The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-( THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL.-WYTIIES V. LABOUCILERE.

This is an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir
Wm. Page Wood against the appellant. The plaintiff is
a railway contractor at Highgate, and the defendants are
the banking firm knoWu under the name of William Deacon
and Company ; and the question raised is whether a bond
for £30,000, granted by the late Mr. James M'Gregor,
M.P., to the bank, was without valuable consideration, and
void.

Mr. Daniel, Q.C., resumed his argument in this part-
heard appeal this morning for the appellant.
The hearing may extend over several days.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
lUDGMENT.-ERISTOWE V. WiIITEMORE.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor, in delivering judgment,
said that the question in this cue was as to the right of
the plaintiff, Mr. Bristow°, who was master of the ship
called the Cumberland, to have recouped certain sums of
money which he advanced on the part of the owners for
victualling and fitting up his ship as a transport ship, for
the transport of Government troops, under two contracts—
the one under seal, dated 19th April, 18.56, and the other a
memorandum of agreement, dated 27th May, 1856, with
the Admiralty agent, in which he described himself as
master and owner of the vessel, and by which ho became
bound to fit up and provision the ship and troops in terms
of these contracts, and according to tender. The ship
sailed, but before completing her voyage the owners
became bankrupt, and the question raised was, whether
the bankrupt's assignee or the master of the ship was
entitled to the freight. The Lords of the Admiralty paid
the money into court. The master contended that he had
a lien on the freight for the money advanced by him for
fitting up and for provisioning the ship and troops. The
defendant claimed the freight as assignee for the bankrupt
owners.

His Honour, on the authority of decided cases, and in
terms of the contract and charter-party, considered that
the plaintiff was entitled to be repaid all the money ad-
vanced by him under contract for fitting up the ship for the
transport of troops, 'and for provisioning the ship and troops
during' the voyage, and for which the owners were liable.
Plaintiff was also entitled to the costs of tho suit.
His Honour made a declaration to that effect, and directed
an account of the expenses GI be taken, and the costs to be
taxed and paid, and, subject to these payments, the surplus
funds to be handed over to the assignee of the owners or
mortgagees.

WHITECHAPEL COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Deputy Forster.)
RIVAL TRADESMEN-SINGVLAR CASE-BIIEPrARD V.
LYONS.

Plaintiff is a labourer and defendant is a tailor, of White-
chapel-road. Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of 21s,
for one pair of trousers taken by plaintiff from defendant's
shop, and paid for, as alleged, in error.

Plaintiff stated that on a certain day he went to a tailor's
shop in Whitochapel, and was measured for a pair of
trousers. A few days afterwards he went to defendant's
shop and received a pair of trousers, for which he paid, and
which he took away. A friend who was with him ex-
plained subsequently that he had gone to the wrong shop.
Cross-examined by Mr. Beard for defendant--The shop
he first went to had Lyons over the door, but was kept by
one Franks. Ho did not take out this summons. Mr.
Franks did.

Mr. Beard—Yes ; he institutes these proceedings
and is the rival tradesman. The trousers were not a good

Mr. Beard then called his Honour's attention to defen-
dant's book, in which was entered an order, in the name of
Sheppard, for one pair of trousers. Plaintiff had taken his
trousers away, and never instituted proceedings until he
conferred with Franks. Both houses had Lyons over the
door.

Defendant was then called, and proved that he had an
order in his book for one pair of trousers, 21s. Plaintiff
called a day or two after the delivery, and said they were a
little too long, but they were according to the book mea-
surement. Plaintiff demanded his money back, and said he
had been told to do so by Franks. [Upon this evidence
Franks became very excited, and gesticulated in such a
manner that he was ordered out of court].
His Honour then made au order for repayment of the 21s.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(TEIS DAY.)