The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-08 00:00:00

IPSWICH CORN EXCHANGE, Nov. 7.

: • -
We had a fair but not a large supply of grain at
market to•day. Wheat was held for higher prices,
but our millers were not disposed to give an advance.
The general runs were a little dull. Barley could not be
sold without a reduction of Is. for malting qualities;
other samples were from Is. to 2s. lower. Oats, Beans,
and Peas are without alteration. Malt rather heavy.
Flour steady.

_
PER QUARTER. PER QUARTER.
Wheat 44s to 55s Beans 3os to 34s
Barley
Oats. 2os to 25s Malt . s2s to 58s
Rye.. .......
AVERAGES FOR THE WEEK ENDING NOVEMBER 4.
Wheat 1,927 quarters at 52s Od.
Barley
35 ~ 21s 3d.
30 ~ 30s Od.
59 ~ 34s 2d.
88 ~ 36s I Id.

Oats
Rye
Beans
Peas.... .

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to-duy at ten o'clock in his
Court in the Old Hall, Lincoln's Inn.

MARTIN V. WELSTEAD-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, the arguments in which were concluded .
yes-
terday. The case came before his Lordship upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of Englund.
The question on the case arose upon the construction of
the will of Charles Welstead, Eq., of Valentines, in the
county of Essex, who died in November, 1832, and who
bequeathed all his wines, provisions, plate, plated goods,
jewels, linen, chins, pictures, books, household goods
and furniture, horses, carriages, live and dead farming
stock, credits, and other effects, and all the rest and resi-
due of his moneys, stocks, effects, and securities for
money, goods, chattels, credits, and personal estate
whatsoever and wheresoever except as therein ex-
cepted; and subject to the payment of his debts, legacies
general and testamentary expenses, unto bis wife for
her own absolute use and benefit, upon condition that
she, within three calendar months after his death, should
deliver to his executors a bond in a sufficient penalty for
securing payment of one-half part of the value of the
wines, &c., bequeathed to her, such value to be ascer-
tained as therein mentioned. The Vice-Chancellor of
England bad by his decree declared that the bond only
extended to the first portion of the bequests to the wife,
and the present appeal was against that decision. The
Lord-Chancellor, after going at some length into the
facts of the case, stated his opinion clearly to be that the
construction put on the words of the will by the Vice-
Chancellor, was the true construction, and affirmed his
judgment with costs.

WALKER 7J. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.

The SOLICITOR. GENERAL stated that this appeal vc as
compromised, and requested that it might be struck out
of the paper.

MAJOR V. MAJOR.

The Court then proceeded to hear the argusaents in
this case, which came bef,re his Lordship upon appeal
from the decree of-the Vice-Chancellor of England on
ti,ree causes. The case occupied the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY V. SYMONDS.

The arguments in this case were resumed this morn-
ing, and occupied the Court the greater portion of the day.
The case came before his Lordship upon bill and cross
bill, between the Gas Company and a clerk employed
by them, and the object of the suit is for an account.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
WOOD V. SMITH.

The further argument on this part heard case occu-
pied his Honour the Vice• Chancellor of England the
whole morning.

(Before tlie Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour heard bankrupt petitions to-day, but no
case of any interest came before the Court.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRex.)
ELLIS v. COWNE. —JULGMENT.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment today in
this case, which was argued before him upon bill and
answer some time since. The bill was filed by the
plaintiff, a widow lady residing in Huntsworth-terrace,
Salisbury-street, Borough, and it prayed that she might
be relieved from a warrant of attorney, that she had ex-
ecuted, and that an injunction might be granted re-
straining the defendant from proceeding against her
under the warrant of attorney,; and from selling
or parting with the possession of the business
and stock in trade of a pawnbroker's shop :in
the Borough, and that the Court would order the
defendant to pay back to the plaintiff the monies she
had advanced under the warrant of attorney, that war-
rant having been obtained from her by misrepresentation
and fraud.

The facts of the case appear to be these:—The
plaintiff, Mrs. Sarah Ellis, was a widow, residing fA
Huntsworth-terrace, Salisbury-street, Borough ; and
one of the defendants, Samuel Cowne, was a surgeon,
and in addition to that profession carried on the business
of a pawnbroker in a shop nearly facing the residence
of the plaintiff. The other defendant was Henry Cowne,
son of Samuel Cowne, who was placed by his father in
the management of the pawnbroking ;business. The
bill stated that an intimacy had arisen between the
plaintiff and Henry Cowne, who had made matrimonial
advances to her; that the plaintiff was of an easy and
confiding disposition, liable to be imposed upon, and she
had on various occasions advanced to Henry Cowne
considerable sums of money, and at last, for the purpose
of enabling him to set up in business, and make his own
living, she had advanced a sum of 1,5001. for the purchase
of the pawnbroking business from his father, upon a
statement that the value of it was much greater than it
really was; that she had been induced to sign a warrant
of attorney for 1,2001., part of this sum, which was to
be paid by instalments; for part of the remainder she
had given a bill of 811., and the rest was owing to her
by Samuel Cowne ; that after this transaction the
conduct of Henry Cowne had been much altered towards
the plaintiff, and his affection had considerably cooled;
that, in fact, he had given up all intention of marryii g
her; that the plaintiff had paid three instalments under
the warrant of attorney, but she had subsequently be-
come aware that the pawnbroking business had been
very much over-valued, and she,had ascertained that the
defendants were is moving from the shop much of the
property contained therein. She therefore refused to
continue the instalments. An injunction was granted to
restrain the defendants from taking any proceedings
under the warrant of attorney, and to restrain them from
selling or parting with the possession of the business or
the stock in trade and effects of the pawnbroker's shop.
The defendants"by their answers, denied that the plain-
tiff was of an easy and confiding disposition, or liable to