The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-27 00:00:00

COAL MARKE'

--YESTERDAY.

Adair's Main ......... 161 6d Harraton Main ......• 18. Od
Bate's W. Hartley... 19s 6d Belmont 22s 3d
rtuddic's W. Hartley.. 20s 3d Braddyll's Hetton 22s 9d
Carr's Hartley
Chester Main ]Bs 00:sit Hetton
Dipton Tanfleld ...... ... 14s OdlHaswell 23s 3d
liedley's Hartley
Hasting's Hartley 2os 3d!Laxibten
Holy-well Main ... ..... 18s 9dlLumley
Nurtli Percy Hartley.. 19s 6d.Rusiell's Hetton
New 'Fantleld lss 6dlßichmond
Ord's Redheugh
I'ontop Windsor ..... 15s 6,llStewart's
South I'eareth
—adoc ..-

Wy lam
West IV vlain
Wall's End, &c lfieugh Hall
Acorn Close
Bell and Brown 2ls Gd Trimdon ... ... 21s 6d
Bewicke and Co 2ls 6d Adelaide Tees
Brown's Gas
Gosforth 2ls 60eymour Tees

Hotspur
Hilda
Killingworth 2ls Od i West Cornforth
Northumberland
Riddell's 2ls 3dperwentwaterHartley 19s 9d
WaAington
Eden Main. 22s 3dl

CORN AVERAGES.
GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN
For the Week ended Jan. 27, 1848, made up from the Returns of the
Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in Dal/land and Wales
per Imperial Quarter.
WPIRAT. I '
BARLEY. OATS. I WEL BEANS. I TBAS.
PRICR .. 163 e I d 30s 4d 1 2ls 30s Bd Hs 8d 45i 2d

ilia Duties on Foreign Grain are now stispendet.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The LORD CANCELLOR took his seat in his Court at
Westminster:at half-past eleven o'clock to-day, and
gave judgment in several cases.

STRIP LAND V. STRICKLAND.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, which came before his Lordship twelve
months since upon an appeal from the dE cision of the
Master of the Rolls dismissing the bill of the plaintiff.
The suit was instituted in Li ovember, 1839, by Henry
Eustatius Strickland, a son of the late Sir George
Strickland, against his brother, the present Sir George
Strickland, and other members of the family, and
asked that the will of his father, made in the year
1808, might be established, and that it might be declared,
that upon the death of Walter Strickland the plaintiff
became entitled' to all the estates, including Win-
tringham, East Heslerton, and Knapton, which, by
the will of the testator, were expressed to be devised
to George Charles and Walter Strickland respectively
for life ; and that the defendant, Sir Geo. Strickland,
who had held since the death of Walter, and still con-
tinued to hold, the said estates, might be decreed to
render to the plaintiff an account of the resits and pro-
fits of them, and give up to him all the title deeds.
The Master of the Rolls in his judgment, delivered
in August, 1842, said that the title of the plaintiff
dependipg upon the will of the testator was a purely
legal one, and, therefore, this Court could have no
jurisdiction in the matter until such title had first
undergone the ordeal of an investigation at law. The
question, therefore, was, whether the Court should
retain the bill until that issue had been tried. The
practice of the Court was not to retain a suit which
involved the mere legal right to property, unless the
assistance of the Court were equitably invoked for
the purpose of making out such title at law, such as
restraining the setting up of outstanding terms, or
compelling the parties to make certain admissions.
In this case, however, no suck assistance was
asked from the Court; and although,, the plaintiff
claimed an equitable interest in the property,
no such interest had been shown. The Master of the
Rolls, therefore, ordered the bill to be dismissed.
without costs, as far as concerned the defendant Sir
George Strickland, but with costs as to the other
defendants, and against this decree the parties appealed
to this branch of the Court. The Lord Chancellor
this morning, in giving judgment, went at consider-
able length into the facts of the case, and stated his
opinion unhesitatingly to be, that the Master of the
Rolls had come to a sound conclusion in dismissing
the plaintiff's bill. He must therefore affirm that
decree of the Master of the Rolls with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
PARKER V. MORRELL.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR ;11801;;;;;;;dgment in
this case, - which came before his Lord-
ship previous to the long vacation, upon
appeal from the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce. The bill was filed by the plaintiff to
cancel a bond, by which the plaintiff ?undertook to
be security for his brother, who at that time owed a
sum of 2,5001. to the defendants, who are bankers in
Oxford. The bond was dated in 1831. Subsequent
transactions took place, by which the plaintiff's
brother be3ame more deeply indebted, and it was
alleged by the defendants that the bond rendered the
plaintiff liable, as it was given for a continuing ba-
lance, and therefore a general guarantee. The Vice-
Chancellor directed issues to try the question, and on
a verdict being given in favour of the plaintiff made
a decree. The defendants appealed on the ground
that the issues were imperfectly framed, and that they
did not embrace the whole question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment, went
at some length into the facts of the case, and after
adverting to several points of practice involved in it,
directed an issue, to try whether the bond and war-
rant of attorney of the 13th April, 1834, were ob-
!awed fraudulently from the plaintiff, or by false