The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 20, 1861.

Insineso done

all
ss.
flOO
15
all
100
I

FOREIGN RAIL

5 7

97 984
lfd 144
18 19'd
90 92
i id

,WAYS.

2 It

Ili 12i

3}
31 31
224 23}

61 6i

71 8
19 20
87i 38i

8 i
37 38
52 54

41 3d

18.8.
all
all
all
all
all

13 15

5f 5;
8} Ai
la Ifd
20} 21.4

6 6
19i
20 9f

93 }

51 i

991
24 1

95 I 4}
61

111 1

131 1

LA TV INTELLIGENCE—Ohis Day),

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
NORRIS V. CHAMBERS.

This was an appeal from a decree of the Master of the
Rolls in this suit, instituted by the representatives of the
late John Sadleir, for the purpose of establishing a lien on
a mine in Prussia, called the Maria Anna and Stien-
bank Colliery, which had been purchased by
Messrs. Chambers and Salter, as trustees for the Maria
Anna and Stienbank Coal and Coke Company, from the
defendant, Michael Simmons. The principal question
raised by the bill was, whether this Court, under
the circumstances set forth in the bill, would entertain a
suit instituted by the plaintiff, residing in England, against
the defendant, also residing in England, to enface a lien on
the immoveable property of the defendant, situated out of
the jurisdiction of the Court. The Master of the Rolls de-
cided the question in the negative, and dismissed the bill
with costs.

At the conclusion of the arguments,which extended over
several days, the Lord Chancellor reserved judgment.
(Before Sir Richard Kindersley.)
KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, V. THE DEAN.

This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from cutiing down the trees, stems, sticks, or
saplings, growing in the wcods or premises belonging to
the college.

His Honour refused the motion with costs.
(Before Sir John Stuart.)

THE EMPEROR OP AUSTRIA V. DAY AND KOSSUTH.

The hearing of this case was resumed this morning.
Mr. Collier, on behalf of Kossuth, replied in an elaborate
speech, contending that it was admitted by the other side
that the Emperor of Austria only derived his right to issue
notes in Hungary from an edict which was, in fact, uncon-
stitutional in itself. Tt was the only occasion on which a
foreign potentate had applied to the Court to assist him in
the government or misgovernment of his country. He denied
the right of the Emperor of Austria to claim the rights of
the King of Hungary, for King Ferdinand had never abdi-
cated, and if he had the throne was vacant,:as the Emperor
of Austria had never taken the oaths to preserve the con-
stitution and uphold its laws, as former kings bad done
He concluded by calling on the court to dismiss the bill.
Mr. Bacon was then heard on behalf of Messrs. Day and
Co. He ennt....aoa tiara on the plaintiff's showing there
was no case, for the evidence failed to establish any exclu-
sive right to manufacture these notes out of Austria.
This was the most unprecedentad suit—one of the most idle
and useless that had ever occupied a court of equity, and
he felt no doubt that the Court would dismiss it with costs•
The Vice-Chancellor took time to consider his judgment.
TOWLE V. THE NATIONAL GUARDIAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY.

His Honour said this suit was instituted to recover a
sum of money purported to be secured by a policy of insur-
ance, at that time called a guarantee policy, and he was of
opinion that the plaintiff bad established his case, and de-
creed for the sum claimed, with interest at 4 per cent., and
costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice.)
RUSSELL V. THE GREAT SHIP COMPANY.
It will be recollected that an award had been made
against the Great Ship Company in favour of the plaintiff
to the amount of £lB,OOO, and a motion had been made to
set aside that decision on the ground that the arbitrators
had taken certain things into their consideration which
they ought not to have done.

His Lordship said the Court had decided that the deci-
sion of the arbitrators in favour of Mr. Russell should be
upheld.

Mr. Williams, on the part of Mr. Seett Russell, applied
for immediate execution, on the ground that the Great
Eastern screw-ship, which was the only property possessed
by the company, was about to sail for Amarica. If the
ordinary time was allowed to elapse before execution could
be had the ship would have sailed, and there could be
nothing in England to satisfy the award.
The Court thought the application was reasonable, and
decided accordingly.

---.__.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
DERRICK V. DERRICK.

This was the petition of Ann Derrick, praying for
divorce from her husband on the ground of cruelty and
adultery. There was no defence.

The parties were married at Northampton, in 1832, the
respondent at the time being a private in the Hussars, sta-
tioned in that town. He left the army about twelve
months after marriage, and got employment in the
police, and subsequently a guard en a railway,
and they subsequently resided in different parts +. of
England. The respondent was addicted to drunken-
ness, and in 1834 he commenced his ill-usage,
which consisted of striking the petitioner, and beating her
with a strap. She was compelled to separate from him
several times, and as he lost his employ she was compelled
to enter domestic service to support tho respondent for a
long time, until she discovered about two years ago that he
was•living with another woman. She was obliged to apply
to -a•magistrate for protection, and as she had ne prospect
of resuming cohabitation, she determined to institute the
present proceedings to prevent her earnings being squan-
dered by the respondent, who was so intemperate as to be
unable to retain any situation.

His lordship thought the identity of the man who com-
mitted the act of adultery in the house of Mrs. Curtis was
not sufficiently proved as the respondent. Ho might,
however, have no moral doubt about the matter, but he
must have clear evidence of the fact.
The case was ordered to stand over for further evidence.