The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-19 00:00:00

IN RE THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.

Mr. Bacon (for Mr. Marcus) moved for leave to appeal
to the House of Lords from the decision of this Court;
that the adjudication of bankruptcy against the company
was valid, and said they had uow served the directors with
the necessary notices.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce—Then, of course, you can
appeal to the House of Lords. Mr. Rolt why cannot these
parties appeal to the House of Lords ?
Mr. Rolt—l am here to show your lordships.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce—Do so. lam curious to
know what reasons there can be for such refusal. The act
says that if any case presents any "difficulty of import-
ance," the Court shall have the power of granting an ap-
peal. The effect of granting such au appeal will not be to
stay the proceedings.
Mr. Rolt said in point of fact it would not, but it would
have the effect of stopping all attempts to agree to a com-
promise.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce—All we have to decide is
whether this case is one of sufficient difficulty an 1 impor-
tance to grant an appeal.
Mr. Rolt—Certainly. But I trust I shall be able to
show your lordships that this is not a case in which au
appeal ought to be granted. The learned counsel than
proceeded to quote the words of the statute, and con-
tended that Mr. Marcus ha I no right to make the
present application. Every other shareholder excep:, Mr.
Marcus wore commonly of opinion that this application
should be refused ; and he trusted that under such
circumstances their lordships would refuse it, and
decide that all the proceedings that had been taken
should not be perilled by this application of Mr.
Marcus. More than half the estate had been administered,
and he contended that no case could be stated where the
estate was so divided, and where steps hkd been taken
similar to those which had been taken in this case, to jus-
ify the present application.
Mr. Giffard followed on the same side.
Mr. Brown said he had but a very few words to offer in
opposition to the motion.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce—Are you actually with Mr.
Rolt and Mr. Giffard in this case ?

Mr. Brown—Yes.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce—Mr. Rolt, for whom do you
appear ?

Mr. Rolt—For the assignees.

Lord Justice K. Bruce—Then there are actually three
counsel engaged for the assignees in this application. I
was only curious to know how many counsel were engaged.
Mr. Brown then continued his argument, and contended
that the present case was not of sufficient importance to
justify an appeal to the House of Lords. But, leaving
that part of the case, he maintained that the application
of Mr. Marcus was made too late.
Several other counsel followed on the same side, and Mr.
Bacon having replied on the part of Mr. Marcus,
Their lordships refused to grant leave to appeal entirely
on the ground that the application came too late. If the
present proceedings had been taken immediately, or as soon
as was possible after the decision of this court had been given
on a former occasion, when this unfortunate case was before
their lordships, leave undoubtedly would have been given
to appeal to the House of Lords.
The motion was therefore ordered to be dismissed, but
without costs—Mr. Linklater to have his costs out of the
estate.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, FEB. 13.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.)
CLARKE V. THE ROYAL PANOPTIOON.

It will be recollected that this case was argued on the
12th inst., upon two motions to dissolve an injunction,
one of which raised the question whether the council, as
representing the corporation of the Royal Panopticon,
Leicester-square, had a right to sell th• corporate pro-
perty ; and the second whether, under the terms of the
charter which gave them, as trustees for the corporation,
a power to mortgage, the council could grant a mort-
gage with a power of sale.
The first question the Vice-Chancellor immediately
determined in the affirmative ; upon the second he re-
served I.iis decision.

His Honour now gave judgment on the second motion,
and remarked upon the dearth of authority upon this
important question. It was clear that a trustee having
a power to mortgage only, could not himself sal.
Could he, then, delegate a power which he himself had
not ? Having regard to the authorities, his Honour
came to the conclusion that this argument must prevail,
and therefore, the plaintiff being stepped by his acquies.
cence from setting up his objection to the power of sale,
that both motions must be granted, and the injunction
dissolved with costs.

ROLLS COURT, FEB. 18.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)

RE CHARLES WALTON, DECEASED-WALTON V. BUTLER

AND OTHERS-THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.

Mr. R. Palmer, Q.C. (by special leave granted by his
Honour) moved to-day for a❑ injunction to restrai❑ Mr.
H. Powis, a depositor in the Brirish Bank, from taking
or prosecuting any proceedings at law against the tXeCtl-
tors of Coal les Walton, deceased, whose estate was in
the cour,e of administration under an order of this Court.

His Honour said that it was a mistAke to suppose that
Mr. P‘pw s could not prove his debt under the estate
without t ,ki ,g further proceedings at law. Tht injunc-
ti pray--d f•ir would be granted, but as the case was
somewhat new he did not think it necessary to make
any order as to c‘ists.—lnjunction granted accordingly.