a complete disposing power over the property
in question, and, among other things, he covenanted for
quiet enjoyment. It turned out, however, that this was
altogether inconsistent with the provisions of his marriage
settlement, under which be acquired all his interest. But
in order to induce his son and heir to relinquish his right
to the settled property, and confirm the disposition of it
which he had made in favour of the natural children, he
gave to him a legacy of 5,0001. ; but in case he
would not confirm the settlement, then that legacy
was to go in trust for the plaintiffs, in lieu of
the provisions of the original settlement. The heir,
on attaining the age of twenty-one, having refused to
ratify the deed, the bill was filed for the purpose of having
it declared that the heir had forfeited the legacy, and that
the plaintiffs had become entitled to it. Two points in
reference to this claim arose for the determination of the
Court. First, whether they should be considered as
standing in the character of legatees ; and if that was not
sustained, whether, in respect of the breach of covenant
which had been contained in the settlement for
quiet enjoyment, they were not entitled to stand
in the place of creditors. It was contended that• the
plaintiffs, the natural children, could not claim as legatees,
bee nese, in fact, the testator had directed the legacy of
5,000/. to be raised out of accumulations which had never
accrued ; and, on the other hand, their claim as creditors
must fail, because the deed was voluntary, asd without
consideration ; and, therefore, they were not entitled to
marshal the testator's assets in that respect.
The arguments on these points occupied the greater part
of the morning, and had not received the adjudication of
the Court when our reporter left.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.

PARKER U. GOSEACE.
Sir EDWARD Susi])Eli applied this morning, cx parte
for an injunction to restrain the defendant from selling or
disposing of any salt or brine manufactured at his works
to any person except the plaintiff, other than that which
was required for his own chymical works. From the
statements of the Learned Counsel, it appeared that in
IS3O, the defendant entered into an a4reement with the
plaintiff to sell him the whole of the salt manufactured
at his works for 14, years, except such salt as he might
require for his chyinical works. The defendant, in pur•
suance of the agreement, went on for a considerable time
furnishing salt to the plaintiff, but in February last, he
et ited that his works would furnish no more salt. Within
the last few days, however, the plaintiff had discovered
that the defendant's works were in full action, that he had
been selling to other parties large quantities of salt, and,
according to the affidavit of a gentleman named Cuthbert,
he had been manufacturing several hundred tons a-week,
and had threatened to let his works to other persons,
His lloNoun, immediately granted the injunction.
IN THE MATTER OT THE SURREY MISSIONARY SOCIETY.
The petition in this case related to a charity founded
by a lady, named Mary Baker, who, by her will, gave a
sum of 5001. to trustees, for the purpose of having the
dividends of that sum paid for the benefit of the Original
Missionary Society. The funds in question had bee❑
paid to the society, which the petitioners represented, for
the last 27 years ; the trustees who had so applied the
proceeds of the charity were dead, and the new trustees
were only anxious to have the declaration of the Court
that the petitioners were the persons entitled to receive the
charity funds.
The VICE CHANCELLOR wished to read the papers,
after which he would decide the question for the parties.

HOLIDAYS AND SITTINGS.
Sir EDWARD SUDDEN, for the convenience of the bar
wished to know when his Honour would sit again at the
Privy Council.
The VICE CHANCELLOR said he believed there would
he no more sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council before the holidays, for the most plain and obvious
reason, that all the cases ready for hearing had bee❑ dis-
posed of. The next days of sitting would be the Ist, 2d,
3d, 4th, and 6th of January.
Sir EDWARD SUDDEN thought this arrangement would
infringe considerably on the holidays necessary for the
bar. He wished to know if the Court could inform him
when the first seal day was appointed for.
The Vicz CHANcELLos. observed that that had not
been fixed.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN thought the bar was entitled to
have to the first day of term. An Act had been passed,
making it imperative that common lawyers should have
holidays, while it curtailed those of the bar who prac-
tised in courts of equity.
Mr. KNIGHT believed it was the general wish of his
Honour's bar, that the Court should not meet, after the
Christmas holidays, till the 11tk of January.
' His HONOUR said be would consult the interests of the
b ir, in any arrangement faat might Le made with respect
to the seals.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said it was quite necessary, for
the interests of their clients, that the bar should have
some little recreation. The learned Counsel wished to
know on what day the Court would rise for the holidays.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed that that was per-
fectly settled. If Christmas day happened on a Tuesday,
it was the habit of the Court to rise on the Saturday
previous, not sitting on the Monday ; but if it happened
on any other day, the Court broke up the day preceding.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY,

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY

(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a Middlesex Com-
mon Jury.)
MAIZE V. GREEN.
Mr. PLATT appeared in this case for the plaintiff, and
said the ac,ion was brought by him to recover compensa-
tion for being turned out of his house by the defendant,
who was his landlord. The plaintiff was a printer, who
resided in Brighton-street, in a house next door to the
Duke of Wellington, the house kept by the defendant.
There had been an agreement for a twelvemonth certain,
which expired in February last. On the 2d of February,
the plaintiff paid his rent up to the 16th of that month,
and left the premises, which he carefully locked up, as he
had left in them eight stoves, and some shop fixtures.
When he went soon after to remove his property, he found
the front door keyhole plugged up, and on knocking, a man
looked out and said he was put in possession by-Mr. Green,
and there he would remain. Two or three witnesses
proved the case as stated by plaintiff's Counsel.
Mr. EARLE addressed the Jury for the defendant. There
had been nothing proved as against his client in regard to
the fixtures, and it would be in his power to show,
evidence, that the house, while in the possession of the
plaintiff, was used for very improper purposes, in fact, as
a common brothel ; also, that the defendant did not take
possession of the premises till he was told by his neighbours
that the area door was often open, when he, with one
of them, went in, and found no one there. Thinking
he was perfectly justified in getting possession, he
took it, in order to save his house from being used in such
a manner again. He would show, also, that the plaintiff
had left the premises upon an agreement to that effect made
on the 2d of February, when he only paid a half quarter's
rent, getting a receipt for a full one.
The Learned Gentleman failed in substantiating the
statement he had made, and his Lordship said, there being
no defence, the only question for the Jury was the amount
of damages.
Mr. PLATT then very shortly addressed the Jury upon
that question, and they almost immediately returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, with 5/. datnages.

(Sittings at Westminster, before the LORD CHIEF JETS..
TICE and a Special Jury.)
BURRELL, PART., V. NICHOLSON.
This was an action of trespass, brought by Sir C.
Burrell, Bart., who resided on Richmond-terrace, White-
hall, against one of the officers of the parish of St.
Margaret, Westminster, and the question in dispute was
whether the mansions on Richmond-terrace, and other
Places similarly situated, were liable to be rated to the
support of the poor.
Some discussion took place as to whether the plaintiff
or defendant should commence, land it was at length
decided by his Lordship that the defendant was bound
first to prove his justification, in order to show that the
plaintiff was liable to be assessed to the parish rates.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then stated the case for the
defendant. The plaintiff was a person of great respecta-
bility and wealth, and the present action was to set at
rest the question whether the elegant mansions on Rich-
mond Terrace should contribute to those burdens which
other persons living in the parish were bound to pay, and
upon the verdict in this case would depend the liability of
those mansions situate in Privy Gardens. The houses on
Richmond Terrace were but lately erected, having only
been commenced in 1824. All the inhabitants of those
and various other buildings about the same neighbourhood
denied their liability to be rated to the poor, and it
devolved on him to show that they were, and to show that
the sites of those buildings were parts of the parish. That