The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-05 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BROWN V. BULLP IT.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Vice-Chancellor of England took unopposed Cause
petitions, short causes, cause petitions, and motions to-day:
but no case of any interest came before the Court during
the whole morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.---(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
WESLY V. KRAAIIIEDI.
In this case the defendant had taken out a patent for %
new mode of stereotyping, and employed the plaintiff to
negotiate the sale of the invention to certain partiea, for
which he was to have a commission of 1001. Plaintiff
alleged that he had negotiated the sale, which defendant
denied, and plaintiff took an action for the recovery of his
commission, and the jury found a verdict for the full amount.
An application was made in the following term for a rule to
set aside that verdict, and the rule was granted, and the'
present application was made, on the part of defendant, to
have that rule discharged, upon the ground that the demand
of the plaintiff could not have been for 1004 as the commis-
sion, if the negotiation had been effected, would have!•
amounted to a much larger sum. Counsel then went into
,2:,
long statement of the facts, and the terms upon whic.bgd.
sale was to have been effected, but which it was alleged
not been done.

The COURT gave judgment in favour of the defendant-

BAIL 'COURT.-(THIS DAY.) 0
There was no case in this Court to-day of the least pudic
interest.

SECON RIES%-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
TIIE QUEEN V. StALIN. •
This was a writ of extent, and the jury were called upert
to inquire of what property the defendant was possessed ill
the bailiwick of the Sheriff's of the city of London. The
defendant is the widow of an officer of the East India Com-
pany, and it was now attempted to be proved that she was
r entitled to a pension of 2001. 3d. from a fund called "the
Royal Bengal Military Fund," founded by Lord Clive, and of
which the Board of Calcutta are trustees, and the Hon. the
! East India Company are the agents in London for the par
merit. It was now shown by Mr. Lowe, clerk to Major
Duff, the agent to the fund,-. that the defendant 105
entitled to the pension. It was customary for the
amount of the annuities to be transmitted to the East
India Company, by whom it was paid to the parties entitled or •
having a certificate from Major Duff, but the parties could
ty power of attorney delegate others to receive it. It "11:
next proved that the defendant resided at Calais, and that:
she had been outhiwed, or technically (being a widow)
waived, and that she had given a power of attorney to Messr:.
Richards, Little, and Co., East India agents, of )3ishopgat°
street.
Mr. Little was called and proved that his firm had a power l
of attorney to receive the amount—it was a fund from whic
grants were made in India and the money was sent over to
England, but if the party resided in India they could receive .
it, there in person or by agent. They
nuity up to January, but the last quarter had had a stop
put, upon it. had received the all"
The SECONDARY said that the first important point Was
to see whether this was a boon, as had been insinuated ;
next, whether the East India Company were legally liable •
to pay the money in the City of London.
Mr. Little said he could not decide whether it came to
the hands of the East India Company as a matter of conve-
nience ; but there was no doubt they had it, as they com-
pelled their officers to subscribe to the fund.
The SECONDARY said, that if a person could receive the
money in India, they could appoint an agent in England to
take it. It must be shown to the jury, at all events, that
the money was actually in the hands of the company before
they could give a verdict, and suggested that the case
should stand over till Wednesday next, to give an opportu- •
nity for the Secretary to attend without inconvenience, as
the writ had to run till the 12th June.—This was granted.

13 OW-STREET.—(THIS DAY)
Charles Simpson was charged with defrauding James
w e
Leonard of Is. The complainant had met the prisoner (till
then unknown to him) in Leather lane, and had accidently
fallen into conversation with him. In the course of the con-
versation the prisoner offered to sell him two ticket?, one of a
'ne
coat pawned for ss. and another of awaistcoat for 35., which he
the p
ticketsa
nb r pawnbroker's,
werer s, in
ve lir
mroaadde
out there, but had been stolen from the counter
sbtoruege
th, bought
tf.or Ls.
Giles's,
hOenfogu going
that these
when blank,
and had been since filled in.
Mr. Bowstead, the cleik, here observed that Leather-lane
was out of the district.
Policeman F 11, who had taken the
said that he had first brought him to c prisoner in charge,
inspector there said that as the pawnbr erkenwell, but the
ok
trict the case must come to this court. er lived in this dis
Mr.JARDINE said that as the pr' .
stealing the tickets, hut with money was not charged with
must be taken to, the defrauding the complainant, he
district mitted.where the fraud was coin-
The case was accordi
court. ngly taken to the Clerkenwell Police.
(The prisoner denied that h
de-
frauded the 1 •—a was the same who comp complainant.)
person
L.' I

_AND RECLAIIS -------------..-------."'"'."..."-nIED (IRELAND).—It appears from $
finished, e 4,756.
return on Saturday,•
Com-
mons,
In the copurnest
gal,l that.s.ncthere have been reclaimed in the county of Dona'
I 1836, in the parishes where the revision survey is
acres at are, however,. . n
acres of land. There 42,733
ye notfulin reercrlya: m
sinceed andthel9sBu,rv49ely unofd ei rt ci
in
1 ItrBv4t4o3:
for publication ; and there are altogether 351
there have been reclaimed 8.373 acres in the parishes pre-
paredat present under cultivation, and 362,413 still unreclaimed.
CAUTION TO PanENTs.--Yesterday evening an in-
quest was held at Mr. Morgan's, the Gloucester Army
Rochester-row, on the body of Hannah Clack, a very fine
child, four years and a half old, the daughter of a respectable
tradesman in the neighbourhood. The child had been IFft
on Tuesday afternoon for a moment in the next room to its
mother, who was suddenly alarmed by its screams. The child
having stated that she had put something in her mouth,
,876 acres
some rhubarb and magnesia was administered, and the child
appeared to recover, and played about during the evening,
when it suddenly became speechless and convulsed. An
emetic was administered by a medical man in the neighbour-
hood, and the child was subsequently conveyed to a surgeon,
who made an opening in the child's throat. The operationa n
was skilful and perfect, but the child, who was exhausted a_
senseless, died. On a post- mortem examination a piece of
walnut-shell was found wedged in the windpipe, whicn was
__.
the cause of death. Verdict, "Died from convulsion and c•Ais
baustion, caused by a piece cif Trauut-shell illTiOg be/9121
Wedgtil IA 01 iriioPiPe

CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat at Westminster to-day, and after
citspoging of the unopposed lunatic petitions on the paper,
proceeded to ilea?' the further arguments in the part-heard
case of

Mtn-WO:TX v. oatTGAM
This am same before his Lordship on Wednesday lasts
upon an appeal from the decree of the Vice-Chancellor Ws-
gram ; and although the facts are not of a nature mash into'
resting to the public, the question raised in the case is Ole 9g
considerable importance to the legal profession and the public
at That question is, whether ail equitable mortgagee
of land is entitled in equity to enforce his charge in priority
to a creditor of the mortgagor, who had, without notice of
the equitable mortgage, recovered judgment against the
mortgagor, obtained possession of the lands by writ. of
elegit and attednments of tenants, such proceedings being
subsequent to the equitable mortgage. The Vice"
Chancellor Wigram decided that the equitable mortgage!'
bad the right to enforce his charge in priority, and from that
decision the present appeal was brought. The plaintiffs are
eminent bankers at Northampton; and in 1839, Mr. George
Cooke, a solicitor of that place, was largei,v indebted to them
on his banking accounts. In April of that iear he obtained
a further advance of upwards of 3,0001., *nil gave his PIT-
_
illusory note for payment of that amount with :interest.
also deposited with the petitioners the title-clods of two
d lse
closes otland situated on the manor of Kingsthorpe, cest
the title-deeds of certain houses and lands in the parish e•
Sepulchre, in Northampton, accompanied with a memorandOrn,
in which he engaged, ifrequired, to execute any legal mortger
or other security of the premises and land that the plow.
tiffs might hereafter require. In the month of Novo:004'
1840, two actions of assumpsit were commenced again'.
Cooke, one by a Mr. Mayer, and the other by one of the
present defendants, a person named Pell. No defence was
m ide to those actions, judgment was signed in each of thV7e,
and subsequently writs of elegit were sued out. Inquiel;
tient were had of the goods, chattels, and lands of Cooke, 111?"
on the 30th of December, 1840, Mayer obtained legal sezul
of the lands In Kingethorpe, and Pell of the lands and houses
in the parish of St. Sepulchre and the tenants attorned to
them. In February, 1841, fiats of bankruptcy were issued
against Cooke sv
and Mayer, and the defendant GaugainasaP"
pointed assignee of the latter. In March of the same Yeltr,..,
the present Bill was filed, charging that the hereditamee.'9
premises, and securities held by the plaintiff were inadequate
to satisfy the amount due to them by virtue of their equit-
able lien, and praying an account of what was due to theta
in respect thereof ; and also that they might be declared to
have an equitable mortgage on the her iditaments and pre;
mises, and entitled to priority over the elegit and judgments
of Mayer and Pell and that if the proceeds of the sale 0.1
their securities should prove insufficient, that they
admitted to prove for the deficiency against the estate
.:a
Cooke, under the fiat of bankruptcy issued against him. In
the answer of the defendant Pell, he denied that t.
e
had notice of the plaintiff's equitable lien at
time the legal sezin of the premises was delivered to Mel
under the elegit, and he insisted that as a purchaser for valtv,
able consideration without notice, he was entitled to the full
benefit at law of that writ. might 3

(The arguments had concluded when our Evening
Edition went to press.)

Mr. TURNER said he appeared on the part of Mrs. Celia
Brown, the wift of the plaintiff. The object of his client
was to obtain the benefit of a leass for 21 years of a house
which had been granted to her husband by the defendant,
who had subsequently served and carried into execution nu
ejectment. The answer alleged that there had been a neg-
lect on the part of the plaintiff to fulfil certain terms
,in the
covenant of the lease.
Mr. Hamar, for the defendant, said that the ejectment had
not been served until the ;,remises in question were
in a state of utter ruin. The ejectment bad not been served
fm several months after the judgment had been obtained•
Besides, the plaintiff had not paid the insurance money
d
on the houses, and had in other ways violated
the terms of the covenant between him and the
defendant. The case of the unfortunate plaintiff had
been taken up by several respectable persons, at various
periods, between whom and the solicitor of. the defendant 0'
gotiat ions passed, which terminated in their relinquishing utbe.t,.,."!
cause they had undertaken flora a conviction t"
defendant had not, under the circumstances in the particam-
. -
of the ejectment, exceeded his duty. - •
Mr. Brown, the plaintiff, made a lon statement, fr°""
which it appeared that the money by which the lease had heel
purchased, was the property of his wife, anti that there bad'
been some money transactions between him mid the defend
ant, by whom he stated he had sustained severe injuries.
. Lord Lal4onarz was of opinion that the case of the plate,
tiff had been made out, and therefore dismissed the caul.
without, however, any prejudice to the filing of another hi°
THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL. V. ROOSE.
Mr. Twtss (who appeared on the part. °r;.,, the Crown) """'
that this was as information filed by the Attorney
General against the defendant Lady Jane Elizabeth noose-
The defendant was the widow of Sir David Charles 11°°s?,
who was the agent resident in Ireland of the Norwich Ifofai
Insurance Company, and in that capacity, as the persetahe
representative of the company, had become indebted to
Crown for certain dutia not included in the returns. ,ed
• Mr. KINDERSLEY, on the part of the defendant, COntenaie
that the Norwich Union Insurance Company should be n3°?
parties in the defence, with the view that his Client might
have access to the papers of her husband, which were. in the
hands of the same company.
Mr. CALVERT followed on the same side,
and contendsd
that as there were no returns furnished to show the asscritia
Sir D. C. loose, the Crown was not in a position to °as
the present information. tilts aq Lord LANGDALE said he would reserve his decision,.
case required some consideration.
oi