The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE'.-(TIIIS

COURT OF CHANCERY.

(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.)
APPEAL MOTION-JENKINS V. GREEN.
This is an appeal from an order of the Master of the Rolls
affirming the certificate of his chief clerk, finding that the
agreement for a lease for 14 years of 437 acres of the rectory
lands of the parish of Gillingham, in the county of Lincoln,
at a rent of £3OO, dated April 24, 1855, was not in oPP°SI:,
Lion to the Act of Parliament 5 and 6 Vie., 1842, and
could be carried into effect by granting a valid lease.
Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., was heard for the appellant.
Mr. R. Palmer, Q.C., appeared for the respondents.
The Lord Chancellor, at the conclusion of the argument!
of counsel on both sides, said that their lordships would
take time to consider it.
Judgment reserved.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCIT.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices

. and Hill.)
TILE QUEEN V. TILE LORDS OF TILE TREAsuitY•
Mr. Corrio this morning moved for a rule calling lipice
°ll
John Wray, Esq., the receiver of the Metropolitan Pol
Courts, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue
commanding him to pay the sum of £3OB to issuers r.
Conic, of the Clerkenwell Police Court, being Dart
his salary as such magistrate, and which had D'e—
gentle ;
P
deducted from him. It: appeared that the learned
man was appointed in 1851 ono of the metropolitan elica
magistrates, and from that time until the present ,f3OB 11°
been deducted, in compliance with the Superannuatilt
Act, which the learned gentleman contended did not OP
to police magistrates. 9, Ana
The Court granted a rule, on the ground that the -
3 Vict., cap. 71, sea. 11, amounted to a repeal of the 4 a/If
5 of Wm. IV., cap. 24, so far as affected the magistrate "

the police•courts.
MRS. COIIBETT IN COURT AGAIN.
This afternoon Mrs. Cobbett moved the court for s
for the discharge of her husband from the Queens Prins
or for a writ of habeas in order that he might Wear
court to show cause against his further detention. cro
The lady made her usual statement of her Illisball
grievances amidst the laughter of the court, at the teroum-'
tion of which the court declined to interfere.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
The Lord Chief Baron was occupied the
.early Par
day in hearing the agents in an application fora new "'f
in which the only point was the liability of the ownero
vessel for certain articles ordered by the captain.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
The Judge Ordinary was occupied the whole 109 00
with hearing motions, none of which possessed 1113 Y Pu
interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
JUDGMENT—IN RE SWAINE.
This bankrupt was a miller, at Stevenage, 102 d his
to-day gave judgment on the question of certificate, oh
had been opposed on the ground of reckless trading all
fraudulent preference.
His Honour said that it appeared from the bali"-..48
accounts that be had carried on a losing business after 11°
insolvent. It was also proved that after he O,ll,°talia do
-nown that he could not pay more than a small aVon
he had paid considerable sums on the personal apPli—tho
of creditors; but ho declared that he did lot :41.
contemplate bankruptcy. The evidence was 11(4 irrupt
lent to justify the Court in deciding that the 19°11:06
had been guilty of fraudulent preference, according
V 11
cases of Morgan v. Brundrest (5 B. and Adol. 289)1con"
Cashel (2 Ex. 691), and Marjoribanks (de Gex. 466) A in
sidering, however, that the bankrupt was not justi!--prir
paying those debts, and that his trading was verfug`ll3). r
dent, the Court would adjourn the certificate (2d c'-13.• 8'
a year from the last examination. That decision was3ll/{.
tified by the case of ex parte Hammond (do Gel. 11.
and S. 699).

This bankrupt was described as of Albany-
IN RE W. A. D'ARCY. , ha,'
dealer, &c., and to-daywas appointed for choice of aoin„a
petillo
Mr. Bayley applied for an adjournment, as a
been presented to annul. f ut (3f
Mr. Lawrance said that he appeared to supPor-,l).‘eti•
course could not oppose the adjournment till after the r
tion had been heard. streeL, ---,..neeo,
lis D0•111‘4
Adjourned accordingly, and an application by t-- ,040
rupt for discharge from custody was adjourned to the P..-
time.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburll.)
His Honour resumed his sittings after his vacs
tioil•
IN RE WARING. trot'
This bankrupt was described as of Mortiinerts ...IA
Cavendish-square, glass dealer, &c d
his examination. d the
~ an came 4t° r
Mr. Turner, for the assignees, did not opPoset 6 '-
etl
bankrupt passed. The debts are stated at £4,22 .d
and debts, £206; property, £l6O.
This bankrupt was described aas of S.hooter.
IN RE SE kGER
&c., and came up to pass . his last examination. on a L'''-
ere
by Messr Debtor to
.04
s. Butler and Cannings, showing—
d itors, £729 ; to ditto, holding 'security, £4,331 cifibth
January, 1857, £642 ;profit,Creditor— "e_pd
£644.
rtg3sl
18s. 6d •re •., reversionary interest, £ll2 ; property 01° sticg
res 649 • •
,- , interest, £682; trade ex £302 ; donie
expenses,
£lOl. s, -hill,
ocbti_tl..iicletafro

The bankrupt passed.
IN RE ROBINS. 3004
The bankrupt was described as of St. John' jori
builder.t The examination was adjourned, Messrs.
rothers not having been able yet to file the accouttto.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
IMPORTANT CASE TO THE SHIPPING INTEREST'
V. V. SAUNDERS AND ANOTHER. Of ose
.ngTh. is was an action to recover £3 18s. under the
1 mimportant circmmstances.
Mr. Watkin Williams, instructed by Messrs. pierce it
Gresham House, appeared for the plaintiff and( bath
James, by Mr. Cattams of Mark-lane, for the 42-811...0i0tt
who are the ship brokers for the Russian Steam II all°
Company. AOl that
Plaintiff is a wine merchant in the city, an- said
had sold,
of
rurn in May last, eight puncheons and ft:Wiwi; ~.„().
ship be; to. a Mr. Meyer, to be shipped free enPvft
belonging to the Russian Steam Navigation Coops"
0;0
_bondr for Odessa. Plaintiff called upon defendants and 00
M . Duncan, one of the partners, and engaged freigvilit. ill
the
es told that the ship was lying in the East-lane-A:er'o
2d
jriver, and that if the goods were taken alongside
Put
00
they would be taken. The goods were So lat
b_ouardunao,lighter and arrived alongside the shiP be
to
Jne, but the vessel went into the Victoria Deche, Delay 00'
ourrlightermana was told that he must go there. i uld be
takee , and plaintiff was informed that the geeue /fLotber
ship
n, but the vessel finally went without tileni* iqi ter
given, defendants saying, " They were so
carry.
thoyp was
sad engaged more freight than they were
uterse
The amount now sought to be recovered was the liedtdo
paid in going backwards and forwards through °ill°
error. 00$
Plaintiff was cross-examined as to whether it Ass od
necessary to obtain the broker's order before the geed°cColOjert
be taken on board. Plaintiff said he did obtain 110/1-1 the
eahnidp.that this order was presented to the Mate en b $l-th
1, 001
The lieghtermen were called, and said—Thy had _.:,..e tei-
from th broker and waited alongside the vessel, be''''`
that the goods would be taken on board. Moos
Bentley, the man who took the barge to East-193'e' itio
wtioansrecnalled by. Mr. James for the purpose of cross 1;110 bad .
e arrived at East-lane-pier on the Ist June'
paid
10
, ~,
the shipping order then. The make le.,
could not take the goods then because mates
The
heavy
ship went railway carriages were being elliPPe;dranii°
pressp went into the Victoria Docks as the l'i re
was required for the machinery. Wtnes° wag oild
1
quired to follow the ship down to the -Victoria Dec''''''
did so. nods iii
Another lighterman said he took charge of
,the 5- to the
the Victoria Docks. He presented the brokers rcio er
ono
chief
take
officer, who said ho would take the goods. Ile W
the order till ho had the goods on board.
not If
The defence was that no brokers' order Was givist of
theJunlighterman had presented a shipping order
would love
been taken.
the ship was not full, the goods . too
By the time the goods arrived at the tbo
Docks the vessel was full, and the pods ceilld 120
taken. liwrifig
Mr. Gibbs, one of defendant's clerks, said 11° srlco
order.was given. There were no particulars of the bout
A w
and numbers of the rum sent to defendant, and
such particulars an order would not be given- the 0
Another clerk said he was on board the ve.fsel on 1.
of °et'
June, and no order was presented.
Mr. Early said that when the goods had been 8 _OO.
plaintiff app lied and received an order for another v. '
' ..od
Ho did not give up the order for the previous vessel
to the best of witness's belief never had one. dpina°
His. Honour was not satisfied that the plai.atiff he
out his case. joica
Mr. Williams then addressed the court, and c°l3tcbcee
that it had been positively proved that an order personh
given. The order. had been traced from ,p rsou to _,,,„,
and it was satisfactorily in evidence that each of those r
sons bad presented it on.' board the vessel. O 01
His Honour repeated that there was no evidenCe A
'''
order had ever been given.
Plaintiff was then nonsuited.

A boa Slf
Loss OF A FLAT IN THE MERSEY.-'-"."- to lw;
o'clock on Tuesday evening the fiat Sarah, bel pngalgstefooo`
Wilkinson, was shipping coals on board the szireW
site t
Hungarian, for Quebec, lying in the river oPP° and
north landing-stage, when her bow rope broke, .0 the
masthead, as she swung round, being otaightc; of ber
steamer's rigging, she capsized. The men on boerd oaf
were precipitated into the water and rapidlyt lasrurloetertkil4ll;
by the tide, not one of them being saved. I,,fit
how many hands were on board. There a' there
c
three, and unless some of the crew were on
have been double that number. shpt.° tiler