The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-06 00:00:00

• r
THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1861.

;minces done

100
all
all
all
all
100

94 95

4i 5 d

6 7
75 SO
65 70
Ei 7,1
41 81

11. li d
1 id

11 lk d
97} 98/1

Oa 98
98 99
98 09
18 19
57 62
45 50
34 37
39 43
34 87
34 37
05 86
lid

.92 94
10 10}
10. 10*
.5 98
83 92

s 3 85
92 93
85 87

5 7

5 7

ElOO
15
all
100

98 98i
lid lid
—d
90 92
d

AILWAYS.

18.8.
all
all
all
a it
all

MID
3.2.101

7.4.0

17s
13.12.6

5i 61
- -1)
2&
I 1

11 12

n 2f
21 2id
22 23

73- 81

8i 84
194 206
88i 394

8 9
37
53 54

4 40

13 14

5i 5f
8* At
2
Ids;
22 23

6} 61
9t gt
20 21

ES.
1 2
165 175
355 365
824 874
224 234
24 3
12 14

19 I
60

34 5
42

LAW- INTELLIGENCE—(2has Day).

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
J'ITDCi'MENT-DIGKASON V. FOSTER.

This was an appeal from the Master of the Rolls on the
construction of the will of the late Joseph Dickason, of
Islington.

The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the natural and
reasonable construction of the words used in the testator's
will, by which he gave £1,500 to his eldest son, or the chil-
dren of his eldest son or daughters, as well as the residue
of his personal estate, was such as the Master of the Rolls
had put upon it in favour of the four children therein first.
named, and that it was limited, and did not extend to the
other three children subsequently named. That the gift
over and the residue of the personal estate accrued to the
benefit of the first-named four children and no other. This
provision was therefore in favour of the eldest son and his
children. His lordship affirmed the decision of the Master
of the Rolls, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
(Before Sir R. Kindersley.)
JUDGMENT.-RADCLIFF V. READETTS.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor said—l have looked
through this will, and it occurs to me that the clause
which directs the accumulation of the income into capital
during the minority of the persons entitled to take the
benefit of this will—that clause is confined to the grand-
children, and that the accumulations during the lives of
the two daughters of the testator should belong to them.
His Honour remitted the case to chambers, to ascertain
what sum ought to be paid out of the estate.
The future payments to be paid out of court in moities, and
not as separat3 rents. Costs of the petition to be general
costs in the cause.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Creswell and a Common Jury.)
RICHARDS V. RICHARDS AND JONES.

The hearing of this case was resumed this morning, and
some additional evidence was adduced in confirmation of
the preceding testimony as to the adultery of the peti-
tioner.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY V. KERSHAW.
This was an action to recover a sum of money for car-
riage of certain me chinery.

Mr. Ashley, of Charles-square, Hoxton, for the company,
asked for an adjournment of 10 minutes, as a very impor-
tant witness was absent.

His Honour (to defendant's clerk)—Do you consent to
an adjournment for 10 minutes ?
Defendant's clerk—No. This is the second time I have
been here, and I wish to have the case decided.

His Honour—Then I have no power. I can, however,
grant an adjournment to a future day.
Mr. Ashley, however, elected to go on, and stated his
case, from which it appeared that six tons of heavy ma-
chinery had been carried to the London Docks upon
defendant's order, and Mr. Ashley contended that this was
done in reasonable time.

No witness being present his Honour said he should non-
suit 4he plaintiffs.

Defendant's clerk—And can they sue me again.
His Honour—Yes, fif. y times, if they like.
Defendant's clerk thought this Was persecution, and asked
Mr. Ashley if he meant to sue defendant again ?
Mr. Ashley (smiling)—Of course.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd).
THE GREAT LEATHER FAILURES.. IN RE LAWRANCE

MORTIMORE AND CO.

To-day was appointed for hearing a petition in this case
respecting some mortgagees' accounts, but an adjournment
took place till Wednesday next.

IN RE LAWRANCE AND MORTIMER.

An audit meeting was held under the joint and separate
estates of these bankrupts, but the proceedings were pro
forma, and it could not be ascertained what dividends will
be paid.