The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-20 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

MALCOM V. SCOTT.
The further arguments in this part-heard aPfeal ‘cer,
r e..
et,umed this ter. The case came before his Lord
ship upon appealmorni from the decision of the Vice-Cba"
cel,or Wigroan. The case came before his Honour E 3
considerable time since upcn a bill filed by Geag(i
Malcom sod Co., of Liverpool. against Scott, Bell, AD
Co., of London, fur an account of the produce of high
T
signments made by Adam and Co, of Calcutta, on wbi
they had a lien for a lac of rupees. In March, o
184,A
the Calcutta house directed the London house to h"
a lee of rupees out of the consignments made to that!
for the credit of the Liverpool house, and they informed
the Liverpool house that theyhad the order. Th°
given
London house also apprised the Liverpool house of 01;
order, but at the same time informed them th_,,ht„t
Calcutta house had overdrawn their account, anil,
the honouring of the order must depend on the vildl%,,
the consignments. The Calcutta house afterwards vilw.
drew the order before anything was paid. an subsea..
quently became bankrupt. The bill was filed forma 10
count of the transactions between the London is
Calcutta house, and of the amount of the consigl2,3c.n
up to March, 1843. On the case coming before the
Chancellor Wigram he directed a reference to
1111:0
Master to take the accounts, and an apPelli wbe
brought from that decision before Lord Cottenham,
was the Chancellor. Upon that occasion Lord CetLf:
ham said that there was a contract, by which the Psi,
admitted they were bound, but what was the truer e_llo
ing of that contract depended very much on the etl9'',,
of mercantile men. The Court had no means of latis
ing what that custom was, and he thought it *As 13°ffect
his
power to come to a sound conclusion on Its
should
until he had the opinion of a mercantile jury. lie Ws-
therefore order that the matter stand over until tbe P
tiff brought an action against tho defendants on adlniB6!o4,,
that they received the order, and that they had c°,l/,,sdlein
meets from the house in Calcutta during the Per's'eerd
question. Thus matters remained till the present lea
Chancellor was appointed, and now the partss aPPea
from the original decision' of Vice-Chancellor iVigr•el;
The arguments occupied the Court the whole Indr°ll°'
ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DA 1.4)005
His Lordship the Master of the Rolls heard 3°-
again to-day, but nothing of interest took place'
VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT nag".'
JORDAN V. UPTON.
The further arguments in this part-heard°se llere
resumed, and occupied the Court the whole taornipg.
II (Before the Vice-Chancellor ROLFE.) plB
His 6 oerourt having disposed of the case ,0,0101,
Dixon'Trust," which stood on the paper for id°,
the further arguments in the part-heard case of
BALGUY V. BROADHURST. n Orti
were resumed. The case came before his 11011Yasrr
exceptions. The bill was filed for the purPos° °'et",4o/
ing a trustee with the sum of 8,0001., which `'" Dig
covenanted by his marriage settlement to setil°.iig
wife. The money was never settled, and it Os '"-e-e
by the bill that this was the fault of the trustee.
The arguments occupied the Court the wholetu°
QUEEN'S BENCH.--(THIS x•,
-n`Tra *co
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord CAMPBELL an —514

CGE an.)
THE QUEEN V.OLERI D
THE INHABITANTSdERLE
OF 01--1°
this
JUDGMENT.
Lord CAMPBELL gave judgment in this c-chespel.
morning. He said this was a mandamus t° the e°l9'
wardens and overseers of the parish of niistetnot e
mending them to make a rate in order iirgeig
a sum of 600/, for thepurpose of 43°,00!
a chapel within that parish. Durin the ar;",., tbs:
he (Lord Campbell) had expressed a sgtroug bto
the Court might be able to support the r°cee",telrg'
he was sorry to say that that appeared 0,441%1;9r-11es'
possible, for there were two fatal objections. f 80e°'
tion depended principally on the inter retati°ll° srcieq
TH., c. 45, sec. 49, which empowered the charchw'oll .
and overseers of any parish, with the apprebstio
the vestry, to raise by means of a rate such spurse
enlarging
be necessary for defraying the rs„.,P',,dstit"
uf or otherwise extending the accoe'; the':
churches or chap-1s in such parish. ilowege.lilst°s
were two objections to thtt; tied one was, OP t; 013'
was not a parish within the meanin of tbe At, '3o'l
the other, that the condition of the consent of (Lot
was not complied with. It appeared to buttbe
f
Campbell) that Bilston was notparish;
contrary, was within and parcel of the
Wolverhampton. Up to the year. 1753 tn. beellt
a cemetery at Bilston, and marriages !licit-- 110,r:
solemnised there previous to Lord nartliv'e;e
riage Act, but it was still only eh°
64
within the parish of Wolverhampton. The 11;4
proof of the consent of the vestry having bee° Jew
seemed
entirely to have failed. On the 401 °',.501°.;
1825, there was a meeting at Bilston, when let bi
tion was come to that the 540/ offered to be iedurgi4
tohfe Society for Promoting the Building end, ,r 4035.13;
Churches, should be accepted, and that ' hat
should be enlarged. It was also agreed that rt.-0 fACT
should be repaid by moans of a rate, and tit bet "'tie
ficiency was to be made up by the sale of 40 pes"l6o tb°::
was not confirmed by the consent of the vestrY.',- Cow'
two objections, which appeared to be fatal, Oleo for
were obliged reluctantly to discharge the r°"-
mandamus.—Rule discharged accordingly.
THE QUEEN V. THE CALEDONIAN RAILWAY
JUDGMENT. to the or
Lord CAMPBELL said this was a mandamusstO CCI-Or
ledonian Railway Company, commanding thew' city
plete a certain bridge over their railroad in,,teatid.fitole.
Carlisle, as by law they were bound to crude/at r.
cording to the plans and cross sections Carob"
with the Clerk of the Peace for the county °f.6 liffegl
land. This being a peremptory mandamus. 1 OW.'
the prosecutor to show that all that had been Ce°3-1;
by the mandamus was a duty imposed by lov'to 0/4"6
uecessary to show that there was an obligation
the inau
road in question according to the rates of ice.th tof
Clerk
delineated in the plans and sections deposited W,itioe
of the Peace. He thought that the 911156,;iYmi''
the 9th and 10th Vict., c. 269 (the Supplesl°°;i of Pr
which had been relied on, die not apply to rgi,t—faasteleif
clination, but only to the heights and spans uer:fore he
on the plans and sections. The Court was tbet,i ot.h.#
opinion that that part of the mandamus con
sustained, and therefore judgment must be,i;ilf,
defendant.—Judgment for the defendant aee""."--

co"

Ig"l°;,'

crofter ►
be Pri '
s ►
116,1
), judf
11'1;S
iaofl 0
',Off
- *v}
wood'
a
11(
f(lr f
ee
ja •
to 11,
itito- •
g- I
o
VI
IY
,pt ooly
ofl
3011P'!,0 .