The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-11 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE EVELYN.-ABSENCE OF COUNSEL,

Sir W. HORNE stated, when this matter was called on,
that it had stood over that the other side might have an
opportunity of stating any objection to the order as prayed
that might occur to them, and as no gentleman appeared,
hepprehended the Court would grant the prayer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Take the order.

Sir Wm. Horne then left the court, and in a few
minutes afterwards,
Mr. K. PARKER appeared at the bar, and asked per-
mission to interrupt the counsel then addressing his lord-
ship in another case that he might state. He appeared to
oppose the order which Sir Wm. Horne had obtained.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Very well ; but it's over.
Mr. K. PARKEa—It stood over for to-day on my
application.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—ExactIy so; and you were
not here when it was called on. The learned counsel who
was here took the order, and he is gone.
Mr. K. PARKER—My Lord, I was before his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor—

The LORD CHANCELLOR—But when are we to begin
business here (now a quarter past ten) ? If lam to have
no counsel here, nor anything to go on with when I come
into Court, I may as well sit all day in the adjoining room.
Mr. K. PARKER—I was here at ten o'clock—your
lordship was not—and finding that your lordship was not
here, stepped into the other Court, and happened to be
before his Honour when you did sit, at which moment the
learned counsel on the other side appeared before your
lordship, and took the order !
The LORD CHANCELLOR—HOW am I to know that?
How am I to know whether you are before the Vice-
Chancellor ? I can't look through the wall and see that
you are there. Why was your solicitor not here—pray
why was he not here ?
Mr. K. PARKER—I did not know, my Lord, that he
was not here—l am not to answer for him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, but it was his duty to
be here ; I can't walk out into the hall and look after
solicitors, who ought to be here attending to their business.
You may speak to Sir William Horne about it, and men-
tion it to the Court to-morrow morning.
Mr. K. PARKER—If your Lordship pleases.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY).

His Honour, the VICE-CHANCELLOR, took short causes
and motions to-day.

LE BLANC V. THE GOVERNOR AND DIRECTORS OF THE

HOSPITAL FOR POOR FRENCH PROTESTANTS.
The bill in this case was filed by the personal represen-
tatives of a testatrix, who bequeathed a sum of 481. per
annum, Long Annuities, to her son, a native of Switzer-
land, for life, and at his death to any lawful child or
children of his who should be living at his death, and who
had attained 21 years of age,and in default of there being any
children, then she bequeathed the amount in question to
three charities for the benefit of French Protestants. The
son of the testatrix went abroad, and died, but it had not
been ascertained whether he had been married, or left any
children behind him. The object of the present suit there-
fore was for a reference to the Master, to inquire into
those facts.
Mr. KNIGHT, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff,
was anxious that the inquiry before the Master should be
as extensive as possible, the governors and directors of the
charity having put in a claim to the property, and the
learned counsel considering a serious question might be
raised under the words of the will, whether any child of
the son of the testator, attaining 21, after the father's
death, would not take a vested interest.
His HONOUR directed the reference to be made suffi-
ciently extensive to embrace that contingency.
BAKER V. BRAMAN.

This case came before the court upon demurrer. The
bill was filed by the plaintiff, and two other gentlemen as
the Directors of the South London Gas Light and Coke
company, against the defendants for the purpose of ob-
taining a discovery of the consideration given by them for
a bill of Exchange for 500/. accepted by a person of the
name of Evan Roberts, and also for an injunction to
restrain the proceedings of an action commenced by the
defendants against the plaintiffs for the recovery of the
amount of the bill in question. It appeared from
the statements in the bill that on the institution of
the company in question in the year 1833, a reso-
lution was come to that all orders for the payment of
money should be signed by three directors; notwith-
standing this, Evan Roberts, together with persons of the
name of Clare and Mereditt, took upon themselves to draw
and accept bills in the name of the committee ; one of the
bills so drawn for 500/. was discounted by the defendant,
who upon payment being refused by the plaintiffs brought
his action for the recovery of the amount. To the bill
which the plaintiff had filed the defendant put in a de-
murrer in the first place for want of parties, and secondly,
that the bill was one for relief and not discovery.
Mr. WIGRAM supported the demurrer, which was op-
posed by Mr. Richards.
The court overruled the demurrer.
In the course of the morning his Honour intimated, that
after the last day of Term (to-morrow) he should not sit
till the first seal, having to attend the Privy Council.
The court rose shortly after twelve o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-THIS DAY.