The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-20 00:00:00

LAW LITELLIGEN CE,
COURT OF CHANCERY, April 18.

LADBILOOXt V. 111311T11.
The Lnrd Chancellor was occupied the whole morning
with the further arguments in this part heard appeal.

ROLL'S COURT, April 17.
Lord Langdale sat to-day shortly after ten o'clock.
PRICE 77. WATKINS.
This was a petition arising out of a suit by a husband and
wife, the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Price, against the defend-
ants and others, who were trustees. It appeared that Mrs.
Price had lodged in the hands of the defendants a sum
9001., her property, which she had concealed from
husb .nd's knowledge. Mr. Price, however, discovered the
fact, and compelled his wifo to join him in a suit to compel
the defendants to give up the money, which they had refused
to do, being desirous of preserving it for the sole use of
the wife.

. ----
HIS LORDSHIP ordered that the money should be trans-
ferred to the credit of both the plaintiffs.

DAVIES v. DAVIES.

Mr. ROLT presented a petition from Mrs. Evans and Mr.
George. The husband of the female petitioner and Mr.
George were sol'citors, and the prayer of the petition was for
a taxation with the view of payment of a bill of costs, and
for a lien on the property of the plaintiff till such payment
Lad been made. It appeared that Messrs. Evans and George
were employed by the plaintiff in the recovery of his suit.
The proceedings were extremely intricate and tedious, but
the petitioners succeeded in obtaining the cause. The plain-
tiff, however, had no sooner recovered his suit, than he dis-
missed the petitioners, and refused to pay the Costs they de-
manded for the proseeution of the suit, which, of course, he
(the plaintiff) would receive. There were two objections on the
part of the plaintiff to the payment of the pet itieners demand
the first was, that there was net sufficient activity on the part o
f
the petitioners, and that an agreement had been entered into
by which Mr. Evans had undertaken to conduct the suit
without any payment whatever. It app-aced, however, that
the plaintiff did not object to the payment of Mr. George's
bill of costs. (The Learnel Counsel then read several affida-
vits in support of his case.)
His LORDSHIP said this was one of the most extraor-
dinary resistencee to the p .y inert of a just demand that he
had ever heard of.
Mr. Tug:sae, on the part of the respondent. con-
tended that the petitioner had so right to tail on
the Court for assistance. She bad a right, no doubt, to
retain any deeds or other documents which might have
come into her pus ieesion, until her claim had been discharged.
But she was nut warraeted in iustitu'ing the expensive pro-
ceedines she. had dune, by which the debt was raised con-
siderabiv. The plaintiff hed never received a farthing of the
costs which led to these proceedines. The petitioner also
possessed a bend for 3004 of the plaintiff's.
Ills LORDSHIP said, the case appeared to him to be simply
this Evans had been ernpl‘Ted by the restendent, in
in conjnection with Mr. Geurge, to prosecute certain
proceedings Mr. Evans died, anti Mr. George was retained
for some tene hr the Itintiff, and his bill was taxed, so that,
as far as rel. tea to him, the plaintiff was exonorated. The
case was different with reference to Mr. Evans. Considering
that the matter which led to the proceelings on the part of
the petitioner had at first reference only to a sum of 101.,
he ccu'd not agree that proceeding by non-action, which
might last as Meg as the siege of Troy, the best mode of pro-
ceeding. He wondered that those who concocted these
matters were not ashamed to come before that Court. This
was a cefe merely between client and client, and party anti
party.
Air. TURNER. having offered a few observations,
His LORDSHIP ordered that the suit for the recovery of the
cost oriel:lady claimed should be entered into, the petitioner
giving the papers necessary for the purpose of prosecuting
the Caine, and that the money thus recovered should be paid
by Mr. Dsviee to the petitioner in part payment of the debt.
The proceedings of teeth parties had been sentiently wrong
to induce him not to make an order respecting the costs for
either party.

CLARK v. TIPPING.
His LORDStIIP, in giving-judgment in this cause, which
has been a b lig time before the Court, said, that though a
man wa at iiherty to make any use of his own profits that he
ciloos*, he could not deduct 41-orn his employers an indefinite
9i.o.(.tity of gw)cts consigned to him. It could not be legal
for a consignee, without the privity of his principal, t{; make
deductions fur any incidental expenses. important duty
devolved on the factor, namely, that of giving up the whole
of the profits to his principal, for the purpose of enabling him
to have all his means in his possession, which would regulate
his judgment as to his speculations. With respect to the
point raised in the course of the cau=e by the defendants, as
to the peculiar constitution of this suit, he censitlered it was
of no importance. Under all the circurustalces, he would
order that a clause should be inserted in the decree, that such
should be without prejudice to the &Gen:illis.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, April 18.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
•HE MAYOR, ALDER3IIN, AND BURGESSES OF LOUTH V. THE
WARDENS AND ASSISTANTS OF THE FTMF GRAMMAR
SCHOOL OF LOUTH.—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR gave judgment to-day in this case, which
was argued before him in and after nilary term for no less
than eight day. We have already given the facts-of the
ease at great length, and it will, therefore, only be necessary
merely to state the object of the suit. The bill was filed by
.the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Louth. Lincolnshire,
against the Wardens and six assistants of the Free Grammar
School of that town, who firmed the old corporation before
the passing of the Municipal Bill, praying for the declaration
of the Court that they were entitled, for the benefit of the town
of Louth to.the several markets, and the tolls and profits
arising therefrom, held therein, namely, the ancient beast
market, held at the time of feir., before the charter of Ed.
ward the Sixth ; the Wednesday market, for oxen, sheep,
and swine, created by the Curter of Ed yard the Sixth; the
piece of ground called the Quarry; the market extended to
the sale of horses by the cli,r,er of James the First, with
the tolls enforced; and thu Friday market, established in
1802, for the sale of sheep, cattle, and pigs in spring and
autumn.

His Howoun, after going at considerable length through
the different charters, stated his opinion to be, that the tiling
of the bill was a mere experiment, that it had failed, and that
the parties that had made it must pay the costs. The bill
must therefore be dismissed with costs.
His Ilouour rose at half-past 11 o'clock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Malian.)
IN RE SMITH'S CHARITY.
The trustees appeared by petition, to pray a reference to
the Master, to approve of a scheme for the administration of
the charity, in reference to one class of the objects provided
for by the benevolent founder. Mr. Smith, an alderman of
the city of London, about the year 1605, founded, first by
deed, and then by his will, a charity, comprehending a large
number of parishes in the neighbourhood of London within
its benevolent provisions; he left also a sum of money tor
the relief and ra.lsom or slaves, taken by Turkish pirates;
and he left the sum of 1,0001. for the use and relief of the
poorest of his kindred, such, namely, as were so conditioned
as tp be unable to labour for their own support. The last
payment for the redemption of Turkish captives was made in
1760. with the approval of the British Government. The
money allotted for the relief of the testator's poor relatives was
laid out in the purchase of an estate extending in!o the parishes
of Ken,ington, Chelsea, arid St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and
called the Kensington estates, which was let in 1665 at a rental
of 1701. Since that time there had bees a large increase of
those dependent on this part of the charity, and this accord-
ingly brought the trustees into Court to have a new scheme
approved tor the administration of the funds. In 1830 the
lease of the Kensington estates expired, and the rental had
then become 0004; at which time the trustees found that
the poor relatives who were proper objects for relief amounted
to 100, and entered into a new arrangement, according to
winch they disposed of 3,0001. in classified annuities, leaving
1,0001: to be applied to occasional relief. In 1841 the nett
income was 3,6004, and there was a new increase in the
objects of the charity; the trustees, therefore, prayed a re-
ference to tae Master, to have a new scheme approved for the
administration of the charity.
An order was made, and the trustees were directed to serve
the poer relatives with a copy of the order and a notice of the
proposed scheme.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BEACH, April 18!
(Sittings in Banco at Weaminster
MILLICIL V. BROOKS.

Mr. Sergeant T.ttazoußD applied fur a rule for a new trial
in this case. It was tried at Reading, and a verdict for 201.
had for the plaintiff; upon the grounds of a breach of con-
tract. The facts appeared to be that the plaintiff took a berth
in a vessel at Sydney, which was advertised to sail in Decem-
ber, but did not sail until February following; and that on
the voyage there was a breach of contract in respect to the
quality of thesprovisions supplied.
The COURT considered that there had been a breach of
contract, and refused the rule.