The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-11 00:00:00

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in the Old Hall, Lin :oln's
Inn, to-day, to hear appeals.

STILES V. GIIY.

The arguments in this part-heard appeal from the de-
cision of the Vice-Chancellor of England, which wore
commenced yesterday, were resumed this morning. The
bill was filed by one of the legatees of the late Richard
Tuckey, of Chippenham, for an account of the assets re-
ceived by Mr. Guy, an attorney, who was the acting
executor. By the will, which was dated in 1823, Mr.
Guy, Richard Tuckey, of Hayden, and Richard Tuckey,
the younger, were appointed executors. Guy acted, and
received sums amounting in the whole to more than
10,0001. Various attempts were made by the legatees to
procure a settlement up to 1829, when a bill was filed.
The negotiation went on until the end of that year,
when Guy became bankrupt, and a supplemental bill was
then filed, charging the other executors with default in
not compelling Guy to account at an earlier period for a
sum of 6,000/. remaining in his hands. The cause was
heard in the Exchequer, and a reference directed by the
judge of that court to the Master to inquire, among other
things, how far certain adult persons had consented to
the retention by Guy of the moneys received on account
of the testator's estate. The Master found that these
parties had consented to such retention, and exceptions
were taken to the report. Those exceptions were heard
before the Vice-Chancellor of England, and overruled,
and from that decision the present appeal was brought.
Mr. Stuart, Mr. J. Parker, and Mr. Heathfield were
heard yesterday for the appellant; and Mr. Bethell
(with whom was Mr. Rolt and Mr. Pitman) addressed
the Court this morning in support of the judgment below.
The case occupied the Court the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
His Lordship the Master of the Rolls was occupied
the whule morning with hearing petitions of no general
interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
SCARP V. SOULBY.—JUDGMENT.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, declaring a settlement made by the testator
in the cause upon a female with whom he had lived,
although a married man, void as against creditors, and
the funds, the subject of it, part of the testator's estate,
liable to the payment of his debts.
tOWETT V. BOND.—JUDGMENT.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which came before him a few days since upon a
p3tition for leave to except to the Master's report. The
Court acceded to the prayer of the petitioner.
SAUNDERS P. SCOTT.
The further arguments in this part-heard cause were
then proceeded with, and occupied his Honour the whole
morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His HONOUR heard causes t•-day, but nothing of any
public interest occurred during the morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor Wm,Am.)
Short causes and cause petitions were heard in this
court to day, but nothing of public interest took place.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

CROWTHER V. CROWTHER.

Mr. GRAY moved for a rule nisi, calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why a writ of prohibition should
not issue, directed to the Judge of the County Court of
Yorkshire, to stay the proceedings in the case. The
action was brought to recover a quarter's instalment of
an annuity; but it was contended that as the instrument
granting the annuity bore no consideration on the face
of it, the action could not be sustained in a court of law.
Two quarters, amounting to 52/., were in arrear, and for
the first quarter's instalment an action was commenced
in the Queen's Bench and carried on up to the trial, but
for the reason already stated, the plaintiff withdrew his
record, fearing that if he went before a jury he would be
nonsuited. Since then, another quarter had become
due, and the plaintiff, as an experiment, instituted pro-
ceedings for its recovery in the Yorkshire County Court,
and as that experiment had proved successful, it was
now proposed to issue a writ of prohibition to restrain
the plaintiff from proceeding to judgment on the County
Co❑rt decision until he had substantiated his claim in a
superior court.
Mr. Justice PATTESON did not think there wassuffi-
cient ground for granting the rule, and, therefore, he
refused the application.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
PKILLIPS V. CORK.

The COURT delivered judgment in this case. The de-
fendant was a ship-broker, and was requested to put a
" stop" upon a cargo:of :goods in the London Docks in
order to secure the amount which was due for freight.
It appeared that a portion of the goods was allowed to
be taken from the ship before payment was made, and
landed in St. Katharine's Docks, and the firm to whom
they belonged having failed, this action was brought
against the defendant and a verdict returned for the full
amount. The main question involved in the case was,
whether it was the duty of the defendant as a ship-
broker to follow the goods to the St. Katharine's Docks
and put a stop upon them. The defendant contended
that the order for securing the freight was not a general
one, and that his duty was confined to putting a stop
upon the cargo in the London Docks.
The COURT refused to grant a rule for a new trial,
and therefore held the defendant liable. i