The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-26 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY•)

IN RE WHALLEY.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this case, which WI/
an application made on Wednesday for a four M..
order against the defendant.
It appeared that there were matters of account be;
tween him and Mr. Cole, upon which an order was take.,
by consent, 26th Fob., ay which Whalley agreed to till°
301. in discharge of a claim for 441,, for costs, within
days, which has rot been paid. It was stated byf.
Whalley, that he called at the residence of Colet.i—
order to pay him the money, but could not obtain an 1D
terview with him for that purpose, and that there Was
no one at his place of abode empowered to receive the
,
money. It was urged on the other side, that Cole's
licitor held a power of attorney to receive the 110300
agreed to be paid by the order of the 26th Februarg
but Mr. Whalley objected that the execution of t
power of attorney was not verified by affidavit, and tbto
before the present motion could be renewed the COs 0
should be paid, and in default, that the plaintiff had
locus standi.
His HONOUR now confirmed the order.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY•)
(Before Vice Chancellor BRUCE.)
His Honour was occupied this morning with adjourned
petitions.

(Before Lord CRANWORTIL)
His Lordship having disposed of a number of unor
posed petitions, proceeded with the motion-paper.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Timm%)
MILNE V. MILNE.
The arguments in this part-heard case were renames
this morning.
Mr. Mathis concluded his argument for the defendsoC
this morning, and Mr. Elmslie followed on the name
side.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
nitat
THE QUEEN V. MANCHESTER AND SOUTH JEW.—
In this case the COMPANY.
railwaycompany appealed agsinethe assessment made on the railway by the assossors es
the poor for Manchester, on the ground that it svaliae
.h
the same rate as the assessment made on the land in f
vicinity, which were of greater value than the land
the company with the rails upon it.
Mr. PEACOCK contended, on the part of the resPef
dents, the overseers of the parish, that a railway On.
pany had no right to depreciate valuable land in a parit
without paying the same rate of assessment as the lane'
adjoining the railway.
The Counp, without calling on Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who
appeared on behalf of the appellants, said they were
opinion that land appropriated for a railway, under 9.
Aet of Parliament, could not be rated as if it were
~00
copied. The rate should, therefore, be reduced.—Juur
ment for the appellants.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DA-3(4
(Sittings in Banco.)
. ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COIIIPANy v. BRETT.--JIEIDG-31 ter•
;0
This was en activn to recover convenatitien
damages for en alleged infringement of a patent for at
construction of electric telegraphs, in which a ver—
o
was found for the plaintiffs on all the material issueg• od
A rule for a new trial was subsequently obtained, e
it came on for argument during the last term.
The COURT now delivered judgment. They
dered that the improvements made by the plstintil ;0
the sounding of alarms, in giving railway signajs, and
to
making duplicate signals so as to convey meesag,,e;o,
intermediate stations, were likely to be of great 11"%te
tare, and might be made the subject of a sePar-le
patent. They were, therefore, of opinion that the rill
ought to be discharged.—Rulo discharged accordingly

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
V. HUMPHREY.
This action vrzs GRIFFIN
tried be ore the Lord Chief *ftlltic°
ea
of the Queen's Bench at the last sittings in Lfo"
when a verdict was fotind for the Plaintif&