The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-13 00:00:00

SHAWL WAREHOUSE.

MESSRS. J. and J. HOLMES' Establish-
ment being now so justly celebrated tor the beauty
and vast selection or its SHAWLS, they deem any remark
on their general Stock superfluous; at the same time they
beg to allude to the Enveloppe de Cachemire, which has
gained them so much notoriety as designers of novelty and
elegance ; and Ladies wishing to part with their Indian
Shawls will be most liberally treated with either in ex-
change or purchase.
171 and 173, REGENT-STREET.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 12.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DIXIE.

The charity in this case was established as far back
as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and according to
the will of the testator, taken in connection with
the interpretation of the letters-patent, it was then
considered simply as a grammar-school. The rents
of the charity estates, however, having in the pro-
cess of time become considerably augmented, the
Court, on application to it, was of opinion thar,
consistently with the testator's intention and the
language of the charter, the character oi the foun-
dation might be materially enlarged, and accordingly
classical and other masters were appointed; the
scheme was approved of, and regulations were given
for the conduct of the school, under which for some
time it had gone on and prospered in all its depart-
ments. The scheme then adopted, however, did
not absorb the amount of the charity funds, but
still left an annual income of above 500/. The
question now was, what should be done with that
surplus ? It was proposed, without disturbing the
original scheme, that an enlargement of the founda-
tion should take place.
His HONOUR was disposed to adopt the sug-
gestion, and should therefore refer it to the Tvlaster
to approve of a proper scheme for the application
of the surplus profits.

ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. THE IRONMONGERS'
COMPANY.

In this case the testator, in 1723, bequeathed
property to a large amount to the Ironmongers'
Company in trust as to one moiety to be applied in
the redemption of British slaves in Turkey or Bar-
bary, the other moiety to be appropriated towards
the support of charity schools in the city of London,
and the assistance of poor members of the Iron-
mongers' Company. He also particularly directed
in his will that each of these objects should be kept
quite distinct, and that the sums specifically assigned
to each should not on any account be alienated. In
respect of the two latter objects of the testator's
bounty, the income of the property had been regu-
larly and usefully applied ; but although at the date
of the will, and at subsequent intervals, there had
been persons answering the description of British
slaves in Turkey or Barbary, there had not existed
any for a long period, and the funds devoted for the
purpose of their redemption, now annually produc-
ing between three thousand pounds and four thou-
sand pounds, had accumulated to a very large
amount. The question was, whether, laying aside
a sum which might be deemed sufficient to answer
the intentions of the testator, it was not advisable
to apply to Parliament for the application of the
surplus.

His HONOUR referred it to the Master to approve
of a scheme to be submitted to Parliament with
that view.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor. 12.

OXENDEN V. EX3IOUT/1.

Mr. KNIGHT said that the case came before the
Court upon exceptions to the report of the Master,
which had been taken by the defendant, one of the
heirs and personal representatives of the late Lord
Exmouth. The Master had reported that a good
title had been shown to the Hawkesbramble estate
by the plaintiff, and it was a part and parcel of the
anor of Ashton.

Sir E. Sugden, Mr. Pepys, Mr. Preston, and
Mr. Turner, appeared to sustain the Master's re-
port, and rested their case principally upon an ori-
ginal deed of 1720, wherein the Havvkesbramble
estate was described as a portion of the manor of
Ashton, and upon a subsequent Act of Parliament,
in 1753, confirming a partition among the four
daughters of Sir John Chudleigh, one of whom
married Sir J. Chichester, and from whom the pre-
sent plaintiff is descended.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the
Master's report most be confirmed.
The next exception, relating to a conveyance of
the outstanding estate, was governed by the deci-
sion on the first.

His HONOUR rose at two o'clock, to attend the
pricking for Sheriffs in the Court of Exchequer.
It was this morning understood in Court, that Sir
E. Sugden had announced his intention of disconti-
nuing to practice before the Lord Chancellor, after
the end of the present week, except in briefs already
delivered.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 12.

BAIL COURT.

Before Mr. Justice LirrLEDALE and a Common Jury.)

MORGAN •. 'WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover damages for tres-
pass, dilapidation, &c. The pkintiff had been a
cheesemonger, residing in George-court, Piccadilly,
the houses in which belonged to one of the defend-
ants, Miss Williams (who resides in Belgrave-place,
Chelsea) he not holding immediately under the
latter, but as under-tenant of a person named
Keene. The circumstances out of which the action
arose occurred in November, 1832, when the back
wall of the plaintiff's house was taken down, the
floors partly broken through, and the house left ex-
posed for several weeks during the inclement season.
The plaintiff's case was, that this was done against
his will. It was further urged, that the inconveni-
erice to the plaintiff, by the trespass of the defen
dant, was greatly increased by his wife and family
being in a state of indisposition at the time.
The Jury found for the plaintiff for 531., being
501. for the loss of his trade, and 31. for the medical
man's expenses in attending the plaintiff's wife.