The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-28 00:00:00

COURT
(before the Lord 0ki,11€6114

ArrOintEr.GEZIERAL V, clumßErts--AtTdriiy.atf4tßAL
V. RU :S.

These causes came on to be spoken to on to minutes.

The Solicitor-General, Sir Hugh M'Almoi Cairns, Q.C.,
addressed a few observations to his lordshipn the form of
inquiry proposed to be adopted in this 'case. l was proposed
last term to try the case before a jury, and iues were ac-
cordingly prepared to ascertain the right of thCrown to the
alvins of the sea shore opposite the defendats' lands at
Llannelly, South Wales. The learned cowl contended
that Mr. Rees was excluded from this Ingo, in restx.ct
that his interest had been already disposed oby his lord-
ship.

Mr. Reech submitted that Mr, Rees was atitled to be
heard before the jury.

The Lord Chancellor considered that Mr. Res had been
already fully heard and his cause disposed of, and that he
was not entitled to be heard again. His lordshipvas anxious
to save expense to all parties.

The Solicitor-General then observed that the,ase would
be better disposed of by a judge at chambers thin by ajury.
The learned counsel contended that the case should be re-
mitted to the Master of the Rolls, to take the Ividence of
engineers and witnesses as to the use of the sea fore above
and below the medium line, and the natural cr artificial
alteration of the shore or high-water mark oWosite the
defendants' lands, by the old and neW works cf the de-
fendants.

Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Giffard, Q.C., wer► at first
disposed to prefer issues with special directions; but, con-
sidering the great expense of trial by jury and uncertainty
of obtaining a true verdict, it was ultimately agreed to send
the case to the Master of the Rolls to be disposed of on the
evidence already taken by him on the points in dispute
between the parties, with liberty to apply.
The Lord Chancellor considered that this was the best
way of disposing of the case, to save expense to all
parties, and remitted the case to the Master of the
Rolls accordingly.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)
JUDGMBNT-FRAZER V. THOMSON.

His Hondur the Vice-Chancellor said—This is a suit by
the assignees of the bankrupt to set aside an indenture of
settlement by the husband and wife in November, 1856, on
the ground of fraud against the creditors of the bankrupt.
So far as the settlement included the property of the bank-
rupt himself, unless it can be supported by the considera-
tion of marriage, the evidence of the precise state of hh
affairs at that time was so strong that it could not stand ;
but the policy of the law • has given a paramount
importance to the consideration of marriage (unless the
marriage is a mere fraudulent contrivance to defeat the
claims of creditors), that both in law and equity such deeds
are supported. They all support the settlement of the
husband's property, whether the wife was in the know=
ledge of his embarrassed circumstances previous to entering
into a bona fide honest marriage or not. So it was held in
the case of Champton v. Cotton, 17 Vessey ; Arbuthnot v.
Miller, 25 Simons ; Smith v. Giffard, 1 vol. Collard. But
if the marriage is not bona fide, and entered into
for the purpose of withdrawing the husband's pro-
perty from his creditors, the law is the revvrse, and
such connivance cannot be supported, e-d was fount
in the case of Columbine v. ?mei. His Honour
considered that this marriage was a bona
,fide marriage,
and did not fall under the operation of the 12th and 13t1
sections of the Bankrupt Act. The wife before marriage
advanced her husband £l,OOO to carry on his precarious
business. The marriage was regularly solemnised, and
their furniture was publicly carted through the streets of
Liverpool to her house by one of the witnesses, and no
steps were taken by any of his creditors to secure it.
His Honour dismissed the plaintiff's bill with costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
CItARTERERS AND SHIPOWNERS.-ROSS V. DATHIE.
This was an action to recover £l3 58. for 60 tons of bal-
last, alleged to have been ordered by defendant.
Mr. Buchanan, for plaintiff, said that the ballast had
been ordered by a person to be supplied to a certain ship,
and defendant was the charterer of the ship. The party
who ordered the ballast was agent to defendant.
This was denied on the other hand, and his Honour in-
quired where was the captain ?

Mr. Buchanan—He is upon his voyage, but will be
home very shortly.

His Honour—You had better take an adjournment for a
short time, as the captain appears to be the only person
who can throw any light on the matter.

REFUSAL TO COMMIT—THE TALLY STSTEM.
In a number of tally cases which came before the court,
his Honour made some very strong remarks upon the sub-
ject of the charges. He thought the poor got Bs. 6d. worth
of goods for 21s.—that a system was general of dragging a
string of poor people to the court for the purpose of getting
costs. Now he was determined not to allow costs in this
matter, for it was making a good profit out of the court in
addition to that made on the goods. In one case his honour
refused to commit, as the defendant had shown himself to
be without means.

The proceedings in the courts of law at Westminster, this
morning, were entirely devoid of interest. The Court of
Queen's Bench was occupied hearing the arguments in a
cause for the infringement of a patent for making metallic
capsules for bottles, &c. In the Exchequer the cause before
the Court was whether certain buildings sold at a public
auction had been correctly described; and in the Court of
Common Pleas the part-heard case of "Mackie v. Faker"
was being proceeded with.