The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

LAW IN TE LLIGEN CE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 15.

The House sat to-day at eleven o'clock to hear appeals.
The Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cotten-
ham, and Lord Campbell.

PINKCS V. THE RATCLIFFE GAS COMPANY.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal occupied
their Lordships the whole morning.

PRIVY COUNCIL, June 15.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-day
at the Council Chamber, Whitehall.
The Lords in attendance were Lord Brougham, the
Ma,ter of the R Rs, the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and
the Chancellor of the Duchv of Cornwall.

Thai Lordships were occu-piedthelTOle morning with-ap-
plications for the extension of patents.

COURT OF QUEEN'S•BENCII, June 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
STOKES V. BA YCOTT.
- -

This is a case arising out of the- occupation of a common
in Shro,,shire, entitled Nudge
.Heath, in the parish of Pat-
tingham, beld.bv the defendant. An action was brought by
tb plaintiff to deprive the defendant of possession, and the
case was tried at the last Shrewsbury Assizes, before Mr.
Baron Parke, when a verdict was given to the defendant.
On a previous day Mr. Sergeant Talfourd obtained a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be seta aside on the
ground of misdirection, and the case was argued this morning
at some length.

The Court decided against the rule and in favour of the
direction of the Judge. The rule was accordingly dis-
charged.
(Sittings in Nisi Prins' before Mr. Justice WIG-LITMAN and a
Common Jury.)
Qt I_ V. ILEY AND OTHERS.
The Court was occupied the greater part of this morning
with this case, which was an a.^.tion to recover damages for
false imprisonment. The plaintiff, on the charge of stealing
grass, had been committed to custody. but was subsequently
discharged, no grounds for proceeding against him being dis-
covered ; in consequence l'e brought the present action to
recover damages. The jury after a short consultation gave
a verdict for 40s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 15.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and
a Common Jury.)
GoonwlN ♦ND ANOTHER V. HEAD AND OTHERS.
Mr. Hill appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Jervis for one
of the defendants (Mr. Head). The other defendants did not
appear by counsel.
This was an action brought by plaintiffs, who are law
stationers at Birmingham, for 600/, the amount of their ac-
count for law stationery, advertisements, &e., supplied to
defendants, who are provisional committeemen of the Wol-
verhampton, Cheater, and Birkenhead Junction Railway.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.
NEWTON V. PRITCHARD.

Mr. Watson, with Mr. Brown, appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Jervis, with Mr. Miller, for the defendant.

This was an action nearly similar to the last. The plaintiff
is a surveyor in Chancery •lane, and surveyed in the month
of October last a portion of the Tbame Valley and Oxford
Junction Railway, and also a portion of the Ipswich and
Southampton Railway. The agreement for the former was
at the rate of thirty guineas a mile. Plaintiff received 100/.
on account, and the present action was brought to recover
the balance of 102/.
Verdict for the plaintiff for 100/.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, June 15.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IN RE WALLER AND WALLER.

IMPORTANT
.QUESTION OF PARTNERSHIP AND BREACH OF
TRUST.—These bankrupts, who had carried on business as
grocers at Ipswich, came up to pass their last examination,
and the same time was appointed for declaring a dividend.
The last examination had been adjourned sine die in con-
sequence of the am:Hints not having been filed, which was at
the time shown to be in consequence of the poverty
of the bankrupts, and there being no assets in hand
out of which they could have an allowance ; a
funs of 7001. having been recovered, the bankrupts were
allowed to come up at the expense of the estate; but were
still unprepared to pass their last examination, as they had
not the means of paying the accountant to file the balance
sheet. A further adjournment of the examination' and
dividend was, therefore, prayed for, as it was contended that
the balance-shoot miAt show a wry material difference in
the asst is to be distributed under the joint estate.
From the tacts stated during a long argument, it ap-
peared that the business had original:y been carried
on by Thomas Butterman Waller, who, however, sent letters
to some of his creditors, stating that he bad taken his brother
Thomas into partrership. Yet nevertheless Thomas made
an assignment of the property as his own for the benefit of
his creditors, to Messrs. Alexander, of Ipswich, and they
realised the property. An action, however, was brought, in
which the issue of partnership was raised. and the verdict
estuiblish-d the partn rship. Messrs. Alexander then paid
over the 700/. they had received, and the separate creditors
now sought to prove under the joint estate. Mr. Lawrence
appeared to support their interests.
Mr. RUSSELL, the solicitor to the fiat, said Thomas Waller
had dealt with the property as his own, the assignment was
duly attested and advertised, and by the lapse of time, six
months. afterwards became a va'id assignment; if therefore
Messrs. Alexander had handed over to the assignees that
which belonged to the separate estate of Thomas IValler, they
were lirble to the separate creditors for breach of trust, and
moreover that the creditors never trusted or had a claim
against the joint estate. but it was a great question whether
they could come in and prove under the joint estate. He
was engaged for the fiat, but wished to see everything cleared
up, and no opposition would be made by him to any course
the Court felt disposed to sanction.

Mr. LAWRENCE said this Court could not try the question
of partnership although it could direct an issue ; the cre-
ditors generally had no idea that a partn-rship was in exist-
ence; surely, however, taking it there had been one, the per-
sons giving credit to the partners under the presumption
that it was to the individual, had a right to come in and
prove larder the facts existing.

The LParned COMMISSIONER said that he should adjourn
the examination and dividend for a month, to ascertain
whether there was any separate estate, which appeared to
him to be the question, as in fact the partnership had been
made out on the issue tried.