The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 18.
FULLER. V. BENNET.
This case was argued yesterday. The question
was, whether Messrs. Chitty and Co., the solicitors,
of Shaftesbury, were entitled to charge interest on
advances made to their client, the late Sir John
Dillon, without there being any agreement that the
moneys were to be so advanced. The Master to
whom the accounts were referred, and Vice-Chancellor
Ifigrarn, who heard the matter on appeal, were both
of opinion that interest could not be charged as an
item of the account.
The LORD-CHANCELLOR expressed the same opinion
at the hearing, but took time to look into a correspond-
ence which was alleged to make out something like
an agreement. His Lordship now said that the rule
had been properly laid down by the Vice-Chancellor,
and that the letters did not show a contract or agree-
ment. Nothing appeared to have been said or done
by Sir John Dillon from which an agreement to pay
interest could be implied. In some of the letters Sir
John appeared to make a cempl,int of the sums en-
tered against him, and remarked that the balance
from the receipts of rents ought to be in his favour.
The objections being made to the general balance, it
did not become necessary fur Sir John Dillon to enter
into the particulars of the sums set down as interest.
His Lordship repeated that there must be a distinct
contract to entitle solicitors or agents to interest on
money advanced to or for their principals ; and, as
the order of the court below was right, the petition
of appeal must be dismissed with costs.

ROLLS COURT, Jan. 18.

BARNARD GREGORY V. MARYCHURCH AND ANOTHER.
In this case the plaintiff, having had large dealings
as proprietor of a newspaper, called the Satirist, with
Messrs. Wrigley, paper-manufacturers, of Lanca-
shire, owed a balance of 7561. for paper supplied up
to the month of March, 1846. The paper-makers
pressed for payment, and, being then unable to pay
in cash, the plaintiff gave Messrs. Wrigley a judg-
ment for that amount, which was to bear interest at
five per cent per annum. The judgment was to be
paid off by two instalments, but when the first be-
came due it was unpaid, and the attorneys, Davies
and Evans, threatening to enforce the judgment,
Gregory authoriFei the said attorneys to sue a
debtor, Mrs. Matters, and they recovered for his ac-
count 3001., which it was agreed to take by 1501. pre-
viously paid, and three promissory notes for 50/.
each, which were suffered to remain in the said attor-
neys hands as assets to pay Messrs. Wrigley as an in-
stalment upon the judgment. The notes Evans paid,
to the credit of his firm, into the Commercial Bank of
London, and soon after the firm dissolved partner-
ship. Evans became bankrupt. Mr. Davies continued
the business until Oct. 10, 1847, when he died. In a
few days after one of the 50/. promissory notes of Sarah
Matters was presented fir payment and dishonoured.
The Commercial Bank had been paid since by the
plaintiff, who in consequence sought to be reimbursed,
and filed his bill against the defendant, the widow of
the solvent partner in the firm of Davies and Evans,
who had since married the Rev. Henry W. Mary -
church, who also was made a co-defendant in this
bill in Chancery. A reference was ordered to the
Master, and interrogatories were sent in by the plain-
tiff, one of which was in these terms :—" Whether
or not did the said John Evans, on the sth of July,
1847, or any other, and what other, day or time,
draw on his said separate account with the said bank
a cheque for the sum of 141. lls. 6d., or for some or
what sum inclusive of 14/. 1 ls. 6d., in favour of said
joint account of himself and the said David Davies
with the bank ; if yea, was or was not such cheque
returned to the said John Evans, with notice on the
part of the said bunk that he had not, on his said
separate account, sufficient effects to meet it ?” The
defendant excepted to till:, interrogatory, as a leading
interrogatory among others excepted to. The excep-
tions being allowed by the piaster the plaintiff brought
the case before the court on exceptions to the Master's
report.
Mr. BEALES stated the case for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Shebbeare appeared for the defendant.
Lard LA.NGDALE overruled the decision of the
Mlstcir, and decided against the exceptions taken by
the defendant to the interrogatories.

VICE-Ch ANCELLOR'S COURT, Jan. 18.
(Before Sir L SIIADWELL.)
The VICE-CHANCELLOR disposed of the unopposed
petitions and short causes in the day's list.
IN THE MATTER OF THE LONDON-BRIDGE APPROACH
ACT.

This was a petition for the investment of a sum of
400/., being the residua of a larger fund, which formed
the purchase money of certain land bought by the
corporation of London under an Act of Parliament.
The Act provided for the payment, by the corporation,
of all rea.l.onable expentes incurred from time to time
under the Act. On this ground the petition asked
that the costs of investing the residue should be pad
by the corporation.
Mr. Busk supported the petition ; Mr. Randall
appeared contra.
Toe VICE -CUANCELIOR said that the Act give ro
stint, but rendered the corporation liable for all ex-
penses which might result from their dealing with the
land of other poetic,. The corporation, therefore,
ought to pay the costs.