The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 12.
The Lord Chancellor took appeal motions to-clay.
MORRIS V. STOW.r.S, TIORSMAN V. ABBEY, AND THOMAS

V. nLACKMAN.
These cases stood on tlle paper to-day for jud,gment,
but the Lord Chancellor, on taking his seat, stated that
as he had not had time to look into the papers, they
mast stand over for a day or two.
TOCLHIN V. C )lIPLAND.
This appeal motion, upon the application of counsel,
was ordered to stand over.
THE TROUTBECH CASE.
In this case, our readers will recollect, an application
was made, on the first day of term, for a commission to
inquire into the allegation of a petition of right presented
to the Crown by the representatives of the late W. Trout-
beck, of Madras, claiming a sum of upwards of 400,001101.
Upon that application being made, the Lord Chancellor
refused to interfere unless the Attorney-General was
served. That officer of the Crown had now been served,
and appeared, and this morning, after some short dis-
cussion, the case was ordered to stand over till Nonday
week, in order that the Attorney-General might consider
what course he would take.

NEWMAN V. RING.
This appeal motion was dismissed with costs.
BOOTH V. CRESSWELL.
The arguments in this appeal from theVice-Chancellor
of England occupied the Court the remainder of the
morning.

THE PRICKING FOR SHERIFFS.
The Lord Chancellor rose shortly after two o'clock,
to attend the pricking fur sheriffs in the Court of Ex-
chequer.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 12.

After disposing of the motions, the cause of
PERRY V. MEADOWCROFT,
which commenced yesterday, was resumed.
Mr. WALPOLE proceeded with his statement. It was
found that the marriage had been solemnized, and it was
also found that that marriage had been nullified. It was
further found that the said William Meadowcroft, the
younger, entered into a marriage with Harriet Davis,
and that she died on the 11th of March, 1830, when he
intermarried with Elizabeth Hammond, now the de-
fendant, Elizabeth Meadowcroft. It was further
found by the Master that there bad been no
issue whatever resulting from this last marriage.
To this report Mr. Meadowcroft, alias Gregory, objected,
which objections were overruled, and having obtained an
order for that purpose on the 20th of February, 1846,
he, on the 23d of the following month, filed certain ex-
ceptions to that report. These exceptions set forth that
the Master had received as evidence against the except-
ant a certain decree of the Consistory Court of the Bishop
of London, dated the 12th day of July, 1816, pro-
nounced in a suit entitled " Meadowcroft v. Gregory,"
and that the Master had found that there was no male
lineal descendant of William Meadowcroft, the younger.
In the report ofJuly,lB46, it was further set forth by the
exceptant that such was an erroneous finding, he standing
in said relation to William Meadowcreft the younger.
The Learned Counsel cited the opinion of Chief Justice
Grey as to judgments in the Ecclesiastical Court, and the
reversal of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce's decree by
Lord Lyndhurst in the case of " Barnes v. Jackson," to
show that the decrees of the Ecclesiastical Court were
not considered binding in civil courts when anything
like collusion or fraud, or in the words of the Court,
sententim pro non sententix per collusione. From the
etymology of the words, covenant and collusion (con
and venio, and con and ludo), it was evident their im-
port was much the same, which opinion was entertained
by Lord Coke, by Lord Tenterden in the case of the
Duchess of Kingston, &c. Now, from these authorities
he would define collusion as a secret agreement, or
understanding between two or more parties in an action
or suit, whereby the proceedings are so conducted that
the promoter or plaintiff is allowed to succeed to the
prejudice or detriment of an absent party. He would
now call his Lordship's attention to certaih facts in this
most extraordinary case. When the decree was made
there were several persons residing at Liverpool, who
repeatedly said that they had beard the father of
William Meadowcroft, the younger, frequently state
that he would not interfere with the suit that had been
instituted by his brother, the testator, to effect a divorce
between his son, William Meadowcroft, the younger,
and Mrs. Greg iry, the widow of an officer to
whom ho had been married. Mrs. Gregory war;
then under marital influence, and induced to
consent to the decree for the nullity of the mar-
riage being proceeded with, notwithstanding the injury
it might inflict on herself and her child. Mrs. Mary
Gregory made certain statements which he would take
the liberty to mention. They were dated July 1 1 th,
1844, and were to the effect that in the letters which
had passed she stated that her husband, Mr. Meadow-
croft, the younger, was in the office of the testator, and
that she was enceinte, which she represented to Messrs.
Nicholls and Bishop, her agents, and stated that if she
consented to the proceedings then pending Mr. Mea-
dowcroft, her husband, promised to re-marry her, and
that she believed that the nominal promoter of the suit,
the father of Mr. Meadowcroft, the younger,: was no
party to it whatever, but that it was originated, pro-
secuted, and the expense of it defrayed by the
testator. It was perfectly evident, therefore, that there
was no defence of this suit. This statement was con-
firmed by the evidence of John Webster, Wm. Jordan,
Joseph Pontington, Field and his wife, and Pott, the
proctor. The Learned Counsel then went through the
evidence in detail, from which it appeared that the father
of W. Meadowcroft, the younger, had repeated to the
first witness (Webster) the statements he had already
made with reference to his son, Mrs. Mary Gregory, and
his brother, the testator. The evidence of Wm. Jordan,
the nephew of Mary Gregory, who was his maternal
aunt, was to the effect that he had been living
in the house with his aunt and W. Meadowcroft,
the younger, while the suit to nullify the marriage
was pending; that they were living together as man and
wife, and that he had heard several conversations take
place between the parties respecting the suit, which
Meadowcroft asserted was instituted entirely b;
his uncle, and that he would marry her as soon as the
proceedings should terminate.
The remaining evidence was entirely corroborative,
and the Learned Counsel dwelt at length upon the evi-
dence of Mr. Pctt, the proctor, who stated in his affi-
davits. dated the 22d of December, 1844, that Mrs. Gre-
gory had made similar statements to him, and that he
believed from her manner that her story was correct.
The Learned Counsel having quoted the case of Sulli-
van v. Sullivan, and several other cases to show the view
entertained- by several eminent authorities as to what
constituted collusion and fraud, concluded this part of
the cause, which excites considerable interest from its
novel character, and the intricate legal points involved.
The Court rose at three o'clock.