The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-12 00:00:00

LANGDON V. LEWIS.-INTUNCTION.

Sir EDWARD SUDDEN applied for a special injunction to
restrain the defendant from removing, or causing to be re-
moved, any of the implements or stock in trade from off the
premises, No. 28, • Great. Russell-street. The business
of manufacturing pencils had been carried on in the
firm of Brookman and Langdon, but ultimately it veste.d
in Mrs. Landor, who entered into partnership with the
defendant, soon after which she died. Shortly before her
death, however, she assigned part of her interest in the
freehold premises in Russell-street, and a part of the busi-
ness to the plaintiff, whO she appointed her executor. The
defendant, however, refuses to suffer any one to go on the
premises, or to take care of any part of the property on the
part of the plaintiff. His HONOUR granted the injunction.

ROLLS' COURT, DEC. 11.

TIDSWELL V. BOWYER.

Mr. PEMBERTON, for the plaintiff, said that the bill filed
in this case by the plaintiff, Mrs. Tidswell, was to set aside
a release obtained from that lady of an interest which she
was considered to be entitled to in the estate of her late
husband, on the ground that such release had been obtain-
ed in ignorance of her rights. In 1792 a marriage was so-
lemnized between Mr. James Shrafnell and the present
plaintiff, now Mrs. Sarah Tidswell. At the period of the
marriage Mrs. Tidswell was about sixteen years of age, and
unfortunately that happened which was often the case in
such early marriages, that the parties became tired of each
other long before 1798, and agreed to separate. It was
stated in this record, that the separation took place in con-
sequence of the elopement of Mrs. Tidswell. That alle-
gation was not material at present to consider, but be
(Mr. Pemberton) was informed that it was totally and en-
tirely false. On the occasion of the separation a deed was
executed by Mr. and Mrs. Shrafnell, and two relations of
Mrs. Shrafnell, Mr. Henry Haynes and Miss Prudence
Haynes, which, after reciting that unhappy differences
had arisen between the parties, provided that Mr. and
Miss Haynes had agreed to indemnify Mr. James Shraf-
nell against all debts which his wife might contract ; that
Mrs. Shrafnell, in case her husband should die intes-
tate, had agreed not to sue for or claim any part of
his real or personal estate which he might die possess-
ed of, under or in virtue of the Statute of Distributions,
and that neither of the parties would sue each other for a
restitution of conjugal rights. He (Mr. Pemberton) should
not enter into a discussion concerning the general validity
of such an agreement. After the separation had taken
place Mr. Shrafnell, who had been a silversmith at Charing-
cross, but had failed, went to the East Indies, and, having
formed a connection with the house of Forbes and Co., en-
gaged in a speculation to Batavia, then in the possession of
the Dutch. In 1811 this gentleman joined the expedition
setting out to reduce Java, and soon afterwards established
at Batavia a commercial house in connection with the
house of Forbes and Co. Mr. Shrafnell continued to re-
side in Java till his death, which took place in January,
1815, and by his will dated the 2d of April, 1807, he con-
veyed all his personal estate and effects to his executors
Robert Bowyer and Essex Bowen in trust, after paying all
his just debts and funeral expenses, to remit the several
sums of money mentioned in his will, and as for and con-
cencerning the residue and remainder of his personal estate
the testator directed his executors to pay and assign the
some to his sisters Elizabeth and Louisa Shrafnell, in equal
shares and proportions. This will was proved by both
of the executors. The testator thus having made his
will, and disposed of his whole property by a legal be-
quest to his executors, in trust for a particular purpose, at
law there was no intestacy as to any part of the testator's
personal estate. The Learned Counsel then went at length
into the facts of the case, after which—
Mr. PAINTER, who was on the same side, proceeded to
read the evidence, which occupied the Court till the rising.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—DEc. 11.

WHITAKER V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.

This was an action brough for the purpose of recovering
damages from the Bank of England in consequence of dis-
honouring a bill.
Mr. THEsSIGER said the plaintiff in this case was a flour
factor, and had up to 1833 been in good credit, carrying on
business to the extent of several thousands per year, and
for the sake of safety banked at the Bank of England. On
the 28th of January, 1833, the plaintiff had in the hands of
the Bank of England a balance of 33/. 13s. Bd. The same
day he paid in a cheque of 200/. and 1951. in money,
making in the gross 428/. 13s. 4d. On the following day
a bill became due for 425/., which the Bank refused to pay.
Notice of the dishonour of the bill was sent down to Nor-
wich. The next day the Bank discovered its mistake, and
sending to Masterman's Bank, that if the bill was presented
it would be paid, which was done with Is. 6d. for noting it.
The plaintiff thought nothing of the circumstance. On
the 4th or sth of February, the dishonour of the bill be-
came known at Norwich. The result was, his credit be-
came stopped, and be was soon under the necessity of stop-
ping payment, and for this injury done to the plaintiff's
credit, the present action was brought.
The Jury found for the defendants.
The case occupied the entire day, and lasted till half-past
seven o'clock.