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

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

THOMAS V. BLACKMAN.
The arguments in this case, which came before the
Court upon appeal from the decision of the Vice• Cha-
ncellor Knightßruce, were resumed and concluded to-day.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give judgment
to-morrow morning.

BONDS V. SLYMAN.
This appeal from the equity side of the Court of
Exchequer, during the time of Lord Abinger, occupied
the Court the remainder of the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY)
[(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES.

The further argumc nts in this part-heard case occu-
pied the Court the whole day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. IV. mnAm.)

CAMPBELL V. THE BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.-

JUDG2IEAT.

His HONOUR delivered judgment in this cause to-day.
He said, that with reference to some of the points at
issue he would not now express an opinion. If there
had been any objection against the instrument, upon the
construction of which the case chiefly turned, the parties
who now objected could have asserted their claim to
the shares in a legal way. It did not appear at the
time that there had been any protests against the in-
strument respecting the notes which had been treated as
a perfectly valid instrument. The plaintiffs clearly con-
sidered the instrument not binding; but under these
circumstances they should have made their claims not
later than the 15th of February, 1845, and not have
made the delay they did. Indeed, the arguments ad-
duced on behalf of the plaintiffs utterly
failed here. They had no excuse whatever
for that delay. With respect to the Act
of Parliament it was obscure in some points. There was
one point at all events which was quite clear, namely, as
to the object of the company in obtaining that Act. No
one could for a moment suppose that in applying for
an Act of Parliament, such as they had done,
that it was not the intention of the company
to be empowered to exchange the shares for the loan
notes. And here he must say that he could not believe
the plaintiffs in their statements with reference to these
loan notes. He had no difficulty whatever in this case
until he came to the resolution of the 9th of January,
1845. The Act empowered the company to dispose of
these shares in any way they desired. Here
the words of the resolution became difficult to be
reconciled, because it appeared to refer again to the Act
of Parliament. But the resolution was free foom all
ambiguity to the extent that there was a perfect allow-
ance to convert the loan notes into shares. Nor could it
be doubted for a moment that by the resoluticn there
was no other than an ordinary power given to the share-
holders. He would therefore dismiss the bill with costs.
DUNCOMBE, M.P., V. LEVY.—JUDGNENT.
His HONOUR, in delivering judgment in this cause said,
This was a case in which the question at issue was
—whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled to claim the
execution of a trust-deed. A bill was filled for that pur-
pose, and Mr. Levy, one of the creditors, whose debt
was satisfied had been made a party in the cause. The
other creditors, whose debts had not been challenged.
had been served with copies of the bill. He was re-
quested by the defendants to counsel whether or not the
other creditors should have been served with subpcenas.
The question depended upon the terms of the order.
Those parties served with copies of the bill
had a right to appear then, and have a suit
prosecuted against them if they thought fit to do
so. It was for their benefit that the order should be
made to apply to them. Another question raised was
with respect to Mr. Levy. On that part of the case he
had to observe, that it was extraordinary that having
two judgments against which he might have proceeded
he did not do so. It was shown that directions had
been given. He did not wish to decide against him, but
the question might be taken on an issue. On the other
question, also, he (Mr. Levy) might take the opinion of
a court of law.

COURT OF REVIEW.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
BRUMMAGE V. JONES.

The petitioner in this case was the defendant Jones,
who was a bankrnpt.
It appeared that the bankrupt had among other assets
three shares in a legacy of 4001., and as the payment of
the same was attended with some difficulty, the de-
fendant considered that his interest would be sacrificed
were it to be disposed of at present, and therefore
applied to the Court for an order to prevent such imme-
diate sale.

His HoNourt said he attached great credit to the ob-
jection here made. Here was a peculiar case. The
bankrupt had one share in the reversion of a legacy, and
bought two others. He then made two assignments of
the same, but a severance had now taken place between
the assignees, consequently the interests of the bankrupt
might suffer materially.
After some discussion between the Counsel,
His HONOUR ordered the matter should be referred
to the Commissioner before whom the bankrupt ap-
peared.