The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-21 00:00:00

1 58,

LAW IkELLfdENCEL(This Day.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)

APPEAL.-JOHNSON V. HESSEN-MEYER-J.7D

iiel,verect judgment in this
important appeal this morning. The contention
was whether the respondent, Mr. Hessenmeyer, an
attorney, was entitled to take a mortgage security
or right of redemption from his client, on the eve
of bankruptcy, in payment or security of his bill
of costs, in preference to the bankrupt's other cre-
ditors. The security taken was over two houses,
Nos. 1 and 2, Franklin-villas, Chelsea.
The Lord Chancellor, after delivering a long and
elaborate judgment, came to the conclusion that
the bankrupt, in granting, and the solicitor, in tak-
ing the security in question, did not obtain
it in fraud of the other creditors of the bankrupt ;
that it was a bona fide transaction which the bank-
rupt and his solicitor were entitled to enter into ;
and that the assignee in bankruptcy was not en-
titled to set it aside on the ground of fraud.
The Lord Chancellor affirmed the decision of the
Master of the Rolls, with costs, and dismissed the
a ppeal.

COURT OF APPEAL.
GOLDING Y. CASTLE.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce and Lord Justice
Turner, in delivering judgment in this case, made
a slight alteration in the decree of the Master of
the Rolls, and dismi3sed the appeal with costs as
between party and party.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell, Judge Ordinary.)
STOATE V. STOATS—ALIMONY.

Dr. Swabey said this was a petition for alimony
pendente lite, in a suit for a judicial separation
against her husband for desertion. It appeared
from the books of the society that the respondent
was a member of Gray's-inn, and was called to the
bar in 1847, but he had never practised. He re-
sided at Minehead, in Somersetshire, where his
father previous to his death resided. The father's
will was proved in January, 1837, and the per-
sonalty was sworn under 10,000/ , the respondent
taking anequal moiety of the estate with his brother.
The petitioner alleged that the respondent was pos-
sessed of household property in Bath, at Porlock,
and several other places, and that his income
amounted to 1,200/. a year. The respondent, in
his answer to the petition, stated his income to be
only 3201. a year, without stating what he 'pos-
sessed wider his father's will. Since 1853 the re-
spondent had refused to receive his wife, and had
allowed her nothing towards her maintenance.
Mr. Stoate appeared in person, and in address-
ing the Court, said—l know nothing about the
property mentioned in the petition. I get very
little from my property, after paying repairs ; and.
as I have never practised at the bar, I have no in-
come from that source. He proceeded to reflect in
strong terms on the conduct of his wife, when
The learned Judge informed him it was not the
proper time to enter on that part of the case.
Mr. Stoate, however, proceeded to address the
Court iu a rambling strain.
The learned Judge reminded him he was not in
order, which probably arose from his not having
practised at the bar.
Mr. Stoate said that eight words out of every ten
in his wife's petition were false, and again referred

to the allegations in the petition.
The learned Judge again informed him he was
out of order, and made an order for alimony at the
rate of CO& a year on the amount of income he had
shown himself to be possessed of—the amount to
be paid monthly.
Mr. Stoate—l hope your lordship won't make it
payable till after the trial of the petition.
The learned Judge said the object of the appli-
cation was for its payment during the proceedings.
Dr. Swabey said that as the respondent denied
the allegation in the wife's petition, he had to apply
to the Court to say how it should be tried.
The learned Judge asked if either patty wished to
have a jury ?

Mr. Sioaie—l do, and to ask your lordship to
send a commissioner to Bristol to examine the wit-
nesses there.

The learned Judge said he could not do it.
Alimony at the rate of M. a-year, plyable
monthly, was then decreed.