The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

-, -~--~

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov.. 16.

The Lord Chancellor sat in his CGurt at IVestminster
to-day, at ten o clock, and proceeded with tte hearing
of appeals.

EYRE V. GREEN.

The arguments in this part-heard appeal from the
decision of the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce,. were
resumed, and concluded to-day.
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment-
BELL AND OTHERS V. THE EARL OF lIEXBOROUGH AND
OTHERS..-.-TRE DIRECT LONDON AND EXETER RAIL..
WAY COMPANY.
This case came before the Court upon appeal from the
decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England, allowing
a demurrer, put in by two of the defendants, named
Adolphus Capel and John Allen, to the bill of the
plaintiffs, on the ground of want of equity. The
bill was filed by all the shareholders of the Direct
London and Exeter Railway Company, except those
who had been made defendants, against those persons
who constituted the provisional and managing commit-
tees, for the purpose of having the accounts of the com-
pany taken, and also to compel the defendants to take
up the shares allotted to them, and pay the deposits
upon them. Among the defendants who had not taken
up their shares and paid their deposits, were the Earl of
Mexborough, Lord Loftus, Capel, and Allen, the names
of all of whom appeared in the prospectus as members of
the provisional committee. Those persons declined
taking up their shares, on the ground that not having
signed the deed, they could not be compelled to do so,
and the defendants Capel and Allen demurred to the bill
for want of equity. 'Che Vice-Chancellor of England
allowed that demurrer, and hence the present appeal.
Mr. Stuart and a gentleman behind the bar tzppeared
in support of the appeal; and Mr. J. Parker and Mr.
Daniel supported the decision of the Court below.
The arguments, not having concluded when the Court
rose, were ordered to be proceeded with to-morrow.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 16.

ROBINSON V. WALL

Lord LA.NGDALECielivered judgment in this cause to-
day. He said the present bill was filed for the specific
performance of a contract entered into by the plaintiff
and the defendant for the sale of the estate of a bank-
rupt, together with his wife's interest therein, they being
the bankrupt's assignees. Lord Mostyn was desirous
of purchasing the same. It appeared that. the assignees
were of opinion, that in disposing of the property of the
bankrupt (Sir Thos. Champneys)) they would be
benefiting all' the parties interested, and it was therefore
determined to put up the same to auction. Lord Mostyn,
before the sale took place, offered 5,0001. for Lady
Mostyn's interest in the property, and for the interests
of the bankrupt and his assignees a sum of 30,0001.,
making altogether 35,000/. An agreement was then en-
tered into, that Lord Mostyn should have the property
for the above sum of 35,000/. it no one exceeded
him in bidding at the auc:ion. A deed was
then, executed to this effect, which imposed no
conditions other than these specified jin the deed, by
which, if there were any higher bidder, Lord Mostyn
should be released fro:n his contract. The bidding of
Lord Mostyn was to be, in fact, considered reserved.
He was of opinion that the words of the deed led to the
supposition of a sense different from what were really
the intentions of the parties. At a meeting of the
creditors of Sir Thomas Champneys in the beginning
of October, 1838, it was resolvel that the estate should
be sold in a few days afterwards, and it was then also
agreed that the sum of 35,0001. should be considered s
reserved bidding. That of course must be considered
bs having reference to the bidding of Lord Mostyn, that
acing the sum stipulated by him for the property. The
sale took place, and it was expressly stated in the parti-
culars of that sale that the property was to be sold with-
out reserve. There were several bidders, and the bid-
ding of Lard Mostyn was exceeded by Mr. Flight, who
employed Wall, who bid 49,0001, and became the pur-
chaser of the property. However, Sir Thomas
Champneys dying. shortly afterwards, the in-
terest of the assignees in the property ceased.
A bill was then filed to enforce the pur-
chaser to fulfil his contract, which, as the pur-
chase had become a losing concern. Mr. Flight refused
to perform, contending that the sale was not unreserved
in consequence of the stipulation that existed with Lord
Mostyn. It had, indeed, been excepted that no such
advantage as reservation existed towards Lord Mostyn.
In one sense, indeed, there was no reservation, inasmuch
as Lord Mostyn might be exceeded in bidding; but in
the strict sense there could be no doubt that the contract
that had been entered into was a reservation. He was
of opinion that the auction bad not been properly con-
ducted, and that the contract should not be performed.
He would, therefore, dismiss this bill, with all the costs,
except in the answer whereby Mr. Flight denied the
authority of Wall.

PERRY V. MEADOWCROFT.
Mr. KINDERSLY resumed his arguments for the de,
readmits.
Mr. SPENCE followed on the same side.
The Court rose at three o'clock.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Non. 16.
(Before the VicE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
7N THE NATTER' 010 THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND

SOUTH. COAST RAILWAY.
This case came before the Court upon the petition of
a lady named Clithero, praying that the sum awarded
to her for compensation from the railway company might
be laid out, and the dividends paid to her.
His HoNoun made the order as asked.
The Court, after disposing of the cases of Carter and
Gill, and Tamlyn and Reynolds, proceeded to hear the
further arguments in the part-heard case of
THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES.
The bill in this case was filed originally so far back
as the year 1838, and the object of that bill was
to compel the Lord of the Manor of Rickman:, worth, in
Hertfordshire, to give the Grand Junction Canal Com-
pany a perfect title to certain lands purchased by them
for the purpose of forming their canal. The circum-
stances under which that bill was filed may be thus
stated. In the year 1797 the company purchased the
lands in question, under Acts passed in their behalf in
the reign of George 111., of a persan of the name of
Joseph Skidmore, who held them as copyholds from the
Lord of the Manor. Skidmore conveyed the lands by
bargain and sale to the Canal Company, but that com-
pany was never admitted by the Lord of the Manor.
At the time of the sale, a gentleman of the name of
Whitfield was Lord of the Manor at Rickmausworth,
which he devised to Robert Williams, as trustee, for sale,
and he, subsequently to the year 1818, when his testator
died, sold the manor to Henry Windale, who by his will
devised all his real estates to Ambrose Bohan and
Windale Martin in fee, and executed a mortgage of the
manor in fee to Dimes, the principal defendant in the
suit, and died in the year 1836. The defendant Dimes,
in the year 1838, having foreclosed and claiming to be
entitled to the legal estate in the lands, caused
an obstruction to be placed across the canal,
and an injunction was applied for to pre-
vent him from doing so. Upon thii application
the Court directed the trial of an issue, for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the lands were copyhold or not,
and it being found that they were, the Court continued
the injunction that had been granted, and the cause now
came on for hearing. The bill, which had been twice
amended, after setting forth these facts, charged that
upon every descent of the manor the land was entitled
to certain fines amounting to two -years value, and
prayed that the present lord of the manor (whether the
legal estate was vested in Dimes or the devisees of Win-
dale) might be decreed to admit the plaintiffs to the
lands in question, or the heir at law of Jost ph Skidmore,
the original vendor as a trustee for them, up 'n payment
of whatever sums might be due to the lord in the nature
of fines. The devisees of Windale, by their answers,
disclaimed all interest in the lands which were the sub-
ject of the suit, and thereby admitted Dimes to be the
present lord of the manor ; and it was contended for him
that it was not compulsory upon a lord of the manor to
admit a corporation to lands held of the manor, and con-
sequently that he was not compellable to admit the
plaiati
Mr. Stuart, Mr. J. Parker, and Mr. Busk appeared
for the plaintiff's ; Mr. Bethel!, Mr. Humfrey, and Mr.
Swythes for the defendant Dimes ; Mr. 112ndall ap-
peared for the devisees of Windale ; and Mr. S. Russell
for the heirs of Skidmore.
Mr. Humvauv resumed his arguments on behalf of
the defendant Dimes.
Mr. STUART having replied,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment, declaring
that the heir, according to the custom of the manor of
Skudmore, was the party who ought to be admitted
tenant upon the court-roll, and that when admitted he
would be trustee of such estate as he got by the admis-
sion for the corporation. His Honour also directed that
the corporation should pay the fine and fees of admission,
and referred it to the Master to ascertain what the
amount of the fee was, and also to inquire who was the
heir of Thomas Skudmore. The costs were ordered to
be taxed and paid by the plaintiffs, and then recovered
over again from the defendant.
The Court rose at half-past three o'clock.
(Before Sir J. No,ere After some unimportant motions Rh: is
md_.
h been
ce, e ndisposed of
the arguments in the case of Blair
Court.
re-
sumed and cont'(inßuefeodretilslithr BRUCE.)je.rks-mgofte
STEWART V. RIISHBY.
con-
sideredne
that the proper order would be that an account
saind itshrlistotNhoertTwgaacve onevdidireencetieofs
tihne tchoins
tcraaseet,taon-ddahye.
the time of the bankruptc.
should be taken of the debts of Mulholland and Co. at
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 16.
MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS.

Lord DENMAN intimated that the Court considered
that rules for new trials ought to be granted in the fol-
lowing cases:—Davis v. Williams, Lyndhuss v. --,
and not granted in the following :—Halo v. White, Doe
Dem Davies v. Davies, Bermagem-v. Vaugham, Roberts
v. Williams, Rawson, v. Anderson, Bat v. Ridley,
v. Bett.
LIBEL--THE QUEEN V. THE REV. JOSIAH BA.RTLETT—.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.

This case was tried at the last Summer Assizes at
Hereford, before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
and excited considerable interest throughout the whole
county at the time. The defendant was indicted for a
libel on his wife's sister, Mrs. Tolzer, and with therefore
committing a breach of the peace. The jury found him
guilty of the charge. The case was subsequently re-
moved into this Court.
Sir F. TREBIGER prayed the judgment of the Court
upon the defendant, who presented himself on the door
of the ee.urt.

1 Mr. Justice ERLE read the judge's n3teg of the evi-
dence adduced at the trial; and the defendant handed in
an affidavit, covering several folios, which was read by
the clerk of the court. It set forth that he-had been
married fifteen years to his wife, that they had had six
children, and that during the nine years they had lived
together the greatest affection had subsisted between