The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-22 00:00:00

LATEST FROn POLAND.

In the organ of the Polish Emigration, published in Paris,
under the title of the " 3d of May," on Saturday last, we
'full up' burning of Tarnow and
the strength of received
. "At this moment
ttiinied
ntehwes fholaslowirnegachpedarangs,rapenh
thethe evacuation of Cracow by the Aus-
trians, and the occupation of the city by the Russians. The
c,egaay
.of
correspondence,lloch
details of this correspondence are not clearly known to us.
We cannot vouch for their truth. We give them as we
have learned on authority."
The Gazette de Cologne gives a letter, dated Cracow, April
8, which states that the reflection of flames was seen in the
distance, and that the sound of cannonading was heard, and
that SZELAS, the chief of the peasaatj, had threatened th.burn
Tarnow, should any attempt be made to arrest him.

ROLLS' COLRT.--(THIS DAY.)
HULDIE r. CHITTY;
The arguments in this case, which was opened yesterday,
were heard. The cause arose out of the construction of a
deed of separation which had been entered into between
gentleman and his wife, who subsequently cohabited; and
the question was as to the rights of the children who were
born since the re union of the parties. The ambiguity in the
deed arose from the supposed application of the words "such
children born of my wife," &c., which, it was contended, in-
cluded the children that might be subsequently born, as well
as those in existence at the time of the execution of the deed
of separation.
Lord LANGDALE, • in giving judgment, said it was
expressly stated at the very beginning of• the deed that the
separation between the parties should continue for their joint
lives, and Mr. Chitty, the father of the applicant, Mr. T.
Ch tty, entered into the covenant. By that covenant there
was an express stipulation that Mr. Chitty was not to visit
Mrs. C., nor in any way intrude upon her privacy. Thus
there was clear evidence that the intention of the parties was
to live separate and apart. from the period at which the deed
was executed, during the rest of their lives. If, however,
they wished to perform again conjugal duties, and to renew
in all particulars their former intimacy, there was nothing to
prevent their doing so; but there was nothing in
the agreement that contemplated such an event. By
ihat deed two distinct objects were covenanted, the
first to provide during the life of Mr. Chitty for the
support of his wife and for the maintenance and support of
his children who might be at that time living, a sum of 5001.
annually, or such of them as should from tune to time be
living. It was, therefore, clear that the deed referred to the
children already living who should be living at subsequent
periods. The next object was to make a provision for such
children as should be hereafter mentioned. The trustees
were to pay only so much of the sum as they should think
necessary for the support and maintenance of the wife and
children. If there was any saving it should be applied to
any future expense that might arise, or should it not be all
required it should accumulate. In this way a provision
was made for the first object, namely, the maintenance of
the wife and the maintensnce and support of the children.
But Mr. Chitty only agreed for the payment of this during
his life However, he effected a policy of insurance for
15,0001., which, together with the saving already referred to,
was to be applied also for the same purposes as the money
already disposed of by him. From all this, it appeared as
clear and as plainly set forth in the deed as could he, and
therefore he did not think that any doubt could arise on it.
The question was as to the provision to be made on the death
of the survivor of the two contracting parties. By the death
of the survivor. the insurance money was to be held in trust
for all such children of Mrs. Chitty which should obtain
twenty-one years of age, and to be equally divided between
them Now, if they considered the object of that deed, who
were to be provided fur by it—the deed being that they (Mr.
and Mrs.C. ) had agreed to separate for the rest of their lives—it
was perfectly clear the only objects intended to be provided
for were the wife cud children living at the time of the deed
of separation being executed. There was certainly nothing
to show that Mr. Thomas Chitty was not as much an object
or aneetion with his father at the time of his death as his
other children. His case was certainly one of hardship, and
the Court would do all in its power in his behalf; but they
could not act in opposition to the plain meaning of the deed.
Mr. and Mrs. Chitty had carried their intention of living
apart into execution for twelve years, but in conformity with
their moral and religious duties, they had agreed to live to-
gether again, and did so accordingly for no less than 27
year-. The consequence of the connexion which resulted was.
the birth of Mr. Thomas Chitty. He wished he could so con-
sider the deed as to give him (Mr. Thomas Chitty) the right
of provision for which he now sought, but he could not do so.
There could be no doubt that the meaningOf the deed was as
he (Lord Langdale) had stated, and did not admit of any
construction cf an intention to provide for children who might
be born after the reconciliation. The deed was perfectly
legal, and he felt bound to declare
inthatt thitetimereferredof h
to the
children,marriage. and to these alone, living

COURT OF REVIE .-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE.)
LAWRENCE IN RE BOWItING.
remaining part of the bankrupt
The assignees in the bankruptcy appeared by petition,
estate,p ay ys
ip the Middlesex Water Works,
praying
placed at their disposal. This was opposed on the part of a
gentleman calling himself the. mortgagee of these shares,
consisting
ge
otfheshoanrel
who said they had been deposited with him as security for
a debt owed by the bankrupt. Mr. Swanston argued for the
assignees, that the point raised in the present case was de-
cided in the Lancaster Canal case, when it was decided by
Lord Lyndhurst, and affirmed by Lord Brougham, that pro-
fits arising out of the employment of real property were trans-
ferable as personal property. It was held, therefore, that the
party in Court could have no controul over the shares by
means of the deposition alleged; aLd if he had a proveable
debt against the bankrupt estate that he must prove it in
the usual way.
Mr. E ussiti.L, who appeared for the bankrupt, felt that
the case was concluded by the decision cited on the other side.
It seems that the bankrupt obtained his certificate in
1832, and a supersedeas was issued in bankruptcy in 1845.
The Court now ordered that the bankruptcy should be re-
vived, the assignees undertaking to the extent of the estate
to abide by any order the Court might make in respect to
the estate since the supersedeas, with liberty to all parties
to apply.
Costs were allowed to the bankrupt.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, Westminster Hall.)
THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF LONDON.
The argument in this case was commenced at the sitting of
the Court, and occuried a considerable time. The question
was simply this, whether an attorney practising in the Court
of the Lord Mayor of London was eligible to practise in the
Courts of Westminster Hall, without having been duly ad-
mitted an attorney of those different Courts. It was con
tended thit he was not, inasmuch as that the Court of the
Lord Mayor of London was an interior Court. There was
also a question as to whether attornies of till:, Court were
competent to practise in the Lord Mayor's Court without any
further qualification ; and it was contended they ,‘ ere, inas-
much as the Lord Mayor's Court was an inferior Court.
Judgment deferred.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS. DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Piius, Westminster Hall, before Mr. Justice
COLERIDGE and a Common Jury.)
WHITE V. CO AND ➢IAN.

In this case it appeared that_ the plaintiff and a person
nsmed Williamson were levellers, and the defendants railway
rai
lw levellera y ,
for
rn
surveyors; that Williamson and plaintiff called at the
offices of defendants for employment in their capacities as
levellers, in consequence of an advertisement they had seen
in the newspapers from defendants, stating that they were
in want of such; that plaintiff was employed at the rate of
doingllu l ldut}. projected as
two guineas a day, and one guinea a day expenses, while
16thdea}N•
to recoverwas s.orTthhaemsopmtonb,eLninocilsno,oagnhdt
371. les. 6d., having
• received 12/. on account.
The jury found
amount. a verdict for the plaintiff for the full

none of
SECONDARIES.---(T HIS DAY.)
(Before M. r Secondary JAM Es. )
attendance, There was only one case set down for hearing in this court
this day. The jury were called, but, atter waiting some time,
missed. the parties being in the jury were dis-

the 1-
atc a s e o f this is
insolvent,
whos'o rescindA AN INSOLVENT.
a
final
lieutenant
Arß:ppNiicaKt:N , 4
,Ua.:Ps TCY,(THIS DAY.)
11l
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvAxs.)
half-pay, but had since refused to pay-
linleara3.certain Ines. The order was made in January, 1845, and the
oirhdetrhem
Radoeyienl
insolvent undertook to set aside 50/. per annum out of his
By some mistake the
pay,ment was not made a condition in the order.
had he Learned COMMISSIONER said he did not see that he
The creditors
circumstances he could do so.
solicitor ought to see that the order was properly drawn out.
Rent -road er to rescind the order in this case ; it was only
Ile would not enforce the payment now, but he was willing
to render every assistance in his power, and would direct that
the order should be amended. If any inconvenience fell on
the insolvent it was his own fault.
1N RE 11. R. FRANCIS.
In this case, the insolvent being a stationer in the Old
fusing to pay a sum of 51., on the doingproimniasdeeOfthe
good faith
be applicationXept— her was Learned Commissioner had ,ranted the order. It was con-
omittedtended in this case that the itt•olvent's attorney had wilfully
insolvent
which
there-
the fact, and that he was amenable to the Court.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said the attorneys of the cre-
ditors ought to see that the orders were properly drawn out.
The Oolicitor said it. was expected by the profession that
evidently an intention to
impose on the Court.
The Commiastoult directed the order to be amended.