The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-23 00:00:00

N TIIE MATTER OF THE GOODS•OF W. VALLANCE.

In this case application was made for letters of
administration to the effects of William Vallance,
who had made a will bequeathing the residue of his
estate to his son, or in case of the latter prede-
ceasing him, to the present applicant. The son who
was a ship carpenter, sailed from this country in
1851, and had not been since heard of, the as-
sumption being that he was dead. The only point
was whether he died prior or subsequent to the
testator, and in the absence of any information on
that point his lordship considered the letters of ad-
ministration should be granted.
Decree accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RENASMYTII.
This bankrupt was a merchant of Great St.
Helen's and Bombay, and to-day he came up upon
the adjourned meeting for the order of discharge.
'The accounts show debts between £40,000 and
£50,000, but the assets are expected to prove con-
siderable.
Mr. Lawrence appeared for the bankrupt, and
Mr. Reed represented the assignees ; and it is not
unlikely that eventually the case will be taken out
of court.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
THE PACKED PARCEL QUESTION-IMPORTANT DECI-
SION-CHINERY V. LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH
COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover £llls. 5d., alleged
overcharges by the company upon parcels forwarded
by the plaintiff. Mr. Plews appeared for the plain-
tiff, Mr. Smith representing the company.
It was admitted, for the purpose of shortening
the case that the plaintiff had forwarded various
parcels to the company's receiving houses, paying the
rates levied in accordance with the tariff. The
parcels were consigned to the plaintiff's agent at
Brighton, who had to pay Id. per lb. extra upon
them. It was stated that the question of packed
parcels had been contested by Mr. Sutton and a
grheeaaritnrgabilewfoayre theiu
company,
los an appeal now lying for
of Lords.

Mr. Smith called the traffic superintendent in the
company's service, who deposed that by one of the
bye-laws the company was entitled to charge one
penny per lb. extra on all packed parcels. This
was not only noted in the time-tables, but was
placed in a conspicuous spot on the company's
premises.

- In cross-examination witness said that id. per
lb. extra was invariably charged on all packed
parcels, no matter who sent them.

- His Honour said that to his mind the case re-
solved itself into a very simple point. If the
company's bye law, under seal, gave notice that
packed parcels would be charged ld. per lb. extra,
then there was an end of the case, and the only
question was, had the plaintiff sent a sufficient
number of pounds to the company to warrant them
charging the consignee £1 lls. sd. ?
After some calculation it was found that the
company had charged 2s. 6d. too much, and al-
though it was endeavoured to be shown that this
sum had been levied for collecting the parcels, the
evidence was not conclusive upon the point, and his
Honour found a verdict for the plaintiff for half-a-
crown. Costs were applied for, but his Honour said
he should only allow costs upon the amount re-
covered, as the company had been successful upon
the great point in packed parcels.