The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-13 00:00:00

NEEDHAM V. NEEDHAM.

The remainder of the morning was occupied with the
further hearing of this par-heard motion.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 12.
Lord LANGDALE at this day at Westminster.
HOPE V. ROPE.

Mr. ROGERS, on the part of the plaintiff, applied for
an order for the postponement for four months of the
hearing of thii case, which was fixed to take place in
the Court of Queen's Bench this term.
No opposition being offered by the defendant's Counsel,
the motion was granted.

DAVIDSON V. LESLIE.

Mr. KINDERSLEY applied on behalt of the plaintiff for
leave to amend his bill, and for an order to restrain the
defendant's agents and solicitor from proceeding further
in this case, until the prcduction in Court of certain
papers necessary to the establishment of the plaintiff's
claim to large property in land and fl'cks in New South
Wales. Ile also applied for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from giving any notice of action until
after such papers, accounts, &c., should be produced.
The application was granted.
Several similar motions were then disposed of, after
which his Lordship proceeded with the hearing of un-
opposed petitions, which were of quite an uninteresting
character.

VIOE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jan. 12.
(B•-fore the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

His Honour sat to day at ten o'clock, and took motions.
No motion of any interest came before the Court previous
to our going to press.
(Before Vice Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)

TURNER v. FR 4.31PT0N.

This suit, which stood in his Honour's paper for ju-1g •
meta, arse. out of the residuary clause cf the will of
Mrs. Fanning, deceased—a case not affected by the recent.
Will Act. The clause to be construed was the follow-
ing :—" All the residue of my money, stock, and other
moneys, I give and devise to my son, David Fermin,
and to my daughter, Harriet Fcnning, in equal portions,
if they are alive at. my decease ; but in case one or other
of them be deceased before then. to the survivor."

His HONOUR, in giving judgment, seemed to think tha.
the construction of the clause was chiefly affected by the
meaning and effect to be given to the word " survivor,"
which is sometimes used in its own proper sense—some-
times in the senso of " other." David Fenning, one of
the legatees, deceased without issue prior to the death of
the testator. His Honour gave his decision in favour of
Harriet Fenning, theourviving legatee, at the same time
said that the suit very properly had been instituted, and
gave both the plaintiff and the trustees their costs out of
the estates.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 12.
(Sittings in Banco, at Wesminster Hall.)

This morning, shortly after ten o'clock, Lord Denman,
Mr. Justice Patieson, Mr. Justice Coleridge, and Mr.
Justice Wightman, took thier seats in this Court, and
forthwith proceeded to business.

(New Trial Paper.)
:GALE V. LEWIS.
This was a case which had already been partly heard
It was an application for a new trial on the ground of
misdirection. The case was tried before Mr. Justice
Patteon, at Bristol. It was an action taken by the
executrix_ of the plaintiff for the recovery of a
sum upon a policy of insurance. The defendant, the
agent to the Insurance Company, alleged that the plain•
tiff had became a bankrupt, but had assigned the policy
before his bankruptcy, of which defendant had not been
apprised, and therefore resisted the claim, as notice
had been given; but it was contended that the notice was
of a nature that was not sufficient in law, and that such
was the question left to the jury, which, being a question
.t law and not of fact, Counsel contended should not
have been left to the jury; and that it should not have
been left tp the jury to find whether the notice that had
been given to a person named Leusmore, an insurance
broker, was a sufficient notice to the Insurance Company.
Judgment deferred.