The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-31 00:00:00

CENTRAL BOARD OF HEALTH.

COUNCIL OFFICE, WHITEHALL.—(THIS DAY.)
DAILY REPORT of CHOLERA CASES.
COUNTRY.
Remaining at last Report, 405—New Cases, 179—Deaths, 60—
Recovered, 90—Remaining, 434. Total Cases since the com.
mencement, 2%96o—Deaths, 8,595.
(Signed) WM. MACLEAN, Secretary.

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY

The LORD CHANCELLOR revived the hearing of
Bankrupt Petitions.

MOTIONS.

S'r Enw. SUCDEN ob•erved, that there were many ver3
pressing motions which it would be very desirable there
should be an opportunity of getting rid of.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his willingness t.
devote a couple of days to the hearing of such motions.
either this or next week ; and it was finally arranged tlia
Friday and Saturday first should be motion days.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY

SIR THOMAS HUSSEY AGNEW V. JENKINS.
Mr. KNIGHT applied this morning for the dissoluti, n
of the injunction which had been granted upon this ca,
upon the application of Mr. Wray, restraining the de-
fendant from selling the crop from off a farm in his (wen
pation, called the Cranham Lodge Farm, in the county o•
Essex. The defendant, Mr. Jenkins, bad taken the farm
in question from Sir Thomas Hussey Agnew, for a certait,
period, twelve months of which remained unexpirtd a
Michaelmas next, at a rent of 5901. a. year. In the agree.
ment for the lease of the farm a certain course of hus-
bandry was pointed out, which it was alleged by th.
plaintiff had not been pursued by the defendant, who
had allowed part of the farm to go into a great state
of dilapidation. The defendant having been in arrear it
his rent, application was made to him for it by the &gen
of the plaintiff, and shortly afterwards the defendant, b)
advertisement and printed circulars, had made public hi.
intention of selling all the crops on the farm, his furniture.
cattle, &c. and of giving up the farm, by which he stated
he bad lost many thousands. It was also alleged to have
been stated by a person named Williams, that it was the
intention of the defendant to leave the country, giving np
the farm without putting it in a proper state of cultiva-
tion. This, the Learned Counsel stated, was positiv ly
denied by the defendant, who had never had the slight st
intention of leaving the country, and had always intended
to put the farm in a proper state of cultivation ,
that he had resorted to the sale of his crops, farming-stm k,
and furniture, in consequence of the pressure for the rent,
the difficulty of paying which principally arose from the
failure of one of his under-tenants. The Learned Counsel
observed, that if the present injunction was not dissolved
the crops on the farm would be completely destroyed; un-
der that circumstance he trusted the Court would dissolve
the injunction, especially when it knew that theagent of
the plaintiff had consented to the sale by obtaining from
the auctioneer an undertaking to pay the rent.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for the plaintiff, contended
that it was the intention of the defendant by this sale to
strip the farm completely, leaving it in a state
of utter destitution, and thereby not only depriving th,•
plaintiff of any means of procuring his rent, but to make
it utterly impossible for him to let the farm without a great
outlay. With respect to the agent of Sir Thomas Agnew
accepting an undertaking from the auctioneer to pay the
rent, that was done under a protest against the sale.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, it appeared pla'n
to him that the defendant intended to completely strip the
farm, and thereby disable himself from complying with
the conditions he had entered into ; but it was equally as
plain, that it was utterly inconsistent that the agent 01
the plaintiff should accept an undertaking from the
auc-
tioneer for the payment of the rents, and at the same time
to protest against the sale. If that fact had been brought
to the notice of the Court at the time the injunction was
applied for, it never would have been granted. His -
nour was clearly of opinion, the act of the landlntat's
agent had precluded the landlord from objecting to tl e
sale. The injunction, therefore, must be dissolved, and
as the fact which the Court had alluded to had not b t n
brought to its attention when the injunction was moved
for, it must be dissolved with costs.