The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-10 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

ANSTRUTHER V. AI)AIR.
Mr. MILNE stated that a question arose in this case
upon the construction of a Scotch settlement. It had
been referred to the Master to ascertain what the Scotch
legal construction was. The Master had now made his
report, by which it appeared that the plaintiff was entitled
to the property. The present application simply, there-
fore, was, that the report might be confirmed, and that
the funds might be ordered to be paid to the plaintiff, and
that the trustees should have their usual costs. Order made.

IN RE MAULER, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said he had seen this unfor-
tunate gentleman, and the result was, that he felt quite
certain he was now labouring under no delusion, but was
perfectly well both in body and in mind. Some time
since there could be no doubt that he was under a delusion,
but at that time he had been labouring under the most se-
vere bodily affliction; he had since undergone an important
operation, and was now quite recovered. Dr. Southey,
however, having seen the gentleman when ill, his Lordship
thought it would be as well for him to direct that the
Doctor should again see him before the supersedeas was
signed, and for that purpose Mr. Marler had gone to call
on the medical attendant.
The Loan CHANCELLOR heard appeals. He stated
that he should sit on Friday, and that all next week he
should be in the House of Lords except one day, which he
should devote to sitting in Court, and that that should be
whatever day might be most convenient to the bar.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY).

THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON V. SOULSBY.

Thi;caseQnebelo;;;lWC.Ourt upon exceptions to the
Master's report, declaring the answers put in by the de-
fendant insufficient. The facts of the case have been re-
peatedly before the public. The bill was filed by the Earl
of Portarlington against the defendant, who is a wholesale
wine merchant, carrying on business at St. Mary-at-Hill,
for the purpose of obtaining an injunction to restrain him
froth proceeding in an action he had commenced against
the noble plaintiff, to recover the amount of a bill of
exchange for 1,000/. which was accepted by him. The
ground on which the injunction was applied for was that the
acceptance had been obtained from the plaintiff by a person
named Aldridge, who kept a gaming-house in Piccadilly
for a sum of money lost at play. His Honour the Vice-
Chancellor, on application being made to him, granted the
injunction, which was ordered to be continued on appeal
to the Lord Chancellor. The defendants then put in a
plea to the plaintiff's bill, pleading that they had received
the acceptance in question from a person named Brown
for valuable consideration without notice. That plea
was, upon argument, determined to be bad, and the
defendant was ordered to put in an answer. The
defendant had answered some of the allegations of
the bill, and pleaded to others, and upon the case
being referred to the Master, he reported that the
mode of answering adopted by the defendant was insuffi-
cient. Exceptions were taken to that report, which now
came on for argument. Mr. Rolfe and Mr. Sidebottom
appeared for the exceptions, and the Solicitor-General and
Mr. Bagshawe opposed them.
His HONOUR, without calling upon the two latter gen-
tlemen to address the Court, overruled the exceptions.
The Court rose shortly after 11 o'clock.

COURT OF KING'SBENCH-(THIS DAY.)
-.....-

DOE ON THE DEMISE OF BIAS V. HORSELEY.
The CHIEF JUSTICE gave judgment in this case, which
was an action of ejectment tried before Mr. Justice Alder-
son, and in which the plaintiff had been nonsuited. A
rule to show cause wby the verdict should not be set aside,
and a new trial had, was subsequently obtained. The
Court was of opinion that this was not a case of forfeiture,
and that the rule for setting aside the verdict should be
made absolute.
DOE ON THE DEMISE OF FOSTER V. EARL OF DERBY.
This was an action of ejectment tried before Mr. Jus-
tice Alderson at Westminster, in which a verdict was had
for the plaintiff. A rule to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside and a new trial had, was subse-
quently obtained by Mr. Alexander.
Mr. F. PoLLocx and Mr. Tommwsori now appeared to
show cause against the rule.
Mr. ALEXANDER was heard in support of the rule.
The COURT, after hearing the arguments, which were of
a very protracted nature, said that it did not appear that
the authorities cited by Mr. Alexander in support of the
rule, were altogether in point. The burden of proof as to
evidence produced at a former trial lay upon the defen-
dant, and it appeared that he had failed in that proof. The
Court was therefore of opinion that the rule should be dis-
charged.