The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-13 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR.)
LN RE SPARROW.
This-petition, opened on Saturday, was again resumed this
morning.lt sees to charge the brother of the lunatic, who is also
committee, with an occupation rent of the family house,
called Gosfield-place, in Essex, and with the rent of the park.
It asks, moreover, that he be compelled to account for dis-
bursements to a large amount male for the improvement of
the estate, which he takes at the death of the lunatic.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
No business of importance occupied his Honour this
morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Lord CItANWORTX.)
BEHAN V, RUFFORD—THE GREAT WESTERN V. THE NORTH-
WESTERN RAILWAYS, OR THE BROAD V. THE NARROW
GUAGE.
This case, which has occupied the Court for three days,
was again resumed this morning.
Mr. BETHELL, for the Great Western Railway, having
concluded his argument,
Mr. Maeues opened his reply this morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor TURNER.)
HEAP it, TuNGUE.
This case came on fcr judgment this morning.
The plaintiff is the nephew of Win. Heap, who in the year
1845 died intestate, leaving a widow and several more col-
lateral descendants. From the affidavits it appeared that in
the month of October of the same year a voluntary agree-
ment was executed by all parties to share the estate of the
deceased Wm. Heap equally among themselves. In 1848,
however, another agreement was executed by all the parties
except the plaintiff, by which he genera estate was made
liable to certain mortgages, and the tit le deeds handed over
to the mortgagees. The plaintiff' now prayed to have the
original deed carried into effect, and declared valid as regarded
the mortgagees.
His Hosonet granted a decree complying with the prayer
of the petition.
QUEEN'S BENCH.-(TRIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
HOLT V. DAW.
The Court gave judgment in this case, which was an
action to try a right of:way, in favour of the defendant.
THE CASE OF MR. BARBER.
Lord CAMPBELL intimated that the ourt would defer
giving judgment in this case un it next term, in order to
have time to look anxiously into all the affidavits, and see
whether it was fit to grant a rule to show cause.

EXCHEQUER.—(rtus DAY.)
THE DUKE Or BUCKINhIIAINI AND CHANDOS V. THE COM.
ISIISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE.
The LORD Cum? BARON delivered judgment in this case,
which came before the Court on an appeal under the Stamp Act,
against the decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
who had required that a stamp to the value of 1,0001. should
be placed on a deed of settlement made between the Duke of
Buckingham and Chandos and other parties, and bearing
date the 27th of May, 1847. This deed was in substance a
conveyance during the Duke's lifetime of his interest in cer-
tain large estates, subject to certain mortgages, an-
nuities, and other charges, for the purpose of rais-
ing the sum of 1,500,000/. The Commissioners were
of opinion, though no sum was mentioned in the
deed, yet that it ought to be stamped with so ad valorem
stamp. The Court were now of opinion that the deter-
mination of the Commissioners was wrong. It was a well-
established rule in the construction of revenue Acts, that a
duty could not be imposed except by the clear and express
words of the statute, and the Court considered that the terms
of this particular Act of Parliament did not bear out the
construction which the Commissioners had placed on them.
There was no purchase or consideration money expressed in
the deed, and the transaction could not be treated as a sale.
The Court were satisfied that the Crown had not made cut a
right to charge an ad valorem duty on the deed, and there-
fore judgment must be for the appellant.
Judgment for the appellant accordingly.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE VAUXHALL-BRIDGE COMPANY V. SAWYER,--JUDGMENT.
The LOUD CHIEF BARON yesterday delivered the judgment
of the Court in this case, which was a special ease directed
for the opinion of their Lordships by an order of Mr. Baron
Aide: son. The question to be determined upon the state of
facts set out in the case was, whether the Vauxhall-bridge
Company were liable to be rated to the land-tax in respect
of the tolls which they collected on their bridge. It appeared
that the company were incorporated under the Act of the
49th Ge :rge 111., c. 142, which gave them the power to pur-
chase land and to form the approaches to the bridge, and to
take tolls for passengers and goods traffic. The Court were
of opinion, however, that the first section of the second Act
expressly showed an intention on the part of the Legislature
that this de:eription of property should be subject to the tax,
and the company must be held liable to pay it in respect of
the tolls they collected, as coming under the denomination of
an "hereditament."
Judgment for the defendant accordingly.