The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-04 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)

Clifton r. Cockbuni, Jones, and Powell, and several
other cases, were ordered to stand over in consequence of
Sir Edward Sugden's absence. •
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS BLAKE, A LUNATIC.
Mr. BACON appeared in support of a petition presented
in this matter by the sole next of kin and second cousin of
the lunatic, praying that it might be referred to the Mas-
ter to inquire what, under the circumstances, should be
allowed to the petitioner out of the lunatic's income. The
petitioner stated that the lunatic was upwards of fifty years
of age ; that he had been found a lunatic in 1829 ; that no
hope was entertained he would ever be restored to a sound
mind, and that the father of the lunatic, who died shortly
before the finding of the lunacy, had been in the habit of
allowing the petitioner the charitable sum of 181. per
annum. These facts were supported by affidavit.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the order upon this
petition could only be made in a very especial manner. It
was a rare thing to find the characters of sole next of
kin second cousin, a pauper, and an object of the family's
charitable bounty for many years, all concentrated in one
individual, and regard being had to these circum-
stances, he thought without any apprehension that the
present order would operate as a mischievous pre-
cedent, the lunatic being a bachelor, and possessed of up-
wards of 8001. a-year, he might, regard being had to all
these circumstances, safely: direct (and there being no evi-
dence that the lunatic had made a will before he became a
lunatic) that the 18/. a-year should be continued to the
petitioner ; and that the arrears of it should be paid from
the period of the death of the lunatic's father.

CLAYTON V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
Sir C. WETHERELL proceeded to reply in this case,
which has now occupied several days in argument.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. THE HUNGERFORD MARKET COMPANY.
EX PARTE EYRE.

In this case a rule had been obtained for a mandamus
to compel the Company to assess damage done to the house.
of Mrs. Eyre, in pulling down the adjoining house, pur-
suant to the provisions of the act under which the company
had been incorporated.
The COURT gave judgment this moining. On looking
into the affidavits, it did not appear that the damage had
been done in taking down the party wall of the adjoining
house ; it had also been urged that the time for bringing
the action had expired, and that the plaintiff was shut out
by her own neglect. For these reasons, the. Court" was
of opinion that the rule should be discharged.--Bule dis-
charged.
- - -

THOMAS v. WILLIAMS.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff,
for the recovery of his salary as merchant's clerk, tried be-
fore Chief Justice Denman. The defendant had pleaded
the general issue, and an act of bankruptcy. Verdict for
the plaintiff.
A rule for a new trial had been moved for, on the ground
that the act of bankruptcy was a dissolution of the contract.
The Counr was of opinion that the case came within
that humane provision of the act which enabled clerks and
servants to recover the amount of wages due out of the
bankrupt's estate. —Rule refused.
BRIXTON AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES OF HILL,
I'. PRITCHARD.
This case was tried before the CHIEF JUSTICE at Guild-
hall, and the question that came before the jury was, whe-
ther a sale of property by the bankrupt bill to the defend-
ant, was not a fraudulent one for the purpose of defeating
the just claims of the creditors.
The CHIEF JUSTICE aaid that the case having been
rather a new one he had thought it right to adhere
to the strict words oLthe act ; he was of opinion that the
sale had been a fraudulent one, and, under his direction,
the jury had found for the plaintiffs, with leave to move
for a nonsuit. He was now satisfied that his first impres-
sion had been wrong, and he agreed with the opinion of the
rest of the Court. If the sale was a bona fide one on the
part of the defendant, the money paid by him to the bankrupt
would be equally applicable to the purposes of the creditors.
The defendant had no right, therefore, to return the pro-
perty until he had been repaid the money advanced by
him. The Court, therefore, was of opinion that the rule
for entering the nonsuit should be made absolute.

THE ICING V. TWYFORD, ESQ., AND ANOTHER.
In this case a rule had been obtained by Mr. Hill for a
mandamus to compel the defendants, two magistrates of
the county of Middlesex, to issue their warrant against the
overseers of the parish of Tottenham for the levy of a cer-
tain rate, pursuant to the provisions of an act for the watch-
ing and lighting of the parish.
Mr. CRESSWELL now appeared to show cause against
the rule, on the ground that the provisions of the act had
not been complied with.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, after hearing the arguments, sug-
gested to have the matter tried by an issue before the rule
was proceeded with further.
This was assented to by the learned counsel on either
side, and the rule was to be enlarged until after the trial of
the issue.