The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-25 00:00:00

APPEAI.-DAVIS V. PERRY.

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Sir John Stuart setting aside a mortgage granted by the
respondent to his solicitor in satisfaction of kis account. •
Their lordships dismissed the appeal with costs, subject
to modification.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
THE QUEEN T. PERHANI.-THE BUILDERS' STRIKE.
'Before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Bramwell and

Channell.)

The Lord Chief Baron this morning gave his decision in
this case, which was an application made by Mr. Edwin
James, Q.C., for a writ of habeas corpus to bring up the
body of William Perham, who had been convicted at the
Clerkenwell Police Court, under the 6th of Geo. IV., c.
129, sec. 3—the act against intimidation or obstructing
persons in their work. The learned gentleman had made
a similar application to the judges in the Court of queen's
Bench, which had been refused.
The Court held that it was not necessary for the informa-
tion to be in writing, and that the magistrate having heard
the evidence, and agjudicated thereon, the conviction was
in accordance with the terms of the act.
Application refused

SWINFEN V. LORD CIIELMSFORD.-RICIIITS OF COUNSEL.
The arguments of Sir F. Kelly and the other learned
counsel engaged in showing, cause against the rule for a
new trial being concluded,
Mr. Kennedy commenced his reply in support of the
rule, and was proceeding when we went to press.
It is not at all likely that the arguments will close to-
day. r

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSES.

,Before Justices Cresswell, Wightman, and Byles.)
COLES V. COLES.

This was the petition of Mary Ann Coles, praying. for
dissolution of marriage with her husband on 'the ground of
adultery, coupled with desertion and bigamy, and the re-
spondent entered no appearance.
Mr. Field was counsel for the petitioner.

The parties were married at Si. George's, Southwark, on
the 9th October, 1851. They cohabited until January,
1856, with occasional separations arising from the inability
of the petitioner to maintain the respondent. In the begin-
ning of the last mentioned month he deserted her, and in
the same year was married to a female named Wood in the
parish church at Leeds,with whom ho had since lived under
the name of Johnson. It further appeared that since the
petitioner left the respondent he had enlisted in the Scotch
Fusilier Guards, in which he was at present a private.
The respective marriages were proved, and the petitioner,
who attended in charge of the sergeant of his regiment, was
fully identified.
The court decreed the dissolution of the marriage.
FAULKNER V. FAULKNER AND MOORE.

This was the petition oT John Joseph Faulkner, praying
for the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, on the
ground of her adultery with the co-respondent and other
persons.
The petition stated that the marriage took place in 1841,
at St. Andrews Church, Holborn, and the parties lived
together till 1847, when the petitioner discovered his wife's
infidelity. The petitioner was a practical engineer, and it
appeared that there were two children by the marriage.
The court pronounced the dissolution of the marriage.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Baum Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

IN ME AMISS.

This bankrupt was described as of Conduit-street, Bond-
street, tailor, and passed his examination without oppo-
sition. The accounts, by Messrs. Paul and Turner, show
—Debtor, £797 ; good debts, £2OO.

IN It}' TEESDXLII.

This bankrupt was a licensed victualler in the country,
and applied for his certificate.
Mr. Lawrence, for the assignees, did not oppose, but
rather asked for a certificate of the second class.
Ills Honour said, as no creditor opposed, the certificate
would be granted.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Cioulburn.)
IMPORTANT QUESTION.

A case was brought before the Court on a question in
which an accountant had held the account books of the
bankrupt, on the groußd that he lied a lien upon them for
work done in endeavouring- to effect an arrangement with
the creditors. An intimation having been made by the
Court, that tho messenger. ought to take possession, the
books were given up without prejudice.
His Honour now said, that was a proper course, but he
did not consider ho could settle' the question, and
would like to tee it returned to the Lords Justices
or the highest Court of Appeal. Ho quoted a case in point
in which it was suggested by the Vice-Chancellor that the
matter should be referred to a jury. Nearly similar, but not
perfectly so, he thought this a case on which the opinion of
the Court above should be taken. The question was whe-
ther a trader could place his books in the hand of an ac-
countant for a purpose, but being declared a bankrupt, the
accountant would hold them against the assignees, except
on payment of an account which they could not tax. He
thought the assigndes ought to consider the course they
should adopt.
The case was adjourned.