The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-16 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT-(T-111S DAY

The LORD CHANCELLOR sat at Lincoln's Inn, and tool;
lunatic petitions to-day, none of which were of any Public
importance.

ROLLS COURT-(THIS DAY)

TAYLOR V. FISHER.—JUDGMENT. 4
His HONOUR gave judgment this morning in this case`
r
the question in which was, whether demurrer ore terms
want of parties was good, the bill allegirig that the Pd
was out of the jurisdiction, and praying process if he sb°
come within it. His Honour thought that it Was C0;,4 3°
convenient and consonant with the practice of the O
that the demurrer should be allowed, but as it was ore tenia

he would give no costs, and allow the parties to amend'
WEST V. SHUTTLEWORTH.
HIS HONOUR also gave judgment in this case. PC
testatrix, a lady named Townsend of the Catholic •Pe,r:
suasion, by her will and by a letter which she wroteri
her trustees, which had been proved, bequeathed sev,,e7,
legacies to different Roman Catholic chapels in and a°"e
London ; and she also gave a legacy of 101. each to t".
ministers, for the purpose of having the benefit of 65
prayers for the repose of her soul and that of her deceasbe
husband. She also left the residue of her property t°
applied as her two trustees should think fit, in a ma
d%
0,401;
best calculated to promote the Roman Catholic
religion among the poor of two parishes in lredird,
called Swaledale and Worsdale. A bill was '4,
impeaching the validity of the gifts by the
next of kin, on the ground first, that the gift of the resiauit
being to promote the Roman Catholic Religion was vote
being contrary to several statutes, and secondly,,that
has
gift to the Roman Catholic priests was bad, because it&
expressly for the purpose of superstitious uses. gis .00
nour, after referring to the different acts, stated his opi°,l
to •be that the gift of the residue was not void .on t°Bof
ground ; that Roman Catholics, by the Act, ,ed
the 2d of the present King, chap. 3, were P's
..:15,
precisely in the same situation with respect to their anbl'o
their places of religious worship and charitable purposes,_:/
Protestant Dissenters. With respect to the other g',;f
namely, that to the Catholic Priests, his Honour WaLt
testatrise
opinion that it was void, but as that gift was not a clrt
contravention of the statute of Edward the Third, the Cote
thought it should go to the next of kin and not to t'•

Crown.
His HoNouß gave several other judgments which ore
of no public importance.

VICE-CHANCERY.--(THIS DAN'

-ow
Unopposed cause petitions of no general interest oc,
pied his HONOUR the whole morning.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY)

HARRIS V. DODWELL. $
This was an action brought by the plaintiff age duet
t
professional gentleman for alleged egligence in the condue-
o.
of a Chancery suit, instituted for the recovery Of a Cl3°
a
derable,,property in Leicestershire, in which a verdict ha

. _
passed for the plaintiff.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now moved for a rule to
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a Le°o
suit entered, on the ground that negligence had not u:ao
proved against the defendant. The learned gentle—oes
proceeded at considerable length to detail the circumstari of
connected with the trial, and argued that the dismiss 64 f.
the bill filed by the plaintiff had resulted from his not h3to
ing furnished the defendant with sufficient instruction,sro,
amend the bill, and not from any want of attention or P
fessional skill on the part of his client.
COURT.—Take a rule nisi.

EXCHEQUER COURT.--(THIS DO.

V. NEWTON.
This was an actionWILLIAMS for money had and received, f,hicile
was tried at the late Lancaster Assizes, before Mr. 05'
ALDERSON, when a verdict was found for the 1)15in..
damages 501. use
Mr. CRESWELL now moved for a rule to show e 3",
why the verdict should not be set aside and a the
tered, on the ground that there was no evidence
money being had for the use of the plaintiff. Thej, t
dence in the case went to show that the defendant b-leid
a public-house in Liverpool, and that a person ltraf,
Wright went to the defendant on the part of the Pla`°9olt
and made an agreement by which she was to paY lbo
for the goodwill of the house, 501. to be paid down w/o/.
the consent of the landlord was obtained, and the "00
when the licence was transferrred and possession giverl;"•Led
the J9th of May the plaintiff and defendant's wife vi"-
upon the landlord, and got his consent to the e-schvvig,
upon which the 501. was paid, and Mrs. Wright moved
the house. The defendant still remained in possess `,,°-e,'
and on the 2d of June the landlord, in consequence of sine
thing he had heard, withdrew his consent, upon whiell„"be
defendant said it did not matter. " If I had the rest el the
money, I will give you possession, and you may still keePtile
my name and set the landlord at defiance." The plaintiff t° re
not do so, and left the house. She demanded her furnittirt
and the 501. from the defendant, who at first refused ter Pfnai,
with any of them ; after some time, he gave up the fu
the
tune, but absolutely refused to return the money, °DA oly
ground that he had performed his contract. He ha ice
tamed the consent of the landlord, and was willing te
up possession upon the completion of the original contra
the payment of the 701.
The Court refused the rule, on the ground that the c 0
sent of the landlord not having been in writing, and rtipd
having been acted upon, he had a perfect right to res— ot
it, and he having done so, the bargain for the 501. had
11
been completed.

LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIOI'IS

(THIS DAY.)

This morning this Session commenced, before the Res:
CORDER, Aldermen Thorp, Lucas, Lainson, Marshalh tot
To the credit of the citizens of London the list d'u4i-ot
contain a single charge of assault, riot, or nuisance, so of
it was unnecessary to impannel a Jury, a circumstance
very
There unfrequent occurrence. for
were only two parish appeals, both of which after
a short discussion were adjourned to the May Sessintls.: tot
Other routine business having been disposed of, the Coup
adjourned at Eleven o'clock to Monday the 18th of SA'.