The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-21 00:00:00

tition being ti.,lTFen'ecl by the committee of the
estate for the purpose of justifying him in
lq.ying the bill, it, was stated by the counsel on
benall of the petitioner, tiiicc. Mr. Copped: had
agreed to accept 450/. from the estate of Mr. Dyce
Sombre, in discharge of his bill, as the defence of
the seats for Sudbury was a joint cne. Upon that
petition coming before the Lord Chancellor, his Lord-
ship, after hearing Mr. Coppoeles offer, suggested
that the proper course to pursue would be for that
gentleman to present a petition ; and that suggestion
having been acceded to by all parties, the present
petition was presented.
Mr. Palmer appeared for the petitioner ; Mr. Cop-
pock and Mr. Lloyd, for the committee of the estate,
consented to the prayer or the petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR granted the prayer of the
petition, observing that although he considered the
arrangement an unsatisfactory one, he thought it
would be useless to refer the matter back again to the
Master, as doubtless he would make the same report.
The Court then proceeded with the other lunatic
petitions on the paper.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
McGREGOR v. THE DERBYSHIRE, STAFFORDSMIRE, AND
WORCESTERSHIRE JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was a demurrer to a bill filed by the plain-
tiff, a solicitor, who projected the railway, against
the defendants, who were directors of the proposed
company, for costs. It appeared that the plaintiff
had entered into an agreement on his appointment
as solicitor to the company not to demand any costs
Until the sale of the shares, which had not taken
place, and upon this ground the defendants demurred
to the equity of the claim.
His HONOUR delivered judgment to-day, and over-
ruled the demurrer with costs.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
THE CONFIRMATION OF THE REV. DR.
• HAMPDEN.
THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY;
On the Learned Judges taking their seats this
morning,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose - and said—My
Lords, before the Court proceeds to business I have
to apply to your Lordships to fix the hearing of the
arguments in the case of the Queen against the
Archbishop of Canterbury for Monday.
Lord DENMAN—WiII you bring it on on that
day
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I shall- feel happy to
do so if it is understood to be peremptorily fixed for
Monday. Perhaps the Court will fix Monday for
the hearing of the arguments.
Lord DENMAN—Has any one on the other side any
observation to make with respect to your application ?
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL—I gave my Learned
Friend Sir Fitzroy Kelly notice that I intended to
make the application I have.
Lord. DENMAN (smiling)—lt seems to me that the
matter is entirely in your own hands, as you, by vir-
tue of your office, have the right of moving first.
Do you give notice that you will proceed with the
case on Monday.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I do, my Lord.
The matter then dropped; the arguments will,
therefore, be heard on Monday at the sitting of the
Court.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

WALTER V. WEIIIitER.

Mr. WILLS moved for an attachment against a
witness who refused to be sworn in an arbitration
case. The witness was not a Quaker nor a Moravian,
but stated that he was a Wesleyan Methodist, and had
strong objections to the taking of an oath. The other
side, therefore, refused to take his evidence; and as it
was of importance, it had been determined to move
the Court for an attachment against him, on the
ground that he was guilty of a contempt of court in
refusing to be sworn in a case which had been re-
ferred to arbitration under a judge's order.

Mr. Justice ERLE said it was the first time the
point had been raised, and he would grant a rule nisi.

COMMON PLEAS.-(T HIS DAY.)
PILDROW V. PILBROW'S ATMOSPHERIC PROPULSION

COMPANY.

This action is brought by Mr. Pilbrow, the in-
ventor of a system of atmospheric propulsion, against
the company which bears his name, to recover a
sum of 15,0001., which he alleged was due to him
under a deed of agreement, by which he conveyed to
the company his sole right in the patent, and the
power of granting licenses.
The case now came before the Court on demurrer.
The judgment of the Court was in favour of the
petition.