The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-07 00:00:00

NEWG.ATE AND

stood did not meet with the aroval of the Right 11011°
Gentleman who:had just sat down, but whether it did or
no it was his intention to move that it be altogether ex-
punged from the Bill. It was clear to him that it could
not be carried out, for it was well known
that the majority of farm buildings in this
country were built with wood—a perishable
article, liable to be easily destroyed by fire,
and it would therefore be quite useless to advance money
for their erection, without at the same time making
provision for the renewal and preservation.—(ll"r'
hear.) He begged to move that the clause be altogether
omitted from the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN said, before that motion could be
made the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an amend-
ment to move.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXC:IEQUER thE,rl
move i the omission of certain words relating CO whatv
age, and, after a short di6cussiou, the motion was
agreed to.
On the motion thatthe clause, as amended, be agreed to,
Sir HARRY VERNEY supporred the clause as it
stood, and hoped no alteration would be made in it to
preclude money being advanced for the erection of firm'
buildings, which was ealcula'ed to confer vast benefits
upon the agricultural interest, and particularly the
labourer. _

Mr. MILES was opposed to advancing money for fern"
buildings. The money ought to be confined strictly t°
the improvement of land by drainage.
(LEFT SITTING.)

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY')
The business before the Glirt was entirely 0111.
:cresting, and offereA nothing worthy of report.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
IN RE AN ATTORNEY.
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER applied to the Court for
rule calliul upon an attorney of the court to show caul°
why he should not pay Mrs. Ann Fowler, of Oxford-
street, the sum of 200/, and answer the matter con'
tained in her affidavi. Some time ago Mrs. Fowler
wined the attorney in question, who practices at York
to invest 200/. for her in mortgage. She paid him over
the 2004, and he in return handed her a parcel with an
indorsement, representing that it contained the title
deeds to some property which belonged to a Mr. Ess•
ll
few weeks ago Mrs. Fowler wished to raise a alp!'
sum on the security of the mortgage, and she accord-
ingly applied to the London and Westmineter Banitir4.,
Company to advance her the amount. When, howeve"
she opened the parcel she had received from her Weil
at York, she found that it contained no mortgage dee
but the convey ance of some propert the consideration
for which appeared to h;,ve been 171. She theretbre
wrote to the attorney at York, requesting him to foot
ward her the mortgage deed or the 200/., but instead .a_
doing either, he returned her a promissory note for tne
amount, drawn by his own father, who is a rallOY
station master, in the receipt of 1/. per week.
Application granted.
DOE ON THE DEMISE OP THE DEAN AND CHAPTEI4. Lx
ROCHESTER V. WHISTON. „
le
Sir F. THESIGER applied to the Court for e
calling upon the lessors in this case to show cause 1");
all proceedings should not be stayed until the mitodaert%
h ich Mr. Whiston has obtained against the Dean an
hapter shall have been disposed of. It will be re'
membered that Mr. Whiston in 1842 was appointed
the Dean and Chapter to the head mastership of then 1/,,c;
cheater Grammar School, which was founded by B"
VIII., who endowed it with an estate out of which cebe;
fain stipends were to be paid to four students and to
boys. Mr. Whiston, soon after he entered upon the offif,
discovered that the boys were not receivirg the ad
shares of the endowment according to the intention
oci
the founder, and he therefore applied to the Dean 6bo
Chapter, ultimately to the Bishop, and afterwards tot s,
Court of Chancery, on the subject, with no succiersej
He then wrote a pamphlet, entitled "Catlit",a"
Trusts, and their Fulfilment," which cootBaltio
some animadversions upon the conduct of
icb
Dean and Chapter and the Bishop, ee"!sr.,
eventually led to his being deprived of his office. re,
Whiston, however, has since obtained a mandamoo, to
quiring the Bishop and the Dean and the Ch,pterhis
restore him to the mastership, on the ground thatAii.
removal was illegal, and the matter now stands to be 'leo,
posed of by a trial at law. In the meantime the D
ent
and Chapter instituted the preseat action of ejectilis; 0
to recover possession of the school-house; but shool,
turn out in the end that the Dean and Chapter bad"
the,
power of removal, the action must necessarily NI fs
ground; and Mr. Whiston was, therefore, anxious to Is,
the proceedings stayed till the mandamus had been
posed of.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN said he would grant the °S':
plication if Mr. Whiston would undertake to surrcode_iep
possession of the premises in the event of the manda'
being decided against him.
Sir F. THESIGER said he had no hesitation in gi
such an undertaking.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—Then you may take a -
Rule nisi accordingly.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY')
(Before Mr. Commissioner FANi.)
IN RE A. A. WATTS. Aria,
This bankrupt is well known in the literary %jet
and to- day was appointed for his last examination, /if the
had been adjourned till this day in consequence of the
illness of the bankrupt. No accounts have yet 61'
filed, and a further adjournment took place.

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY')
There was only one case tried to-day, wow..„
Bell, to recover the sum cf 5/. 13s. Ed. for an attorsei
bill, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff. ey
Thera was another case set down, but the attorlot
having served notice for the wrong day, it "9
heard.
TTT.
SHERIFFS' SMALL DEBTS COL)

(THIS DAY.)
lIANNING v. HICKS.

A PALACE COURT SQUABBLE.—This was An • de'
against Mr. Hicks, one of the late attorneys of tue et.
fund Palace Court, to recover the sum of for ° ,
vice of writs. the
It appeared that the plaintiff was a clerk jo aus
employ of Mr. Weare, who retained the defendant to ,ce
five persons, and Mr. flicks employed plaintiff to se`
the writs. the
Defendant denied this, and said he only ge"
bhimyvyits to plaintiff as clerk to Weare, who had Pe-
i

his bill. err
His HONOUR said plaintiff swore he had been, it
ployed by the defendant, and defendant denied Jl:b.
%/LS oath against oath, therefore the plaintiff O
s
noP nuited. . ane.
Plaintiff said he had subpasnaed two witnesoe"tio
he should make them pay costs and bring a fresh ofiftart
The original debts amounted to 341.; Palace
costs 381. I Is. 4d. Amount recovered, 11. 4s. 9d.