The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-05 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The Lord Chancellor, after disposing of the unop-
posed lunatic petitions in his paper to-day, proceeded to
hear the further arguments in the part-heard appeal
motion of

HIGGINSON v. SHAND.
This case came before his Lordship upon an appea,
notice from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
land refusing to dissolve an injunction that had been ob-
tained ex parte by the plaintiff restraining the defendants,
the t, oval Bank of Liverpool, from proceeding against him
to recover the sum of nearly 100,0001. The following
are the short facts of the case out of which the appeal
arises :—The firm of Barton, Irlam, and Higginson, of
Liverpool, in the course of their dealings with the Royal
Bank of Liverpool, had become indebted to a consider-
able amount, and on the 21st of October, 1845, gave two
promissory notes for 30,0001. each, at six and nine
months after date respectively. Contemporaneously with
thete notes the firm assigned to the plaintiff, who is the
brother of one of the partners, thirteen ships in trust to
secure the due payment of the notes. On the 13th of
March, prior to the notes becoming due, the plaintiff, as
surety, gave to the bank a promissory note for 60,0001.,
by way of security for the two notes given by the firm.
He also wrote a letter, in which he guaranteed the pay-
ment of the notes at their maturity. When the notes
fell due they were not paid; but the bank, at the instance
of the firm, renewed the notes, and altered the guarantee
of the plaintiff so as to extend to a renewal of the notes.
The second part of the transaction was as follows:—The
firm undertook to pay into the bank 70,0001., by two
instalments, and the batik, on the plaintifiguaranteeirg
to secure payment of whatever balance should be
due at the end of August, 1847, agreed to answer
the cheque of the firm. The first instalment of
35,000/. was paid into the bank by the firm, but before
the si cond was due the bank refused to answer a cheque
for 11,0001., drawn by the firm. The bank then
demanded payment from the plaintiff, as surety for the
firm of the cote for 60,0001., and also of the balance due
at the expiration of the month of August, amounting to
53,0001., and, on payment not being made, threatened
lei:al proceedings, upon which the plaintiff applied for,
and obtained an injunction restraining such threatened
proceedings, which the Vice-Chancellor of England
upon motion for that purpose refused to dissolve, and
from that judgment the Royal Bank of Liverpool ap- 1
pealed to this branch of the Court.
t Mr. appellants,tEr utt
.L ot the eßoyalbehalf
oßf
u.Mthre. Rolt and Mr. Prior having been heard on behalf
athnek
suggestedroetsLpoinvedrephot,ol.
that any order the Court
might make upon the appeal
which the appellants avail,could
d inasmuch as the time within
(two months) had run out,u sue out a fiat of bankruptcy
left for the party was
tofiaend the only course therefore
a
The Loan CHANCELLOR alslupplementai bill.
adopted, giving leave to theplaintiff owed this course to be
bill if it was necessary. to file a supplemental
TRANsFER OP CArisEa.
The following important notice with
transfer of causes was put up in his Lordship's
to the
day, signed by the principal registrar, Mr.
pe'sivourt to-
Any causes standing in the list of the Vice-Chancellor
'—
of England (including further directions), which
hellor i
the 1,
several parties desire to be heard immediatellu
notwithstanding any order to the contrary, be transferredu'ayi
to the Vice-Chancellors Knight Bruce and wigrarao
application, by consent of all parties interested, to theu
Registrar."
QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
The Court took the special paper to-day. As usual,
no cases of the slightest public interest came on for
argument. ------.
BAIL COUICI.—(I ' "HIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco before Mr. Justice COLERIBGE.)
SPARROW V. WRAY.
rule calling upon the
Mr. Linda litht, moved for a
h •h
Sussex to s ow cause w y
Judge of the County' Court of .
h.
• commandinghim to give
a mandamus should not issue
effect to an order which he had made in this case in
the plain-
December last directing the defendant to pay'
On the
tiff's debt. The facts of the case were these.
plaint
18th of October, 1847, the plaintiff sued out his
ttle
for the sum of 201, and on the 12th of November
cause was heard at the Town hall, Brighton, and judg-
ment given for the plaintiff for the full amount; with
2LL 4s. 6d. costs. Subsequently the judge made an order
i new trial, directing that the second trial should
take
v- place before the • •andordering the defendant
jur),
to paw 31. „,. A . and
of the- "'• 'a., being the costs of the former trial
application f first trial,
which the new trial. At the
which was r.,n b
gave evidence, efore a jury, the defendant and his wife
contradictory that but
:ill"' evidence,
taken together, was so
the second trial, bow" judge found for the plaintiff. At
and upon the strengtiroe!, only the wife was examined,
a verdict for the defendt her testimony the jury returned
ceedinp,rs the plaintiff r. At this stage of the pro-
exceeded his powers in scovered that the judge had
had before a jury, directing. the second trial to b©
Parliament required ti.tirmuch as the Act of
wishing the case to be tried that upon upon either party
the other two clear days' by a jury he should give
summon the jury. In this cr:::tice of his intention to
and the Judge insisted that he had
had not been done,
to order a case to be tried b • •d a discretionary power
) aJury without frre e ence to
he wishes of either side.