The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-17 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Lord Langdale sat to-day at ten o'clock.
RAVEN V. TAYLOR. .

The cross-petition in this case, which was part heard, was
resumed to-day.
Messrs. Turner and Harding replies on the part of the
petitioners.
Lord LANGDALE said this case had occupied a consider.
able portion of time at various periods, and yet
he could not make any adjudication on the case.
He could only say what should be done with reference
to the costs. He did not know whether any suit
would be instituted in this cause, and he was extremely de-
sirous of not expressing any opinion on the cause, which
might become the subject of litigation. He certainly had
expressed his dissent from some of the arguments which had
been used. That opinion, however, would not be of any im-
portance in future proceedings. The case appeared to be
simply this :—There was a creditor, wbo administered to
an estate, which it was considered ' desirable to
sell, and a portion of the money to be given
to Mr. and Mrs. Ashwell for their lives, and the residue for
their children's use. A petition had been brought forward in
the cause, which, however, did not comprise all that was ne-
cessary, and another petition was presented by Mr. Ashwell,
complaining of gross misconduct with respect to the trustees.
It did, however, appear, from all, the circumstances set
forth, that Mr. Ashwell had cause to complain. Having re-
gard to the cross-petition, he could not give that relief which
was sought. Under all the circumstances, he could not do
I better than order that there should be no costs on either side.

VICE-CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRA3I.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. THE CORPORATION OF
CONGLETON.
The arguments on a motion for injunction in this case
were concluded to-day. Details were gone into only so far as
they affected the motion immediately before the Court, but
the power of appointing a master to the Free Grammar
School of Conglston, which has been exercised for at least
the last 400 years, seems to be brought into dispute at
present by the religious differences of the day. It
appeared in evidence that the master of the school
has hitherto been a member of the Church of England,
and in several instances in priest's orders, discharging
the duties of the sacred office at a small chapel close by
the school, for which the corporation acted as trustees.
Tee books of the corporation show that they have been in
the custom of paying the master of the school 161. yearly
since the year 1390. It was contended, therefore, on the part
of the Attorney. General, that the corporation were mere
trustees, and as such had no power to interfere with the
school, or with the character of the education hitherto
given.
When Mr. ROSRLLY had replied,
Mr. ANDERTON proposed, on behalf of the mayor and the
corporation of Congleton, that litigation should be stayed by
a decree, made by consent of both parties, declaring that
the liability of the corporation to pay 16/. annually to the
master, and their power of appointment to the vacancy,
should, both cease and determine henceforth.
The case was postponed for consideration.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, at Westminster Hall.)
WOOD V. LORD PORTARLINGTON.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL Said he applied for a rule to show
cause why an order should not be made to strike the name of
Mr. Macy off the roll of attorneys. It appeared that the
charge against Mr. Macy was that he had been guilty of
subornation of perjury. Mr. Macy had been an attorney for
the last fifteen years, practising in this Court, during which
time not the slightest imputation or suspicion had been cast
upon his character. This charge was a most serious one, and
was to the effect that Mr. Macy had induc Al another party to
swear to certain matter, of the truth of which he was not
aware. This charge had been distinctly denied by Mr. Macy,
upon his solemn oath ; and he (the Salicitor-General) trusted
he would he able to show the Court that the charge was
unfounded, and had been made to extort money from Mr.
Macy.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on the other side, said that as
the result of the application would be to send ie case before
the Master, he would suggest, for the convenience of the
Court, that that course should be now adopted.
The .Soucerort GENERAL said he bad no objection; and
that course was agreed to.
WOOLMAR V. TOBY.
Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE applied for a rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case should not be set aside, and a
new trial had. The grounds of the application were upon
the facts of the case as they appeared on the trial, which
have already been published in The Sun at length. The
facts were shortly these :—The defendant applied to the
Direct Exeter, Plymouth, and Devonport Railway directors
for forty shares, for which he was to pay within a reason-
able time; but defendant found that in the meantime the
names of the provisional committee and directors had been
altered, and other names substituted; he also alleged that
there was an abandonment of the scheme at the time of the
allotment; that the application for the payment of the de-
posit was not made within a reasonable time; and that there
were variances in the mode of setting out the number of
shares ; and that the Company were bound to go before
Parliament. There was also a series of resolutions to the effect
that the Company should be dissolved, and the scheme
abandoned, on the 30th of December.—Rule granted.
FOSTER V. BANK OF ENGLAND.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE applied for a rule to show cause why
the verdict in this case should not be set aside. This ca'e
was tried at Guildhall in the last term. The facts of the case
were these :—lt appeared that a person named William
Oxley, who had been 37 years a clerk in the Bank of Eng-
land, had been intimate with the husband of the plaintiff;
who was an illiterate old woman, and whose affairs
he undertook to manage after her husband's death.
That the plaintiff had given Oxley about 400/. to lodge
in the Bank, which had been entered to her credit, but had
been converted into stock. and sold out by him without her
authority. Oxley at the trial contended that he had the
plaintiff's authority for the transfer, but admitted that he
took the money, and did not pay it to her; he alleged that
she had given him the authority to transfer, upon his having
represented that he could procure her a larger amount of in-•
terest than what she was paid by the Bank of England.
After the Learned Sergeant had argued the case at great
length,
Lord DENNAN said it appeared to him that the transfer
had been a valid transfer.
The other Learned Judges were of the same opinon.
Rule refused.

BAIL COUItT..—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
Mr. Thomas Campbell Foster, the " Times Commis-
sioner," took the oaths on being called to the bar.
HARRIS V. KIMBERLEY.
Mr. Sergeant ALLAN moved for a rule to set aside a
non-suit obtained by default, the plaintiff having been
absent when the cause was called on.
This was a cause which was put down for trial by a
special jury at the last Gloucester Assizes, and there be-
ing 13 or 14 common jury trials to come on on the Tues-
day, the special causes were ordered for hearinc, on the
succeeding morning at nine o'clock. The Lord Chief
Baron, however, without notifying his intention of doing
so, sat at eight o'clock, and thus when the plaintiff and
his witnesses arrived in Court, they found that a nonsuit
had been entered in their absence.
His LORDSHIP granted a rule to show cause, reserving
the question of who should bear the expenses till a future
period.