The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-29 00:00:00

titvb titttOn

CHANCEftY.,-(THIS DAY.)
The Lotd.Chanceltor sat in his donrt at Westatirk.'
,ierto•day-st half- past ten o'clock.

:WARDR.V. WARDS.
This case stood on his Lordships paper for argument,
but upon the application of counsel itapousideration was
postponed to a future day.
FRAZER O. JONES.
The arguments in this case which have already occu-
pied, two days were resumed this morning. The case
came before his Lordship upon the judgment of the
Vice-Chancellor Wigram, decreeing according to the
prayer of the bill. The facts of the case may be thus
shortly stated. The bill was filed by the Glamorgan-
shire and Monmouthshire Banking Company against
the defendants, John Jones, David Jones, and a person
of the name of Powell, ander the following circum-
stances:—ln the year 1842, David Jones being indebted
to the banking company was pressed by them
for security or payment of the debt, and being unable to
adopt the latter alternative, he proposed to mortgage to '
them certain property at the time mortgaged to the de-
fendant Powell for 1,800/, but which was represented to
be equitably mortgaged to John Jones for 1,000/. by a
deposit of the mortgage deed. Accordingly, on the Sth
of ,September, 1842, Powell, as surety for David Jones,
assigned his mortgage to the banking company, and by
the same deed David Jones mortgaged his equity re-
demption to secure the sum then due to tho bank,
amounting to upwards of, 6001.,' and reserved to John
Jones his alleged prior advance of 1,0001.- It appeared
that this representation to the bank-of the debt of John
Jones was a pure fiction; but on the 20th of September,
1842, David- Jones and Powell induced John Jones to
advance the sum of 2001. upon the deposit of the mort-
gage deed to Powell for 1,8001., with a. memorandum and
a bond. John Jones, at the time that he paid this 2001.,
was ignorant of the fraudulent representation to the
bank, and of the mortgage to them. Shortly afterwards
the bank, finding out the deceit practised upon them,
gave notice of their Mortgage, and filed the present bill
to postpone the claim of John Jones until after satisfac-
tion of their own.. mortgage. The Vice-Chancellor
Wigram made a decree in accordance with the prayer of
the bill, and from this John Jones brought the
present appeal.
Mr. ow), with whom was Mr: Bolt, this being an
appeal for the whole decree. opened tile ease oh' Thurs
day on behalf of the plaintiffs, contending' MO 'at there
was no doubt of the fraud practised. by David Jones atd.
Powell upon the bank they could not claim to themselves
any interest from the fraudulent reservation of the
1,0001., in the mortgage deed, and, therefore, having no
right themselves they had none to transfer to .a third
party; added to which there was evidence to show that
John Jones knew, or ought to have known had he
made proper inquiries, of the mortgage to the bank at
the time he advanced the 2001,
Mr. BOLT followed on the same side yesterday, and
The SOLICITOR•GENRRAL was also heard for the de-
fendant John Jones. He admitted that there was no
doubt of the fraud practised by David Jones and Powell,
but it was equally plaiu that John Jones was ignorant
of it at the time he advanced the 200/., or he would not
have done so absurd an act as that of advancing money
upon What was in fact no security at all. lt therefore
came to a mere question of law„which.ef 'two innocent
parties were to put up with the 103 s, ,
Mr. Buss resumed his arguitenta ou same aide
this morning.
Mr. Wool) having replied, •-• •
The LORD CUANCELLOR. requested,.-to be furnished
with the bill and answer, and stated-that he would dis-
pose of the case on Monday morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Lord DENstax.)
In the following cases rules for new. trials were
granted:—
Vaughan v. Martin—Bonn v. Cresswell—Cocks v.
Savage— Dixon v. Burton.
In the following cases rules were refused:—
Berne v. llogg—Carter v. Ilay—Cola v. Friend—
Bridly v. James—Aldridge v. Betty—Neal v. Simeon—
Nassen v. Coates—Allen v. Price—Sweeting v. Bonn—
and Jarire v. Lush.
The Court was occupied the greater part of the day
with appeals from Quarter Sessions, with respect to
disputed pauper settlements, which posiessed not the
slightest interest to the general- readdr.

Tins DAY)
BAIL COURT.--(THIS
V.
jd°bNl aEiltn.e (1' . ' rule - . .
.
(Sittings in Baned'before Mr. justice COLatitiowo .
-I. .
upon the plaintiff to show Cause why a writ Of prohi-
bition should not issue to restrain the Judge of the
le.nisi:calling
Merioneth County Court from issuing execution. The
action was instituted in the County Court to recover 161.,
being 10/. on a promissory note, dated fourteen years
ago, and 61. for fourteen years' interest; and on the first
hearing of the case, the statute of limitations was pleaded,
and judgment given for the defendant. Subsequently, I
however, the plaintiff discovered that under the 19th
Rule of the County Court Act, the defendant ought to
have given five days notice of his plea, which be had
neglected to do, and upon that feet being brought under
the notice of the County Court Judge, he agreed, in the
absence of the defendant, to rescind his former decision,
and enter a verdict for the plaintiff, , The present rule •
had, therefore, been obtained to prevent the plaintiff,
from proceeding to judgment on this decision. •
Mr. BAILEY now showed cause, contending that the
Judge.of the County Court had given judgment in
igno-
rance of, the 19th Rule, and therefbie, that he had a
right to rescind it. • , ' . '. ,„„i,.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE however took. a. ‘,..erent view
of the case. The County Court Judge, in his Opinion,
had gone beyond his jurisdiction, in rescinding his
decision in the absence of the defendant, and he was;
therefore, of opinion, that the rule for the writ of
pro-
hibition, ought to be made absolute.
Rule absolute accordingly. .

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
The Court cle(liSvieirtiendgs ijuridgßnianecno.)
tin the following
cases :—•

DOZ ON TUE DEMISE OF MARTIN V. smrril.
Rule for a n€.4, trial refused.
ROLL V. NAESELL.

1

,~