The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL.-MONEYPENNY V. MONEYPENNY.

At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel in this
cause, yesterday afternoon, the Lord Chancellor reserved
judgment.

APPEAL.--ESPIN V. PEMBERTON'.

This is an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir
R. T. Kindersley.

The contention is whether the appellant, unregistered
assignee of a lease and bill of sale of furniture, has an
equitable incumbrance, on mortgage, on the respondent's
legal right to the property purchased by him in ignorance
of the appellant's unregistered equitable assignment and
bill of sale.

Mr. Glasse, Q.C., is now being lieard for the appellant.
The appellant contends that it was the duty of the respond-
ent to make all due and necessary inquiry respecting the
incumbrances upon the property in question before he pur-
chased it, and in particular to call for production of the
title-deeds of the property. If he had done so he would
have known of the appellant's incumbrance. But as he did
not do so he is postponed to the appellant's equitable
incumbrance and bill of sale over the property. It is pro-
bable the arguments will occupy the whole of this day.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
APPEAL.-JAILLON V. EVANS.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Master of the
Rolls, dismissing the plaintiff's bill with costs.
The contention is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to
three•fourth parts, or shares, of the American Patent
Candle Company, and whether the money obtained for the
sale of such patent is the money of the company, or the
money of the assignees or patentees, and in what propor-
tions—whether three-fourths or one-fourth.

Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., is now being heard—in reply for the
appellant.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Preddergast, Q.C.)
PHILLIPS V. BALTER.-FOREIGN BANKERS AND LOST

NOTES.-IMPORTANT CASE.
Mr. Beard, of Basinghall-street, appeared for the plain-
tiff, and briefly set forth the facts as follows :—On the 6th
April, 1857, plaintiff, a glazier, working in London, called
upon defendant, foreign banker and money changer, of
Leadenhall-street, and purchased a Polish note, value £2
10s., which he posted to his wife in Poland. Upon the
17th August, in the same year,- he called upon defendant
and informed him that the note had never reached Mrs.
Phillips. Defendant said that if plaintiff would pay the
fee, ls. 6d., he would stop it, and if not recovered in twelve
months, he would pay plaintiff for it. Up to the present
time the note had not reached plaintiff's hands, neither had
it been paid to Mrs. Phillips. On one occasion,
plaintiff understood that the note had been paid. Plaintiff
and a witness were called and deposed to these facts, and
the promise to pay if the note was not forthcoming at the
expiration of 12 months. For the defence, an agent, who
appeared for defendant, contended that he should not be
called upon to pay until the note was produced, as he might
have to pay it twice.

Mr. Beard said there had been a distinct promise to pay,
and plaintiff had waited the prescribed time.

His Honour thought defendant was liable, and gave
plaintiff a verdict with costs.

SUNDAY TRADING IN PETTICOAT-LANE: IMPORTANT

JUDGMENT.-THE LORD'S DAY ACT AND THE JEWS.-"

GRZIMESII V. PAINE.
This was an action to recover the sum of £7ls. for a gold
watch and chain sold and delivered to defendant.

Mr. Perry (from Mr. Buchanan's) appeared for de-

fendant.

A great deal of evidence was given on both sides, and
various statements were made, and it appears from them
that plaintiff keeps a stall at and in a public-house on Sun-
day in Petticoat-lane. There it is usual to trade in this way,
and purchasers have the entree on the free list of the
house; if nothing is purchased, the visitor spends three-
pence in the house, and this kind of dealing is customary
during all hours of the Lord's -day. On. the 14th of
November, which was Sunday, defendant called upon
the plaintiff during the hours of divine service for the
purpose of paying an old debt. Plaintiff asked him if
he did not require something else, and after much pressing/
defendant took a watch and chain, saying he had a cus-
tomer, and would return with the money in the course of
the day.
Mr. Perry objected to plaintiff's recovering this debt, if
debt it could be called. By the Lord's Day Act plaintiff
was clearly prohibited from recovering.
His Honour did not like objections of this kind, but was
bound by the law to take them.
Plaintiff—But I am a Jew, and it is not my " Lord's
Day." Ido not consider lam bound.
His Honour—lt does not matter—it is the law of the land,
and you are bound. If two Jews contract a debt between
them, as debtor and creditor, on the Lord's Day of this
land, the debt cannot be recovered at law ; but I don't like
these objections.

Mr. Perry—ln justice to the defendant, I must say that
he has derived no benefit from the transaction, the person
to whom he entrusted the watch having absconded.
His Honour considered the objection to be fatal, and
found for defendant.

rOAN SOCIETIES AND CONTRISITTORS.-JONES V. THICKIL

This was a singular action brought by a late shareholder
in one of the " classes" of the British Mutual Loan Asso-
ciation, to recover interest on £7 retained by the class
against his will. It appeared that it was the custom for the
contributors to pay £1 per month for 50 months, and then
the profits were divided. The class to which plaintiff
contributed was rather unfortunate, and plaintiff gave notice
that he desired to draw out his money. (By one of the rules of
the class, the person who made the first application for his
money was first entitled to have it returned to him.) To
this application plaintiff was told by letter that his demand
was unreasonable and unjust. However that might be,
after considerable delay, and the proffer of his money, less
15 per cent. discount, in the present year plaintiff received
his in full, and some statement was made as to the rate
charged upon loans, and *plaintiff said that the solicitor who
appeared for the society was a director and a borrower upon
those very terms.

The Solicitor said that plaintiff ought to be very glad to
get his money in full, as some of the contributors had re-
ceived theirs minus 25 and 50 per cent.

Plaintiff—Yes, and having had money to pay off other
people, you now refuse me interest for money detained
against my will.

-His Honour—But these classes are generally very good
things, are they not?
Solicitor—Yes. But this We,s an unfortunate one.

Plaintiff—l admit that I 'nave derived great benefit from
some classes, and derived profit from the amount charged
as interest, as I co-Asider every man has a right to put his
money out to tte best advantage, but I never kept another
man's money from him when he required it. (Applause.)
His Konour—You cannot recover the amount claimed,

Mr. Jones.
Plaintiff—l submit to your Honour's decision with plea-
sure, as I always do. I had another object when I came
I here.