The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-( THIS DAE)

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)
JUDGMENT.-AUDSLY.Y V. HORN.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls, in delivering judg-
ment in this case, said— This is a suit for the foreclosure of
two mortgage securities, of dates 6th December, 1843, and
24th March, 1852, and nothing could be determined in such
a suit but the validity or invalidity of the mortgage deeds ;
but a question was raised in the course of the argument,
whether all the parties having interest in the proceedings
between the plaintiff and defendant, besides the
parties holding the' mortgages, were made par-
ties to the bill ? And question arose under
the will of the late Thomas' Horn, by which Amelia Ros-
setter took a certain interest in the leasehold property, which
became the subject matter: of mortgage. That leasehold
property was left to her by the testator, and she was now
without that property, because the whole of her interest in
that property was made the subject matter of the mortgage
to the plaintiff. The words of the will are—" I leave
my leasehold property in Horns-place, Blackfriars-
road, to Amelia Rossetter and her children ; but if she die
without issue, then to William Horn," and to other persons
named in the will. His Honour considered that under
these words of the will, Amelia. ROssetter and her
children were joint tenants, and had a joint interest
in the leasehold property. The interest of the children did
not fall under the mortgages. Assuming that there were
no children, then Amelia Rossetter would take absolutely.
His Honour said—l think that Wild's case does not ap-
ply to this case. It appears from the report of that case
that the bequest was to Robert. Wild and his wife, and after
their death to their children; but in this case the bequest
is to Amelia Rosetter and her children, which entitles them
to an immediate personal estate. In the, case of
Stokes, 12 Clerk and Stinnelly, referred to by Lord
St. Leonards, this point was not decided. Lord
Brougham referred to it; but the decision applied
to real and not to personal property. Wild's case applied
to personal estate the same as here, but the terms of the be-
quest were not the same as in this Case. He considered
that the same principles ,applied to personal and lease-
hold property as was applied to real property; and although
the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of enclosure as against
Amelia Rossetter, he was not entitled to a decree of fore-
closure against the defendant, Mrs. Horn. His Honour
made the usual decree of foreclosure, and dismissed Mrs.,
Horn from the suit, being improperly called as a party
thereto, with costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE WILLIAM PALMER RATTLEDEN.

The bankrupt was described as a corn and coal merchant,
of Suffolk, and came up to pass an account prepared by
Messrs. Hart Brothers. The balance-sheet commenced
January, 1856, with a surplus, and the creditors ;now hold
a considerable amount of property.
The bankrupt passed.

CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.
(Before Alderman Moon.)
IMPORTANT TO PUBLICANS.-WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Mr. Begg, publican, of Love-lane, City, was summoned
for using a half-quartern defective 7 per cent.
The Inspector stated that he had never had occasion to
warn the defendant before, and he supposed the measure
had been short through constant use.
Fined 2s. 6d.

Mr. Wyatt, of the Cross Keys, Wood-street, was sum-
moned for six defective pint pots.

Defendant pleaded that he would have put them aside
had he noticed thorn, but thoy were in constant use by the
public.

Fined 2s. 6d.

Mr. Monk, Cloth-street, Wood-street, publican, was
summoned for having a defective quart, pint, and half-pint
measures.

The inspector stated that these measures were not used
by the public, but were kept behind the bar for the pur-
pose of using imperial measure to bottles or jugs.
Defendant pleaded ignorance, but the alderman said that
every man who served by weight or measure should keep
himself informed of the state of those things. He should
fine defendant 10s. and costs.

Several persons were summoned for defective weights,
but no fines were inflicted.

Tho Alderman remarkcathat in encases where parties had
been warned he should inflict heavy fines.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-( THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.