The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR.)
MARRIAGE OF MISS TALBOT.-DOYLE V. WRIGHT.
Mr. R. PALMER made an application to his Lordship
in this case. He said he appeared on behalf of Lord
Edward Howard, who bad presented a petition to the
Court, in which he stated that, having, in 1847, become
acquainted with Miss Talbot, a ward of the Court, he
bad since that period taken every opportunity of recom-
mending himself to her, and bad made a proposal of mar-
riage to her, to which she had given consent, subject to his
Lordship's approval. The application which ho now made
to his Lordship was to direct that the usual reference
should be made to the Master to approve of the marriage,
and also to approve of arrangements for settlements.
Mr. ROLT said he appeared for Dr. Doyle, who wished
to express his entire concurrence in the proposal, and who
would, moreover, have been ready to acquiesce in any
such arrangement, if it had been made at a much earlier
period.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—You may take an order.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
His HoNoul having given judgment in re Gedgo pro-
ceeded to hear the cause of Pooley v. Budd.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour was occupied this morning with bank..
rupt petitions.
(Before Lord CRANWORTII.)
His Honour disposed of a number of unopposed peti-
tions this morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor TURNER.)
occupied His HONOUR delivered:his first judgment this morning
in the case of Marker v. Marker, and then proceeded to
hear the cause of Travis v. Mylne, which him
the whole morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, Mr. Justice PATTESON, and
Mr. Justice ERLE.)
DOE DEBI. NEWMAN V. RUSHER.
Mr. CROWDER moved for leave to enter a nonsuit
in this case, which was tried at the last Salis-
bury assizes, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff, but
with leave to make this motion. The simple question
involved in the case was, whether or no a conveyance of
property for a valuable consideration got rid of a prior
conveyance of a voluntary character. For the defendant
it was contended that by the 27th of Elizabeth it did,
and a case has been decided in Ireland which supports
that position.—Rule nisi.

MOZLEY V. HYTHE AND ANOTHER..
Mr. WHATELEY moved, on behalf of the defendant,
for a rule to show cause why the verdict for the plaintiff
in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial had.
The action was for money had and received, and it arose
out of the following dispute:—ln 1816, upon the mar-
riage of a lady with a gentleman named Hythe, a settle-
ment was made, by which certain property was vested
in the husband for life, with remainder to the
lady in event of her surviving him. At the
death of both the property was to be sold
for the ben:,fit of the children of the mar-
riage, and the proceeds distributed equally amongst
them. Now the husband is dead, but the lady still lives,
and is the mother of three children, who are all of ago;
and, by an agreement between the four, it was arranged

a few months ago that the property should be sold a!
once. Accordingly, it was put up for sale, and kneel:ea
down to Sir Oswald Mozley, who made a deposit of oOle
01.
odd to ratify the bargain. The conditions of the
stipulated that no objection should be taken to the title
under the marriage settlement, inasmuch as both the lad
and her trustees were consenting parties to the trausav
tion; but, subsequently to the sale, Sir Oswald lkio74eYd
was advised that in law the sale would be held bad, 13,0,
he, therefore, brought the present action to recover IA ef'
the deposit money. On behalf of the defendant, how;
ever, it is contended that, in the face of the conditions 0,
sale, such an objection cannot be sustained, and bell
they were anxious that the Court should grant a 11/
trial, or direct that the point should be decided in a sile.
cial case.
Rule nisi for a new trial, in the event of the other side
not agreeing to a special case.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Mr. Justice Coleridge sat in this court to-day, t
heard several motions of course. His Lordship rose 11
half-past ten o'clock, there being no other business be tar'
him.

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY•)
(More Mr. Secondary POTTER.)

V. RAYNER.
The plaintiff is aPOTTLE news-agent at the Royal Exchsl74bef;
and defendant is a gentleman residing at HacialeP ,d.
action was brought to recover the sum of 11/. 129'
for newspapers supplied. Defendant pleaded that
was not indebted.
Mr. C. BROWNE appeared for the plaintiff, and ca-m'it
Mr. R. Pottle, the plaintiff's son, who produced an seci97,
of newspapers supplied between April, 1847, and
1850, but as no notice had been given to defendant
produce the original, oifo
The SECONDARY held that the witness could only .„0
evidence as far as his memory would serve him, 59 -
orders were produced.
The witness then proved that defendant himself /0Z
times called and sometimes sent other person/• le
papers delivered amounted to the sum iu question;_ao.
could speak positively, as he attended to the busiwt
'
He had written several times to defendant for pale'

but had not received
the an answer. did 11c3
Mr. F. A. Lewis,defendant's attorney,
offer any defence. t be
The Learned SECONDARY thought a verdict ill.; gbible
given on this general evidence, as it would be iropos'
to prove the delivery of every paper.
Verdict for the full amount.

LUARD V. .
This was an undefended JAMES
action on a bill of e%col"
for 11., andhe
tre was no defence.
Mr 6 . W. R. BUCHANAN appealed on the subject 0, co
the debt being under 201.
The Learned SECONDARY said he could not interfere;/
Mr. BUCHANAN said he applied under the last Coul3 fr
Court Act, and if the Learned Secondary did not
CO
ho had the power to certify to deprive plaintiff of 000
he (Mr, Buchanan) had to apply that the verdict so, 0/
not be entered with 40s. costs, and leave plaintiff to a°°'
his own course.
The Learned SECONDARY said he must leave Mr. IT;
chanan to an application to the Court above, but
would take a note of the objection. •
Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.