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

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to-day shortly after ten
o'clock. The further arguments in the part-heard mo-
ti,u of :\.TeiAlham v. Needham occupied his Lordship the
t.oi morning.

ROLLS' CoUlt'r.—(THlS DAY.)
CROSBIE V. CHURCH.
This was an application to set aside an order with
respect to this case, made in Chancery in 1840, in conse-
quence cf a defect in the evidence.
His LORDSHIP ordered the papers to be handed in, in
order to bring the facts of the case to his mind.
BUCK V. BOUCHEIt.
This was a petition on t-e part of the defendant,
praying that a sum of 253/. in Court to the credit of this
case should be invested in the purchase of Bank Three
per Cent. Annuities ; and that a sumtof 90L 16s. Bd.,
interest on the said sum, should also be similarly dis-
posed of. The sum claimed was the residue of property
to which the petitioner had become entitled by the will
of the testator.
The case was ordered to stand over.
POOLE V. POOLE.
This was an application for an order to direct the
Master to tax costs.
It appeared that the plaintiffs were three out of five
children of the testator, Mr. Jeremiah Poole, and that
the defendants were the other two children. The testator
had given his estates to his brother, in trust for his
chldren till the youngest should have • attained
her when he directed that they should be sold,
and the money divided equally between his wife and
children. A decree had been obtained in the case, and
the matter was eventually referred to the Master. Costs
had been :übsequently incurred, and the object of the
application was to have the same taxed.--The order was
granted.
The remaining unopposed petitions on the list were
then proceeded with, none of which possessed a particle
of public interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY,).
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England, after
disposing of the unopposed cause petitions on his paper,
proceeded to give judgment in the case of
DAVIS V. COMBER:HERE.
This case came before the Court previous to the
Christmas recess, upon the petition of Mr. Davis and
Mr. Fitzpatrick, the two surviving trustees of the late
Mr. Fulke Greville, praying that the Court would order
the Master to allow them to appear before him, and
watch the proceedings in his office with reference to the
sale of certain property belonging to the testator in the
cause. It appeared from the statements of his Honour
that the testator, Mr. Fulke Greville, devised all his
real estates to three trustees upon certain trusts, that
one of those trustees was dead, and that the plaintiff,
Mr. Davis, and another g. ntleman, named Fitzpatrick,
were the two surviving trustees, and also executors of
the will of the decased. They filed their bill for the
purpose of having the provisions of the will execute&
and a bill had been also filed by Mr. Fulke Greville, the
sone of the deceased, for the same purpose. When the
case came before the Court, one decree was pronounced
in both causes, and the plaintiff in the second cause was
ordered to have the carriage of the decree. By that
decree it was directed by the Court that certain pro
perty belonging to the testator should be sold, and ac-
counts were also directed to be taken before the Master. To
carry these orders into effect, it was necessary that certain
parties should attend before the Master, and the trustees
submitted that they were entitled to perform that duty.
The Master decided against their claim, and the result
was the presentation of this petition. His Honour, after
going into the case at some length, stated his opinion to
be that the trustees were entitled to attend before the
Master when the question was with reference to the
purchase of estates, but where they were to be sold the
trustees were not necessary parties before the Master.
The result of his Honour's decision was to dismiss the
petiticn of the trustees, but without costs.
THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT V. SIR JOHN NORRIS—
JUDGMENT.
His HoNousi also gave jndgment on this motion, which
was argued previous to the Christmas recess, upon an
application on behalf of the noble plaintiff for an
injunction to restrain the defendants from working
coal mines in Wales in the manner in which
they were doing, on the ground of great injury to the
mines ( f the plaintiff.
His HONOUR declined granting the injunction on the
extended form asked by the notice of motion, but ordered
an injunction to issue, restraining the defendants from
working their collieries in a manner that was calculated
to injure the mines of the plaintiff.
The Court then proceeded to hear motions.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
BILLING V. WEBB (exceptions).
BILLING V. WEBB (further directions).
His HONOUR, in giving judgment, did not allow or
overrule any of the excep ions, and declared upon the
exceptions and further directions, that there was no
personal estate, that the real estate should be sold for
the payment of debts, and that there were no debts due
to or from Trendal or Alloway.
All costs whatever were reserved.
PIERCE V. FRANKS.
The plaintiff, successor to the Messrs. Smyths, Bond-
street, obtained an injunction against defendant, who is
a brush-maker in Southwark, to restrain him from
stamping his brushes with " Smyths, Bond-street," a
mark which, in so far as it affects the sale of the goods,
is the private property of Mr. Pierce. The cause was
heard to day, and his Honour, without hesitation,
granted a perpetual injunction in terms of the bill, and
gave costs to the platntiff; except so far, if at all, the
costs had been affected by an allegation in the bill that
the defendant, in addition to the words " Smyths, Bond-
street," had used the private marks of the plaintiff, which
was left unsupported by evidence. Whatever expenses
had been incurred in consequence of this was to be re-
funded to the defendant by Mr. Pierce.
(Before Vice Chancelloi WIGRAM.)
THORNHILL V. DYER.
His HONOUR delivered judgment to-day on the excep-
tions taken by the defendants on the original bill. That
bill was filed to recover 4,0001. on the estates of Mr.
Thornhill, alleged t., have been placed in Mr. Thorn-
hill's hands in trust. The defendants on this filed a
cross bill for discovery, and an answer was put in, to
which the plaintiff's in the cross bill took exceptions.
Die Master's finding on these exceptions was that all
w ere bad, and that the costs of them should be paid by
the plaintiffs in the cross bill. They took exceptions to
this finding in both its divisions ; first, that all the ex-
ceptions were net bad ; and second, that the defendants
should pay the costs. His Honour allowed the first of
these general exceptions to the Master's finding, and
disallowed the second, as to the costs. After having
gone through the original exceptions, the subject of this
finding, seriatim, his Honour expressed his hope that
parties would not proceed further in the same inefficient
course.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAms.)
THE QUEEN V. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH

OF BOLTON.

Mr. COWLING applied for a rule to show cause why
a mandamus should not issue commanding the town
council of the borough of Bolton to pay to the treasurer
for the county of Lancashire the sum of 8571. I ls. 3d.,
and also the sum of 7931. 195., as their share of the ex-
penses of the county. The Learned Counsel stated that
the borough of Bolton, in the county of Lancashire, had
by a recent Act received the right of appointing a
coroner and holding a quarter sessions. By the 117th
section of Will. IV., chap. 76, it was enacted that the
treasurer
expenses
ifnoerutehr ee
dc o
bytayn syh
borough
ue
rl d keep h
iaenh
ha cacdo ut
hnet or
gahl
tl
of holding a quarter sessions, in the prosecution of crimi-
nals, or the holding of coroner'snniqutehsets,suamndatswhohuiclhd
afterwards deduct such expenses from
the borough was rated for the expenses of the county.
There could he no doubt that the borough of Bolton
came expressly under this regulation, and accordingly,
on the 24th of November, 1843, the county treasurer had
sent his account up to the 24th of June in the same
year, with a request that the town council would make
an order for the payment
which of it. Te town council made
an order accordingly, was presented to their
surer, and that gentleman declared his perfect willingness
to liquidate the amount, but that he had not the funds to
do so in his possession. This fact was stated to the town
council, with a request that they would make a borough
rate to pay it, but, in consequence of no such step being
taken, an application to this Court was considered
necessary. He (Mr. Cowling) considered the case a very
proper one for a rule.—The rule was granted.

IN RE RICHARDSON.
Sergeant MANNING moved for a rule to strike an at-
torney off the rolls under the following circumstances.
It appeared that on the 25th of July, 1837, a Mr. John
Richardson died intestate. His widow, Sarah, within
three months of his decease applied to a certain attorney
living near Woolwich, to obtain for her letters of ad-
ministtation, and for that purpose she gave him 8/. She
was accompanied by a Mr. Peck, the obligor to the
widow, and she took the necessary oaths befor the surro-
gate. As the day on which this proceeding took place was
market•day, Mr. A. 8., the attorney requested them to at-
tend upon the secretary on the Friday following for the
purpose of completing them. They accordingly attended
at the time and place indicated by A. 8., and were in-
formed by him that he had obtained the letter of admi-
, ot..tration, but had left them at Norwich, On their
applying on a subsequent occasion, another excuse was
offered, nod after more than 100 applications it was dis-
covered that no letters of administration had been taken
out at all.— The rule granted.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.) 1
(Sittings in Banco.)
cAsTLExAbi V. CAPPER.
This was an action brought to recover 1,000/. on a
policy of insurance effected upon the ship Alarm, with
the Marine Insurance Company, of which the defendant
was the underwriter. The case was tried before the
Lord Chief Baron, at the recent sittings in London,
when it was proved that the plaintiff was the mortgagee
of the brig Alarm, and with the view of post.essing
himself of an additional security for the money he had
advanced upon her, which amounted to 1,0001., he in-
sured the vessel with the defendant's company. The
brig at the time was engaged in the coasting trade of
South America, and subsequently to the comp.etion of
the policy of insurance she received some very material
injuries while performing a voyage between Monte
Video and Paraguay, which ultimately led to her once
by two of her Majesty's naval officers,dw thho
happened to be cruising off the former port, ane
plaintiff brought the present action to recover the whole
amount of the policy he had effeete4 upon her. For the
itefeuee it was contended that the injuries the vessel had
received were 4ot pf such a nature ai to justify her con-
demnation, and the glefer4nnt therefore refused to Fay
more than half the insurance mphey, alleging that ar
vessel might have been amply and property repaired foi
that amount. Eventually, however, the jury found a