The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-12 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—/This Day.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Peers present—the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, Lord
Chelmsford, Lord Wensleydale, Lord Kingston, and
other Peers.

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE DEANS

AND CANONS OF WINDSOR EX PARTE.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Master of the
Rolls, 12th January, 1858, dismissing the Attorney. Gene•
ral's information.

By the information in this suit, the informant insisted
that the effect of the Acts of Parliament relied on was only
to give to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the same share
as the holders of the suspended canons would have been
entitled to receive, if such canons had Rot been suspended,
of the rents, profits, fees, or emoluments of the said College
Chapel.

The Attorney-General, Sir Richard Bethel, Q.O , is now
being heard for the appellant, and contends that he is bene-
ficiary entitled to £6OO a year.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
rLumsTEAD, wooLwicir, AND CHARLTON PT7RE WATER

CONSUMERS' COMPANY V. DAVIS.--JUDGMENT.
The contention in this case was whether the Court of
Chancery or the Court of Bankruptcy had a concurrent or
separate jurisdiction in the winding up of this company
under the Registration and Winding-up Acts 19 and 20
Vict., caps. 47 and 110, and 8 Vict., cap. 110, sec. 60, 107,
108, and 109-110. By a deed of settlement in October,
1852, the company was formed and completely registered as
a limited company under the Act 19 and 20 Vict., cap. 47,
and the defendant was appointed official manager, and cer-
tain other persons trustees.

On the failure of the company an application was made
to Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Kindersley for a winding
up order, and a question was raised whether the Court of
Chancery had jurisdiction under the winding up act.
His Honour the Master of the Rolls, on carefully consi-
dering the several clauses of the winding up acts relied on,
came to the conclusion that the Court of Chancery had no
jurisdiction in the matter, and dismissed the plaintiff's bill
without costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
GILLARD V. STANDON-A CATTLE FOOD COMPANY.
This was an action brought by plaintiff, trading under
the title of the United Kingdom Cattle Food Company, to
recover £6 6s. for three cwt. of cattle food from defendant,
a shopkeeper at Wimbledon.

Plaintiff said he had, through his traveller, sold defen-
dant the food now sued for. Repeated application had
been made for the money, and plaintiff had received a letter
from defendant. (The letter was read, and was to the ef-
fect that defendant had not been able to sell any of the
food, and wished plaintiff to take it back.)
Defendant said he never wrote the letter. A young man,
under the instructions of defendant's wife, sent it.
Mr. Haynes cross-examined the plaintiff, and asked him
who formed the company.
Plaintiff did not see what that had to do with the case,
but ultimately admitted that he was the sole proprietor.
He bought the company in January, 1859. The company
was originally carried on by a person in Hull, Yorkshire.
Gave nothing for the business, but bought the stock, and as
there was some show cards and bills, witness was allowed
to carry on the business under the established title.
The traveller was called, and said he asked defendant if
that person would take up the Wimbledon agency. De-
fendant said he would, and 3 cwt. of food was sent down,
from which defendant might select his samples.
Defendant—l hav'nt sold an ounce of the food.
His Honour—He is your agent, plaintiff, and you can't
sue him. These proceedings are nonsensical.
Plaintiff—Then I suppose I can have my food back.
His.Honour—Oh, yes. There will be a nonsuit, with
costs.