The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1834.

COURT OF CHANCERY--(THIS DAY).

IN RE MARY CARTER LINDSAY, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.
Mr. BETHELL stated that he was instructed to apply to his
Lordship to hare this matter put into the paper, for the pur-
pose of knowing who was to have the carriage of the commis-
sion taken out against the unfortunate lady—a lady of consi-
derable property. The applicants were the mother and brother
of the lunatic.

The LORD CHANCELLOR directed it to be put into the paper
on an early day.

WHARTON AND LORD DURHAM.

Mr. EARLE applied for leave to have this case, in which all
attempts to arrange had failed, put into the paper, and
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed it to stand for Tuesday
week.

IN THE MATTER OF TUBB, A LUNATIC.
Mr. WRIGHT was instructed to apply for liberty to traverse
the finding of the jury in this matter.
Mr. GARRATT appeared to oppose the application.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had always understood it
to be a matter of course to traverse, if the lunatic himself de-
sired it, although it was usual for the Chancellor to see the
lunatic.

Mr. WRIGHT certainly considered that to be so.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said that was his opinion, and
therefore desired the lunatic to be brought to him at the House
of Lords at ten o'clock on Saturday morning.

TIODENHAM V. RICKETTS.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that his Lordship would
be pleased to quash three writs, one from the Court of Here-
ford, another from the Court of Arches, and the other from
the Court of Delegates, on the ground of irregularity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, as the application was made
ex parte he would only direct the order to issue in the form of
a Rule Nisi, calling upon the other side to show cause why
the writs should not be granted.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

PERROT V. BUTTEN AND OTHERS.

This was an application for continuing the injunction which
had been granted for want of answer till the hearing of the
cause. The circumstances of the case are of a very compli-
cated nature, but the facts may be shortly stated thus :—.The
father of the defendant Butten, some years ago was possessed
of two under leases of premises in Tenter-street, derived under
an original lease from the Merchant Tailors' Company. The
defendant took possession of the premises by his father's per-
mission, and carried on there his business of packer and cul-
lenderer erecting for that purpose a great quantity of valuable
machinery. In the year 1823, finding himself pressed by his
creditors, and wishing to protect his property, he confessed
judgment in favour of his father, and a distress was levied
on the plaintiff and machinery in Tenter-street. The property
taken under that execution was afterwards assigned by the
sheriff to the defendant's father. The defendant subsequently
became a bankrupt, and under that bankruptcy his father was
appointed assignee, and proved under the commission to a large
amount. Previous to the obtaining the defendant's certificate,
a partnership was projected between him and the plaintiffs,
and an agreement for that purpose was prepared, as also an
agreement for the lease of the premises from the father to the
firm. In the meantime the defendant's father died, and a
gentleman of the name of Saunders was appointed his exe-
cutor. He executed, it was alleged, that lease to the part-
nership, which had since been dissolved by the second
bankruptcy of the defendant. The defendant contending
that Mr. Saunders executed the lease as trustee for him, and
that he was the only person beneficially interested, commenced
an action against the plaintiff under certain covenants on the
lease for the re-delivery of the plaintiff's machinery, and for the
arrear of rent from the commencement of the lease to its ter-
mination. To restrain the proceedings in the action was the
object of the present motion.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN and Mr. ROE appeared for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. KNIGHT and Mr. WIGRAM for the defendants.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN interrupted Mr. Roe in his arguments
by stating that he thought he could save the time of the
Court. With respect to the action for the rents since the bank-
ruptcy, the plaintiffs were willing to pay the amount into Court
in a month. As to the other action they would allow judgment to
go, the Court directing two issues, one to try whether the
deed of May, 1825, was executed by the father of the de-
fendant or any other person duly authorised, and the other
if the Jury found that it was not, whether it was executed by
any other person, and by whom. This arrangement was agreed
to by the Counsel on behalf of the defendant, and thus the
matter rests at present.