The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-19 00:00:00

FOLEY TARRY.

The question here was, whether a testator, having by
his will said—" it is my wish that my dear wife, and
Walter Williams, E,q., the grandfather of the said Walter
Williams Foley, shall superintend and take care of his edu-
cation, so as to fit him for any respectable profession or
employment," entitle Mr. Foley to be maintained as well
as educated out of the testator's property?
His Honor the VICE•CHANCELLOR decided that it did,
and the present was a motion of appeal against that
judgment.
It was being argued when we left the Court.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

HARRISON V. NETTLESHIP.

In this cage the bill wis filed for the purpose of having
it declared by the Court that three bills of exchange, in
which the plaintiffs had become sureties for a person
named Fuller, one of the defendants, in respect of a debt
due from him to Nettleship, the other defendant, had
under the circumstances been discharged, and that they
might he delivered up to be cancelled. The notes were
payable respectively at twelve months two anal three years
after date. Nettleship, some time prior to 1827, had, it
appeared, carried on the business of a publican at Boston,
and being anxious to dispose of his goodwill and effects,
entered into an arrangement by which he conveyed them
over to Fuller far the sum of 1,4001. for the purpose of
giving effect, to which the plaintiffs signed the bills of
exchange now in question. The bill charged that in re-
spect of certain transactions which had subsequently taken
place between the two defendants, Fuller having largely
supplied Nettleship with ale, wine, and spirits, the amount
had been paid ; and prayed an account between the two
defendants for the purpose of establishing that fact.
Fuller had become insolvent, and an action was
brought is 1831 against the plaintiffs for payment of
two of the notes alleged to have been unsatisfied. On the
occasion of the trial two pleas were put in, to the effect
that time had been given to Fuller, and therefore the
sureties were discharged; the defendant in that action
also asserted a set off in respect of the alleged transactions
between Fuller and Nettleship, by which it would appear
the latter bad been fully paid the amount of the bills ;
and motions for an injunction had been made before both
the Vice and the Lord Chancellor in order to stay the
proceedings at law, which, however, bad been refused,
there not appearing to the Court to be sufficient ground
for interfering. The action was tried, the pleas severally
failed, and a verdict was entered up for the amount of the
bills. The present suit was instituted for the purpose of
having the assistance of the Court, in order to establish,
by an account to be taken before the Master of the trans-
actions between the two defendants, that they were dis-
charged from the liabilities which they had incurred.
By the defence now set up, it appeared that the dealings
represented to have taken place subsequent to the date of
the bills, had been wholly distinct from and independent
of the promissory notes; and that in fact, at the time of
Fuller's insolvency, so far from being indebted to him
Nettleship had other demands against him.
Mr. 131cxxasTrris and Mr. BARBER. appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. 11E112E8.7mi and Mr. Kos for the
defendants.

His Hozioutt said the present bill appeared to proceed
precisely upon the same grounds with the pleas which had
been put in by the present plaintiffs to the action, which
had been brought against them at law on the bills of ex-
change. Those grounds of plea, namely, that time had
been given, and claiming that there had been subsisting
accounts, the state of which would relieve them from
their liabilities, were good at law ; and it was quite
competent for them to have moved for an injunction to
stop proceedings at law in order that more complete
justice might be done by a Court of Equity directing the
accounts to be taken between the defendants, and that thus
the plaintiff, might have an opportunity of proving a set-
off. But the motions for an injunction having failed, and a
verdict at law having gone against them, it was impos-
sible, without some new equitable ground, to be relieved
against that verdict in this Court. He had no jurisdiction,
and, if he had, it would be most inexpedient, after a
verdict at law had been obtained on the same legal defence,
to give relief against that verdict in the absence of any
specific equitable consideration. The bill should accord-
ingly be dismissed with costs.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

PEARS V. SHARP.

waslnenthtiis tlecdasetna paefrusonn ofthe d
of
I,4noaom of
I.e
ab siulleuntry Sims
ely,, Pearsanderthe
irriage settlement of his parents. Upon the death of hie
mother, the defendant was the trustee of that sum. In
1823 Pears made a settlement on his wife and children,
whereby he assigned half his interest in the propel 'y to
them. The mother did not die till 1830, when the fund
came into possession, and at that period the hill was filed
to have the benefit of the settlement, and calling Upon Mr.
Sharp, the trustee, to transfer the fund. The defendant, by
his answer, stated that he had agreed with Henry Sims
Pears for the purchase of the reversionary interest, and
set up his claim to the performance of that agreement.
In Angw.t last an order was applied for and obtained
directing the defendant to transfer the money into Court.
The time for drawing up that order having elapsed a new
order was obtained on the 2d of the present month.
Mr. TaEsLovE applied this morning upon motion to
stay the proceedings under that order, upon the ground of
irregularity, the defendant having been served with the
order, on the service of which he would have presented

appeal, but which, by the course adopted by the
plaintiff) he had been prevented fro n doing.
His Hogoult dismissed the motion with costs, consi-
dering the order obtained by the plaintiff, on the 2d of
the preient Month) in the nature of aft order) of course
the only reason for not having the first order drawn up in
time, being the state of business at the Registrar's Office.
Mr. TfLE,cv!; tiusted the Court would nor gwe
plaintiff the costs, as, by the 48th order, the defendant
was compelled to adopt the course he had done ; and if
parties) in complying with in prdvitioba, stitijetted them-
selves to costs, the sooner it was repealed the better.
. iTALIAN OPERA-ROUSE.-BLICKE V. WATERS.
This case came before the Coat coon the netition of
the repretentati.fea of Charles Blicke, praying that the
Accoun'ant-General might not be directed to transfer to
the defendant Waters any part of the sums of 58,0001.
and 43,0001. stock which had been ordered into Court in
the different causes connected with the Italian Opera-
house. Mr. Waters granted to the late Sir Coarles
Blicke an annuity of 3301., in-respect of which consider-
able arrears were now due. That annuity was charged
directly upon a lynx in the Opera-house and some other
property in the hay-market which then belonged to Mr.
Waters. The contract contained a covenant that if the
annuity should not be repurchased within seven years, it
should he charged on any other property, freehold or
leasehold, of the amount of the annuity. The annuity
was not repurchased within the time specified, and a
bill was filed for the specific performance of time con-
tract, and a decree was made which was now in force
against the defendant ordering Waters to provide further
security for the annuity in freehold or leasehold property,
and to bring the abstract of the deeds of that property
into the Master's office. Mr. Waters went abroad, and
was now in contempt for not performing that decree.
After the execution of the deed, and before the decree,
Mr. Waters, by contract with Mr. Taylor, acquired other
interests in the Opera-house, and afterwards, in the course
of the Opera-house causes, the entirety of the Opera-house
was sold, and the purchase money of that property was
the fund now in Court.

Mr. KNIGHT, who appeared for the petitioner, con-
tended that the money in Court not only representing the
original but the acquired interest of Mr. Waters, the peti-
tioner was entitled to the order be asked.

Mr. PEPYS, for the defendant, submitted, that the
order asked by the petitioner could not be made, there
being no lien on the property represented by the money
in Court, inasmuch as the lease on the opera-box on which
the annuity was charged, expired in 1814, and the pro-
perty in the Haymarket on which the annuity was also
charged was not represented by the money in Court. The
only question was, whether the covenant relative to the
new repurchase of the annuity within seven years gave
a lien, which the Learned Counsel submitted it did not.

His Howouw, considering a supplemental bill ought to
he filed, ordered the petition to stand over for a week for
that purpose.

SITTINGS AT LINCOLN'S' INN.

In the course of the morning His HONOUR intimated
his intention of sitting at Lincolns' Inn this day week, and
the five following days, for the purpose of hearing motions.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE did not sit to-day.
OPPV V. LORD DE DUNSTANVILLE.

Sir JAalas SCA RLETT said this important case had been
fixed to be argued on 'Thursday, but, as it was found that
from the numerons documents which were required from
the Court of the Duchy of Lancaster, the contents of which
were necessary to embody in the affidavits, they could not
be got ready in sufficient time to bring the case on as
perfect as it ought to be, he therefore suggested that the
best course would be to postpone it until an early day in
the next term, and, in the mean time, his friend Mr.
Follett and their Lordships could be furnished with extracts
from those documents, which were not to be found in
printed books.
Mr. FOLLETT said he had no objection to the course
proposed.
The Court ordered the case to stand over until next
term.

TILLADAM V. THE INHABITANTS OP BRISTOL.

This was an action by the executrix of a party deceased
o recover compensation in damages for an injury com-
mitted to certain premises, furniture, fixtures, &c., during
the unfortunate riots at Bristol. By the Act of the 7th
and Bth Ge IV. cap. 31, which gave a remedy against
the hundred or district for damage done by rioters, it was
necessary for the party damnified, or his servant or servants
having charge of the property destroyed or damaged,
within seven days after the offence was committed, to go
before a magistrate and submit himself to an examination,
and to state on oath the name or names of any of the
offenders, if known. In this case it was sworn that none
of the names were known.