The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-16 00:00:00

LAW 114 TELLIGEN CE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, April 15.
This being the first day of Easter Term, the Judges
breakfasted with the Lord Chancellor at his house,
George•street, and afterwards proceeded in procession to
Westminster Hall.
The Lord Chancellor did not take his seat in Court
until after one o'clock.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, April.ls,
The Vice-Chancellor of England did not take his seat
on the Bench until after one o'clock. Being the first
day of term, his Honour, with the other Judges. had
breakfasted with the Lord Chancellor.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Aprills.
(Sittings in Banco, at Westminster Hall, before Lord
DENMAN, Mr. Justice PATTESON, Mr. Justice WIL-
LIAMS, and Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN.)
Their Lordships entered the Court shortly after one
o'clock, and heard a few motions for rules for new trials,
which wore not of the least public interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court did not sit till half-past one o'clock, in
consequence of the Judges and the Queen's Counsel
having breakfasted with the Lord Chancellor at his pri-
vate residence, from which they afterwards went in pro-
cession to Westminster Hall.
HENNIKER V. JONES.
This case was tried at the late Monmouth assizes,
before Mr. Baror, Platt and a special jury, when a ver-
dict was returned for the defendant on the second issue.
Mr. WHITELY now moved for a rule nisi, calling on
the defendant to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside and entered for the plaintiff with damages 701.
It appeared that this action was one of assumpsit on a
contract, by which the defendant engaged to deliver to
the plaintiff, at Newport, from 150 to 200 sacks of first
flour from Baltimore, in Ireland, at 375. 3d. a sack.
Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that sufficient
grounds had not been shown why they should grant a
rule in the terms moved for—that the verdict should be
set aside—but would grant it for a nonsuit.
The remainder of the day was occupied with motions
of no public interest.

SECONDARIES COURT, April 15.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
SMITH V. WILSON AND OTHERS.
This was an inquiry to assess damage for trespass and
illegal distraint. The plaintiff is a wadding manufacturer
in Minto-street, Long-lane, Bermondsey. The defend-
ant, Wilson, was the landlord of the premises occupied
by the plaintiff.
Sergeant WeLierNs stated the case, whereby it ap-
peared that the plaintiff had laid out between eight and
nine hundred pounds on improvements of the premises,
but a dispute arising, Wilson put in a distress for 1251.
for rent of a portion of the premises, and all the property
was seized and sold for 91. by the condemning brokers,
who were not licensed auctioneers.
Smith, father of the plaintiff, was called, and
proved that he took the premises, on an agreement for a
lease, in November, 1840. and then laid out 7001. or
800/. on the premises, which he afterwards let to his son.
When the goods were taken away witnesses took an in-
ventory, and valued them at 701. Witness said he would
buy them at the condemned price, but the broker, Wix
(one of the defendants), said he should not say what it
was, and it was no use attending the sale, for there
would be brokers to run the price up.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMPHRIES—Had not paid
any rent to Wilson, but it was deposited with a Mr.
King, to be paid to Wilson when he executed a lease,
but the attorneys could not agree upon the covenants.
King was in the habit of discounting for witness, and
deducted the amount for the rent. King had advanced
700/. on a mortgage of the machinery. Witness had
given up the business and machinery to his son, but
there was no deed executed. Did not claim the pro-
perty as his own. Became bankrupt in 1844, and King
was dead. There had been five other distresses put in,
and an action had been brought and a verdict given
against King, who was also bankrupt before he died.
Other witnesses were called, who proved that the busi-
ness done at the time of the seizure was 4,0001. or 5,000/.
a year, and the net profit 1,000/.
Mr. HUMPHRIES addressed the jury for the defendants,
and said that there could be no question that the rent
was due, but in consequence of a technical point no de-
fence could be made—it would be seer! that the agree-
ment for the lease extended to one portion of the pro-
perty, and that connected with the other was the right
to use a flue which was called in law an "incorporeal
heriditament," which would not pass under the agree-
ment, but required a proper deed, duly. signed and
sealed. He considered, however, that the justice of the
case would be met by very small damages, and that the
plaintiff was not entitled to anything for the loss of
premises which he was holding without the payment of
rent.
The SECONDARY having summed up,
The jury asked for the inventory, and then gave a
verdict for 251., for the furniture taken, and One
Farthing damages.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, April 14.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE NEAL.
The bankrupt in this case came up for his certificate.
He had kept the Royal Oak Commercial Inn, Portsea,
and had also been a coach proprietor. His schedule
showed debts to the amount of 3,6171. lls. ; but there
were no assets for the creditors.
He was opposed by Mr. Phinn for the assignees ; and
also by a creditor, a cigar dealer. Mr. Bagley supported
the bankrupt.
The grounds of opposition were, that be had kept no
books ; that his expenditure was at least one-fifth more
than the prefits ; that he had assigned all his property
to his brother and sister, who had swept all away,
leaving the creditors without a shilling. It was also
stated that the bankrupt had kept a thorough-bred horse,
Mr. BAGLEY said that it was chiefly for the want of
renad- e v*l
learsylavish in the display of diamond rings and other
.
ability, and partly for the want of time, that the bank-
rupt had kept no books. His great excess of expendi-
ture over his income was ascribable to his coaching trade
being destroyed by the establishment of the South-
Western, See., Railway, while the assignments of his
brother and sister had been executed as far back as the
year 1842.
BiS Horoun said, that although innkeepers and coach
proprietors seldom kept books, he bad generally found
those most prosperous who did so. The great excess of
expenditure over income was less excusable; for, al-
though it was well known that railways had been injuri-
ous to such nersons as the bankrupt, yet there had been
full notice to enable persons going down hill, not only to
put the drag on, but absolutely to stop. The assign-
ments to the relatives, though of a somewhat remote
date, and equitable in the eyes of the bankrupt, had
nevertheless enabled him to get into debt with others.
Under all the circumstances, he thought the justice of
the case would be best met by adjourning- the certificate
for twelve months, but with protection to the person of
the bankrupt.