The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices.)
APPEAL lIOTION FOR JUDGMENT-EART, OP SHREWSBURY

V. LBVEIL.

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Wood, pronounced on Bth June last. The first suit was
instituted for the purpose of restraining proceedings at law
on certain bills of exchange for £20,000, accepted by the
plaintiff in pursuance of an agreement entered into in Jan.
1849. The agreement impeached in the present suit was on
the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. It appears that
the plaintiff, then Lord Ingestre, became acquainted with
the defendant, Bere Leveil, at that time a director of a
joint-stock company in Belgium, under the title, La Societe
Agricole Forestier de vieve et Simoses. He purchased
three estates for 5,450,000 f., and mortgages to the amount of
3,550,000 f., and bills were accepted to the amount of
£20,000 as the price. The plaintiff filed his bill to set the
transaction aside on the ground of fraud, and the Vice-
Chancellor, and afterwards, on appeal, the Lords Justices,
dismissed his bill with costs, as the charges of fraud had
not been substantiated. The present motion is a suit in-
stituted against Trappes, the defendant's trustee, to restrain
him froin putting into execution a judgment for £21,960
obtained on the acceptances of the plaintiff. The Vice-
Chancellor refused the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
The Lord Chancellor dismissed the appeal, and was
silent as to costs.
Appeal dismissed without costs.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
JUDGMENT.-COOK V. DAWSON.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said this was a
motion to compel the purchaser to pay the purchase money
of this property into Court. By arrangement between the
parties this course was adopted (adjourned from chambers),
with a view to take the opinion of the Court as to whether
the will of the testator gave the testatrix a power to sell his
property; and whether a good title could be given to the
purchaser. The testator by his will directed all his debts
and funeral expenses to be paid, and he gave to his wife all
his household furniture and the use of all his real and per-
sonal estate in Wallsfngham, during all the term of her
natural life, and in case his real and personal- property
was not sufficient to keep her comfortable he gave her full
power either to sell or mortgage the property. And the
question raised was whether this gave the executrix a power
to sell the real estate. On considering the terms of the
will and the cases cited, he was of opinion that there was
only a general charge created against the property which
might entitle the executrix to mortgage but not to sell it ;
and, as a good title could not be given to the purchaser, he
refused to order the purchase-money to be brought into
court, with costs to the purchaser.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—(This Day;

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

OUTRAGEOUS ACT.—AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT RE-
QUIRING ALTERATION.—DSO DAMAGE.—Two low-looking
females, named Mary Davis and Mary Smith, and whose
conduct in the cell 'was abominable, were charged, before
Mr. Tyrwhift, with wilfully breaking the windows at
Messrs. Piver and Co., Regent-street, perfumers and
glovers, of the value of £5O.
James Henry Coatead, a postman, said about half-past
seven the previous evening he wAs passing down Regent-
street, when he saw Smith throw a large stone at one of
the windows at Messrs. Pivers, and this was followed imme-
diately by Davis throwing a second stone at another pane
of glass, and also smashing it. Davis said she had done
it, and would do it again when she came out.
Mr. Jules Lauvergpat, one of the firm of Piver and Co.,
said the value of the glass was £5O.
Sergeant Kay, 293 A, said they told him they would do

it again.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he trusted the act would be altered.
It was a most wilful and malicious act. They must pay a
fine of £5 each or be committed for two months.
[This case shows one of the anomalies of the law. The
magistrate having no power, whatever the amount of
damage or however outrageous the conduct of the person
inflicting it, to impose a heavier fine than £5, that being
the extent of his jurisdiction, the heaviest punishment in
default being two months' imprisonment.]