The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-09 00:00:00

VICE CHANCERY.--TUESDAY.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION

OF WELLS.

Mr. COOPER moved for a special injunction ex-park, to
restrain the defendants from proceeding to carry into effect
certain contracts for the sale of real property belonging to
the Corporation, and from erecting a new market-house in
a parish without the ancient precincts of the borough, and
from drawing money out of the bank of Stuckey and Co. for
that purpoic. From the circumstances under which the
application was made, several injunctions were asked by the
motion, but the material point of the application was to
restrain the defendants, from proceeding with the erection
of the market-house.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that notice of
the present application should be given to the defendants.
Mr. COOPER said if that were done the present motion
would not have the effect of preventing the completion of
the market-house within the period of the contract.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, upon reading the affidavit, ex-
pressed his opinion that it was too defective to warrant the
Court granting an et -parte injunction, and that Mr.
Cooper's client ought not to have instructed him upon so
meagre an affidavit.

Mr. COOPER said the application was bona fide on the
part of the relators. Their only object was to prevent an
injurious expenditure of the Corporation funds ; and cases
of this kind must necessarily be got up in ,great haste.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that notice should
be given for that day se'nnight.
Mr. CoorEß expressed a hope that the intimation of the
opinion of the Court would prevent the work going on in
the meantime.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I suppose, like other persons,
they will not act in defiance of a notice of motion.

RIDDELL V. RIDDELL.

The late Colonel Riddell, having sold a copyhold estate
in the neighbourhood of Cheltenham, entered into a cove-
nant to surrender it to Morris, the purchaser in fee, and by
the same deed covenanted that he had good title, and for
quiet enjoyment, against his wife's claim for dower. The
day after the date of the deed of covenant, the surrender
was made, and Morris was admitted. Morris afterwards
sold to sub,purchasers in different lets, and in various
ways. In one case there was a simple surrender to sub-
purchaser ; in another there was a covenant by Morris to
surrender, and a covenant for title against his own acts fol-
lowed, by admittance. By these means Morris parted
with his whole estate. Colonel Riddell died, and Mrs.
Riddell established her right to dower out of-the estate.
In this suit for the administration of Colonel Riddell's per-
sonal estate, the Master reported that Col. Riddell's cove-
nant being broken, was a subsisting charge or claim capable
of being enforced against his estate by the several assigns
from Morris. The cause now came on upon exceptions to
that report.

Mr. KINDERSLEY was then heard in support of the ex.
ceptions.

Mr. JACOB supported the Master's report.
His HONOUR overruled the exceptions.

PREROGATIVE COURT-TUESDAY

GRIFFIN AND OTHERS V. AMOS AND FERRARD.

Sir HERBERT JENNEIL gave judgment to-day in this
case, the circumstances of which have already appeared in
our columns. The question arose upon the admission of an
allegation propounding a codicil to the will of Mr. Daniel
Haggais, who died in 1828, having made a will and two
codicils. The paper in question before the Court bore date
Aug. 20, 1820, and was signed, but not executed in the
presence of witnesses. Doubts having been originally sug-
gested by the registrar as to whether it was a testamentary
paper, the point had been submitted to the opinion of
Counsel, when the parties were advised that it was not
testamentary, and accordingly probate of the will and the
other codicil only had been prayed, and granted at the
hands of the Court, it being at that time deemed a matter
of little importance. Circumstances, however, had since
arisen, which rendered it expedient that the opinion of the
Court should be taken as to the character of this paper,
and the case now stood upon the admission of the allega-
tion. After going through the facts,
The Learned JUDGE gave his opinion that the paper was
not testamentary, and he must consequently reject the
allegation.