The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-14 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 13.

His Lordship sat at ten o'clock this day.
Several motions of an unimportant nature were made.
The only matter of the least interest was an application
on the part of the Master of Gresham College, Oxford, for
the production of certain documents which he contended he
was entitled to inspect.
Mr. KINDERSLEY, who appeared for the applicant, stated
that the circumstances out of which this application arose were
simply these :—The Master of Gresham College, Oxford, was,
by the charter of James 1., and the need of grant of William of
Winifred, entitled to a salary to the amount of one-fourth
part of tha president's, and one-half of the fellows' income;
and as an increase had taken place in them for the last ten
years, he was desirous to see an account for that period of
the commons of the College, as it was clear that he was
entitled to participate in the profita that had accrued to
the institution.
Mr. TURNER, on the opposite side, contended that it would
be injurious to the interests of the College to make that expo-
sure of its pecuniary concerns which a compliance with the
application involved.
His LORDSHIP considered the applicant was entitled to see
the documents in question for the period specified, and could
not conceive how their production could by possibility be
prejudicial to the College. He would therefore make au
order to that effect.

VIOE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 13.

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLA.ND.)
His Howoun took motions to-day.
LUND V. WATTS,

Mr. STUART applied sx parte for a special injunction in
this case, to restrain the defendant from withdrawing from
the bank of Messrs. Gurney and Co., of Norwich, two sums of
money which he had received as the personal representative
of the plaintiff, and which he had been ordered to pay into
the bank of Messrs. Gurney, in the name of himself and his
solicitor. The defendant, it appeared, had paid in the money
in his own name alone, and hence the present application. .
His HONOUR granted the injunction.
DE TASTET V. EERIE.

In this case his Honour a few days since overruled the de-
murrer, and an application was now made to extend the
former injunction to stay trial.
The COURT granted the application.
GLASSE V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.

This case came before the Court upon motion to dissolve
an injunction granted a short time since, restraining the East
India Company from paying thirty East India bonds, and
also restraining a lady named Marshall from parting with
them.

Mr. Stuart, with whom was Mr. Wigram and Mr. Lloyd,
was proceeding to open the case, when
The VICE-CHANCELIAR inquired whether the East India
Company would pay the amount of the bond into Court if
the injunction was granted, as he thought the adoption of
that course would meet the justice of the case.
Mr. STUART felt no doubt the East India Company would
adopt the suggestion of the Court. The Learned Counsel,
after consulting with the solicitor of the East India Company,
said that the Company had no objection to pay the amount
of the bonds into Court, provided the bonds were handed
over to them.

Mr. WIGRAM, who appeared with Mr. Stuart, said he be-
lieved that one of the bonds had been actually sold. The
East India Company were most anxious not to have these
injunctions hanging over their heads, as the very fact of their
doing so caused the bonds to be depressed in the market..
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, as one of the administrators of
justice in the Court of Chancery, could not take notice of that.
Mr. STUART stated that he had been informed that Miss
Marshall had not been served with this application.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed that under such circum-
stances the case had better stand over, in order that she
might be served.
Mr. BirrnELL, on the part of the plaintiff, stated that
they should be most happy to have the hard money in Court.
It was well known that the East India Company in the
East was supposed to be an old lady. He had always re-
pudiated such a notion till the present moment, but he felt
bound now to admit that in the East they had a better know-
ledge of the character of the East India Company than they
had in this country, considering the timorous disposition she
had displayed to-day.—(A laugh.)
The motion was then ordered to stand over.
(Before Viee-Chancellor WIGRAL)
• FRANCIS V. GROVER.

Mr. ROMILLY moved for an order for a new trial at law.
This is a will case, which came before his Honour some time
ago. It turned out that the will, after the death of the tes-
tator, was found with a pencil mark struck through these
word, " I decree to Margaret Evans, my servant, now with
me, 20/. a year during the term of her natural life."
Whether there was or was not a revocation was a point of
fact, which came by his Honour's order before Mr. Justice
Erie and a jury at the loot assizes, at Bristol, and was de-
termined by the jury under the judge's directions, that
the words so marked were part of the will. The de-
fendants to-day came before his Honour, complaining of
the manner in which the point had been sent before the
jury ; that they had been made defendants in a case in
which they had to prove an affirmative, in which the burden
of proof was thrown upon them; that the directions of the
judge were prejudicial when he put it to the jury whether it
had been made out that deceased intended to revoke; whereas
the presumption of law being in their favour, they ought to
have been plaintiffs in the case; and, further, that the Learned
Judge, in laying down the law, of the case, attenuated impro-
perly and excessively cancellation by :pencil as an act of re-
vocation. _ _ _ _

His HONOUR said that twai'points had been raised by the
motion. The point of law whether cancellation, and in this
cese, by pencil amount to revocation in law, and misdirection
of the Learned Judge. As to the latter his Honour
could not agree that the Learned Judge had
misled the jury. And as the point of law could come on-
to be argued when the cause comes before the Court for further
directions, his Honour would not order a new trial, leaving
the motion to stand over till the point of law, if defendants
thoiight proper, be argued.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Noy. 13.
(Sittings in Banco.)
REGISTRATION APPEALS.

The Court this day commenced the hearing of the appeals
against the decisions of the Revising Barristers. There were
36 appeals on the list—of which 3 were from Gloucester
(East Division), 1 from Yorkshire ( W est Riding), I from
-Lichfield, 2 from Middlesex, 1 from Lincoln, 5 from Lanca-
shire (South Division), 5 from Cheshire (North Division ).
from the borough of Chatham, 1 from Notts, 1 from the
borough of Dartmouth, I from the city of Rochester, 1 from
the borough of Scarborough, 2 from Lancashire (North Divi-
sion), 1 from New Sarum, I from Westminster, and 8 from
London.
The first case taken by their Lordships was that of
BISHOP, APPELLANT V. HELPS, RESPONDENT,
in which Mr. Sergeant Talfourd appeared for the appellant,
and Mr. Sergeant Byles for the respondent.
The appellant ,it appeared, had objected to the respondant
being placed on the list of voters for Cheltenham, but the
revising barrister was of opinion that the objection could
not be entertained, as the respodent and the overseer had
not received the notice of objection in due time. The notice
had been posted in due time, and the delay was on the part
of the postmaster through whose hands it passed. On the
part of the appellant it was urged that, according to the
statute, 6th Victoria, cap. 18, the pasting of the notice was evi-
dence of its having been served, while on the part of the
respondent it was represented that it was only prima facie
evidence, and if it was intended by the statute that it should
be conclusive evidence, the word "conclusive" would have
been used ; and in this case there was evidence before the
revising barrister that the notice was not received in due time.
The Court took time to consider their decision.