The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-29 00:00:00

ANGEL V. WEIVECOMBY.

This was a bill of discovery filed against the defendant
and a person named Fry, to compel the production of cer-
tain papers and documents which the defendant alleged to
be necessary to support his claim to the fee, certain premises
in Lambeth, which they held under lease from John Angel.
To this the defendant put in a plea of adverse possession
for more than twenty years, and a denial of the right of the
plaintiff. The Vice-Chancellor overruled the plea as bad
in point of form; and refused any liberty to amend ; but
Lord Brougham, on appeal, although he also held the plea
to be void, gave the defendant liberty to amend. The Vice-
Chancellor again held the amended plea to be bad, on the
ground of surplusage and uncertainty, and against this de-
cision the defendant again appealed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the plea
must be disallowed on the ground of surplusage.
Mr. TINNEY hoped his Lordship would give them liberty
to award.

Mr. JACOB resisted this.
The Lora) CHANCELLOR said that went to the merits,
and if they insisted on it, the matter must be argued to-
morrow.

ROLLS' COURT.

TREVELYAN V. CHARTER.

Mr. PEMBERTON appeared for the plaintiff. He pro-
ceeded to tat the facts of the case, which were briefly
as follow
The original bill was filled by the late Sir John Tre-
velyan, the father of the present plaintiff, against the de-
fendant, the son, devisee, heir-at-law, and executor of his
late father, Mr. T. Charter. The object of the bill was to
have delivered up to the plaintiff various documents, pa-
pers, and accounts belonging to the estate of the late Sir
John Trevclyan, which were in the possession of Thomas
Charter in his character of steward to that gentleman.
The next object of the bill was to have set aside a certain
purchase obtAbled by Mr. Charter in 1788, and which the
bill charged had been obtained under circumstances of fraud,
which fraud had been studiously concealed from the plain-
tiff until 1826. In suppport of this position the Learned
Gentleman cited numerous cases.
Mr. SHARPE, after reading the evidence, wts heard at
considerable length on the same side.
Mr. 13wKliasTETti appeared for the defendant. He was
Proceeding when the Court rose.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

THORNTON V. BOSHILL.

Mr. RICHARDS moved for a special injunction ex-parte
to restrain the delivery of a cargo to some of the defendants.
The defendants, Boshill and Costello, merchants at Dublin,
ordered 120 casks of Russia tallow from the plaintiffs, mer-
chants at Petersburgh and in London, for which they gave
their acceptances, which became due on the 13th of Ja-
nuary last. Some days previous to that date Boshill and
Co. we
re known to be insolvent in consequence of some late
extensive•
Irish failures, and, with full knowledge of the
circuni stances, the defendants, Barclay, Daniel, and Co., of
London, to whom they were indebted, obtained from them
first a deposit of the bill of lading, and then a bill of sale of
The acceptances were dishonoured, and Boshill
talaned(7,lrog.°f•ailed on the 15th of January. The cargo had not
yet arrived. The plaintiffs' bill sought to repudiate the

contract, and to impeach the transactions between the
bankrupts and Barclay and Co.—lnjunction granted.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.