The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-13 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn Hall to-day. The Master
of the Rolls also sat with his Lordship, for the purpose of hearing the
petition in the matter of Whiting, which, it will be recollected, re-
lates to the performance of the duties of the clerks of the Master. We
refrain from entering further Into the case till the arguments are
concluded on both sides.

V ICE-CHANCERY.-(T HIS DAY.)
The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the whole morning
with unopposed petitions and short causes.

EXCIIEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

:sittings after Term at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CIIIEF BARON
and a Common Jury.)
BATSON V. RICHARD,

Mr. Watson, with Mr. Smythie, appeared for the plaintiff,:and Mr.
Jervis for the defendant. _

This was an action brought by plaintiff, the drawer of a bill of
exchange, against defendant, who was the acceptor, and refused to
honour it when it became due. The consideration given by plaintiff
for the acceptance was thirty tons of boiler plates, at 131. 10s. per ton.
The defence set up was, that the plates were of inferior quality.
and that they were not delivered at the proper time.

SECONDARIES.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
BROWN V. GOOCH.

This was an action to recover the sum of 51., for money lent. The
:,fendant pleaded that he was never indebted.

Mr. HUGHES stated the case. The plaintiff is a licensed victualler
in Philip-street, Horton, and in September last kept the Norfolk
Arms, Norfolk-street, Edgeware-road. The defendant is a surveyor,
&c., and had been in the habit of paying his men at defendant's
house, and occasionally borrowing money, which was always repaid
until the 6th of September last, when It el borrowed 5/. On being ap-
plied to for it sometime after, he at first said that he had repaid it to
plaintiff's wife ; and on a subsequent occasion that he had paid it to
kis daughter. The defendant's plea, however, did not support that
assertion, as he had not ventured to show payment. It therefore
was only necessary for the plaintiff to prove the loan to entitle him
to a verdict.

_
John Bowen was then called, and distinctly proved that the money
was advanced. _ _ _

The defendant's attorney said it would be wasting the time of the
Court to contend against this evidence. his instructions were that
the money had never been lent.
The SECONDARY said the jury could hear the evidence of the appli-
cation for the money, but no proof of payment could have been re-
ceived under the pleadings.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount. This was the only cause
on the list.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Commissioner HoLBoYD.)
IN RE CHAMBERS V. CHAMBERS.

This morning a special meeting was held for the proof of debts
under this estate of these bankrupts, who were bankers, in order
that the creditors who had not already proved might participate in
the dividend already declared on the joint e tate.
The debts proved amounted to 1,225, principally small balances of
banking account.
An application was made to the Learned Commissioner for a pri-
vate meeting to go through a variety of deeds and documents con-
nected with the assignment of debts to the amount of nearly 10,0001.,
as it appeared that, by some accident, a debt of 1,4001. had been
omitted in some of the assignments, and a dispute had arisen as to
who were the parties entitled to the dividend on it.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that if the documents, or abstracts
of them, were furnished to him, he would endeavour to come to a
decision without putting the parties to the expense and inconveni-
ence of a meeting; as the debt had been admitted to proof, it would
not interfere with the dividend.
The meeting then terminated.