The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-03 00:00:00

ADDITIONAL ARRIVALS AT BRIGHTON.

Joskin, Newington, Humbug, Negress, Nassau, Magnet
Julie (2 yrs), Eltbam Beauty, Clara Webster, Electric,
Acteon, Yesa, and Lainstone.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE OF
THIS EVENING.

OSBORNE-HOUSE, JULY 31.

This day, had audience of her Majesty;
Don Jose de Marceleta, Envoy Extraordinary and Minis-
ter Plenipotentiary from the Republic of Nicaragua, and
Minister Plenipotentiary from the Republic of Costa Rica, to
deliver his credentials :—To which audience he was intro-
duced by the Earl of Malmesbury, her Majesty's Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

FOREIGN-OFFICE, JUNE 26.
The Queen has been graciously pleased to appoint David
Erskine, Esq., to be her Majesty's Consul in the Island of
Madeira.

COMMISSIONS SIGNED BY LORDS LIEUTENANT.
County of Sussex.—The Hon. W. J. Pelham, commonly
called Lord Pelham, to be Deputy Lieutenant ; H. P.
Crofts, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant.
Ayrshire—Lieutenant-Colonel John Ferrer Hamilton to
be Vice-Lieutenant, vice Sir David Hunter Blair, Bart.,
deceased.
Royal Mid-Lothian or Edinburgh Yeomanry Cavalry.—
William Roy, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Tait, promoted.
Royal Lancashire Milian Artillery Regiment—John
I3etham, Gent., to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice Samuel Shep-
herd, resigned.

BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED.
Samuel Trounce, provision merchant, Bristol.

BANKRUPTS.
William Ellerby Whaley and William John Hillstead,
warehouseman, Cheapside.
Syd ney Hodgkinson, commission agent, Queenhtthe,
Upper Thames-street.
James Bate, innkeeper, Birmingham.
Thomas Graves and Henry Wilkinson, plumber and
glaziers, Leamington.
John Miller, travelling draper, Newcastle-under-Lyne.
Samuel Stuart, provision dealer, Wednesbury,: Stafford-
shire.
James Gillham, boot and shoe manufacturer, Exeter,
August 11 and September 16, at one, at Exeter District
Court.
John D. Ayres and David M. Mellis, merchants, Notting-
ham, Sept. 1, at eleven, and Sept. 28, at twelve, at the
Court of Bankruptcy.
Louis Lichtenstin, merchant, Woad-street, City Aug.
17, at two, and Sept. 21, at twelve, at the Court of 'Bank-
ruptcy.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
George Garden, grocer, Broughty Ferry, Forfarshire.
Capel Augustus Curwood, Salen, Island of Mull.
John Colvill, carpet manufacturer, Stirling.
James and William M'Kenzie, builders, Glasgow.
Joseph Stevenson, oil merchant, Glasgow.
John and James Gow, farmers, Dryden Mains, Roslin.
John Smith, manufacturer, Gthsgow.

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF CHANCERY.-AuG 2,

(Before the Lords Justices.)

IN RE 3IALPAS TRUSTS.

The litigation in this matter appears to have reference
chiefly to. a sum of £lO Hs. 7d., such being the subject
matter of a petition on which Vice-Chancellor Stuart made
the order now appealed from, directing a trustee to pay to
his cestuigne trust a sum of £l5 by way of costs. The
case occupied the attention of the Court for nearly eight
hours, and, at the conclusion,
Their Lordships ordered the £l5 to be returned, and the
cestuique trust to pay the trustee a further sum of £2O to-
wards his costs. Their lordships also insisted on the various
parties who had appeared in the petition at once naming a
sum as their costs, so that the expense of a taxation of
costs might be spared.
Mr. Malins, who appeared for the trustee, observed that
if his costs were taxed they would amount to about £lOO,
but he consented under the circumstances to accept of
in addition to the £l5 to be returned to his client.
The counsel for the other parties having also named the
amount of their costs, an order was made accordingly.
Mr. Malins and Mr. Southgate were for the appeal; Mr.
W. H. Terrell for the principal respondent ; Mr. T. Stevens,
Mr. F. S. Williams, Mr. V . Morris, and Mr. Surrage for
other parties interested.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.—AUGUST 2.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.)
BAILEY V. DUNKERLEY.

In this case the chief clerk had made an order in cham-
bers, on the application of the defendant, for the production
of documents by the plaintiff.
Mr. Bovill moved on behalf of the plaintiff to discharge
the order; Mr. Ellis appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Bovill urged that the suit was by bill, no interroga-
tories being put in and no answer required ; that the de-
fendant had obtained leave to put in a voluntary answer
within a month, and had obtained an order for the produc-
tion of documents by the plaintiff. Defendant had not yet
put in his answer; and if this was permitted, a defendant
might obtain such information as would enable him to frame
his answer in contravention of the nth and 16th Vic., cap.
86, see. 20. _

_
The Vice-Chancellor thought that defendant had a right
to the order for production. The section of the act referred
to only applied when a discovery was sought fur, and a full
and sufficient answer therefore required. Here it was the
defendant who was seeking a discovery, and lie had there-
fore a right to demand the production of any documents in
the possession of the plaintiff and calculated to throw a
light upon the case. The motion must be refused.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.)
PEARCE V. LINDSAY.

The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this case, which
was argued at considerable length during the sittings. The
plaintiffs were shipbrokers at Liverpool; the defendants were
shipbrokers in London. Both houses had extensive connec-
tions with the American shipping interest, especially in the
iron trade. The object of the bill was to obtain an account
fro►r . the defendants, the Messrs. Lindsay, founded upon an
agreement called the Havre agreement, by which they were
to divide the profits. The case turned upon a mass of evi-
dence, chiefly correspondence, extending so far back as 1849,
the printed bill and the evidence forming two respectable
quarto volumes. The defendants, his Honour observed, had
denied any agreement, and had insisted that whatever
was due to them was enly under the custom of trade. But
Ito was of opinion that the defendants' own language
in the correspondence would be inexplicable, except on the
footing of the agreement relied on by the Messrs. Pearce.
The defendants had represented themselves as filling too
high a position in reference to American shipping to require
assistance from the Messrs. Pearce ; but he was of opinion
that the evidence established a joint interest between
Messrs. Pearce and Messrs. Lindsay. It would have been
misleading Messrs. Pearce if what was called the Havre
agreement was not to be regarded as a subsisting contract.
The Messrs. Lindsay had certainly treated it as a valid
agreement down to 1853. The defendants alleged that
they had given a "distinct, decided, peremptory, and
conclusive rejection of the proposal by the plaintiff, to
share half of the profits of the American business, and
that they wished to be governed only by the custom of
the trade." It was surprising after this assertion to find
such expressions in the correspondence as these—" Can you
inform us how we can get these fellows (the Yankees) into
us ? How can we get them into our net ? " These were
extraordinary expressions from persons professing to stand
on the very pinnacle of commerce. Again the defendants said
to one of the plaintiffs, " You are better known in the States
than we are." Again, speaking of some American ships,
they said to Messrs. Pearce, " Nail them all." The defen-
dants seemed now to take a very different view of their
relative position with the plaintiffs from that which their
correspondence proved. There must have been a great
lapse of memory. It was clear that when they were writing
to Messrs. Pearce they did not seem to feel that they were
persons filling a very high position, writing, as they alleged,
to persons of subordinate character. Amongst other expreo-
siens they used was this, "Remember we are all young
people." When one of the plaintiffs was making a tour in
America, the defendants wrote, " I wish you would make
it appear that we are one and the same concern in American
business." Besides this joint circulars were printed at their
joint expense. The defendants said that the division of
brokerage commission only applied to the Havre business,
or business obtained in consequence of one of the Pearces
making a visit to the United States. He thought an agree-
ment
clearly was established in 1852. His Honour made
a declaration that the plaintiff, as surviving partner, was
entitled td half commission on business, effected through
the Havre agents, for chartering vessels to America from
1851 to 1855, credit being given for what was due to, or
through, the same agents. The plaintiff was also en-
titled, under an agreement of 1852, to a moiety of
commission on American vessels chartered in London,
or at the outports, except on vessels specially con-
signed, and vessels over which the plaintiff had not
exercised any influence, regard being had to the course
of dealing as to what was to be regarded as constituting
such influence. There must be an inquiry whether the ar-
rangement, at any time after 1852, was determined by either
of the two firms, or abandoned with the knowledge and
acquiescence of the other. His Honour declared that the
plaintiffs and defendants were entitled, under an arrange-
ment founded on what was known in the course of trade by
the term " exclusive correspondence" as to vessels employed
in the shipment of iron after 1852, to a moiety of the corn-
mission on freights, according to the terms of that corres-
pondence, excluding vessels specially consigned to certain
parties. The case must be spoken to upon the minutes ,
hereafter, and his Honour reserved further consideration. I

The case was argued for several days by the Solicitor-
General, Mr. Rolt, Mr. Giffard, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Cox.

COURT OF PROBATE.—AuG. 2.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
TUBBS V. PROUT.
This was a question relating to the will of the late Major
Prout, who had been killed at the massacre at Cawnpore, a
victim to which his wife had also fallen. The object of the
present application was to examine, before a commissioner
Capt. Delafosse and Capt. Thompson, the only two officers
who had escaped, and who were now in this country, as to
which of the deceased parties was first killed.
The Queen's Advocate and Mr. Hardy were counsel in
he case.
The Court directed these witnesses to be examined by
some member of the bar within a fortnight, the party ex-
amining giving the other Si le notice.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES.—AUGUST 2.
KING V. RING AND BROWN.
This was a suit for a dissolution of marriage on the ground
of adultery, which was alleged to have taken place on board
the ship Vernon, on the voyage between London and
Bombay. The petitioner was the husband, and the object
of the present application was to have the steward and the
captain examined under a commission, as they were about
to leave this country for India on the Ist of September.
Mr. A. J. Stephens appeared in support of the appli-
cation.
The Court made the order.