The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.--(Tma DAY.)
SOM' T. DOWLVILLE.

Mr. Pirstant.rox had to make an application to the Court in
this cause, that the payment of a large sum of money into Court,
on the first day of term, might he delayed for a fortnight. The
parties were now making proposals for an arrangement, which teas
not concluded.

Mr. SUGnIN was instructed to make no opposition to the delay.
His LoansittP had no objection to enlarge the time; but
begged it to be understood he could not enlarge it further.

MENDAZABLE V. MACIIABO.

Mr. Sucn was instructed to state that in this case, which
stand for his Lordship's judgment, the parties intended on the first
day of Term, to apply for judgment at law, Which he submitted
was quite! irregular.
Mr. HEALD was rot at all aware that it was the intentiOrt of
his clients to apply for judgment at law.
StrcnEer was informed by his Client that they did intend it.
nig LORDSIIIP requested it might be mentioned to the parties
on the other side, that his Lordship's opinion was, that they ought
not to proceed to get judgment at law without the leave of this
Omit. If the parties had any thing to say upon that, his Lord-
ship would be happy to hear them to-morrow Morning.

Et-rAttra H.UMB.
Hie Loßnstitt, Wished to know whether Mr. Rose had looked
into this tile.
Mr, Rosx said he had not.

His Loansitir said it was a matter with respect to an order
upon the Bank, under an Act of Parliament, in the case of a lu-
natic. It was heard some time back, before the late Master of
the Rolls, and he was of opinion that it did not come within the
meaning of the Act. It struck his Lordship, upon reading that
opinion, that it was a right one, but he had doubted very much
about it since. His Lordship thought that if Mr. Rose should
think it worth speaking to, his Lordship would feel happy to hear
him. It was a case in which his Lordship had felt great anxiety
to do what the petition asked.
Mr. Rosa had handed his brief sometime ago to him Lordship,
and would look again into it if his Lordship would have the good-
ness to send his brief to him.

His LORDSHIP would do this, and so the matter rests.

ItANBURY V. XIRXLAND.
This case was part heard on Wednesday. It was an applica-
tion to the Court that the trustees under the marriage settlement
of a gentleman of the name of Hanbury might be ordered to pay
the sum of 6000/. into Court. Mr. Hanbury, his wife and
daughter, who were tapants for life of the property in question, were
the plaintiffs in the case, and Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Milne, am' Mr. C.
Kaye, were the defendants. They are the trustees of the marriage
settlement of Mr. Hanbury. The trustees, according to that set-
tlement, were at liberty, upon the application of the husband and
wife to sell out of the funds and invest the same in mortgage. An
application was made to them, under the band-writing of Mr.
Hanbury, to lay it out in mortgage. Mr. Charles Kaye being
an attorney and the acting trustee, sold out the stock, but instead
of }eying it out in mortgages, applied it to his own use, and had
absconded.

Mr. HEALD and Mr. Preys appeared on the part of the two
trustees.—Mr. HART replied ; and his LORDSHIP, wishing to Bee
the case of Price and Stokes, which Mr. limn' had quoted as
bearing upon the case, would take a few days to do so, and would
then dispose of it.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT.—(TiIIs DAT.)
WOOD AND OTII/CRS V. ASTON, ROBINS, AND °THEM.

In this case an injunction had been obtained on behalf of the
plaintiffs, to restrain Robins, and Co. Banker., residing at
Storebridge, from negociating a bill now in their hands,
and drawn by the defendant Aston in the name of the plaintiffs.
Aston and the plaintiffs were co-partners in an extensive colliery,
the pecuniary concerns of which were managed by the former.
The plaintiff alleged that the bill now in question was not on
account of the firm, but for hie own private accommodation,
and on these grounds, they prayed for, and obtained the injunction.
Mr. SUGMCN, on the part of the bankers, now moved, that the
injunction be dissolved. His clients stated in their answer, that
in December, 1825, they discounted the bill in the usual courseof
business, and under the impression that it was for the accommodatiOn
of the firm, and for the purpose of paying the workmen engaged in
the colliery, of which Aston was a copartner. At the time Aston
applied to them, lie was in their debt to the amount of over 20,000/.
partly on hie own account, he being himself very extensively engaged
in business, and partly on account of the co-partnership of which
be was the cashier. The hankers refused in the first instance to
accommodate him, unless he paid them the amount of seve-
ral of his former bills which had been returned, and per-
sisted in their refusal until he assured them that he ex-
pected large returns from the colliery in the course of the
ensuing February—on this representation they discounted
the bill, conceiving that it was for the benefit of tho firm, being
the more induced to believe so from his stating that they were to
be repaid out ofthe profits of the co-partnership. The Bankers fur-
ther stated in their answer, that on a former occasioil one of the plain-
tiffs paid them the amount of a returned bill of Aston's, and drawn
by him in the name of the firm. They also positively denied any
knowledge of Aston's embarrasments, except so far as that he, in
common with others, was labouring under the pressure Of the ge •
neral distress which then affected the mercantile interest.
The Vlcx-CuAiu don't state that Aston express-
ly represented to your clients that the bill was for the partnership
concern. .

Mr. SUGDEN—We say that his dealing with us was princi-
pally on accmmt of the partnership, and that at that time he was
greatly in debt to us for his partners ; it surely was not necessary
for my clients to go round to all the members of the firm, and ask
their consent, before they discounted the bill. Such is not the
course of proceeding usually adopted by tradesmen, in which ca-
pacity my clients were then acting.
The Vlca-CiLatrcErAna—The bill was prima facie for the
private accommodation of Aston, and not for the co-partners.—
You say there are peculiar circumstances in the case, which war-
rant a different conclusion.
Mr. Suonrs—We state that Aston called on us at the time
when the labourers' wages were due, and when we usually accom-
dated the firm ; and further, that no other person applied to us
on such occasions but Aston, who was the managing partner.
The Vict-Cuswer.LLoc—The injunction must go to stop the
negociation.
Mr. Suc.nEN—lt has already gone; our prayer is, that it be
dissolved.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Then it must stay; it is possible
that you mar be able to make out a srecial case, but there is cer-
tainly nothing at present in your answer, to make me touch the
injunction.

An unsuccessful application for costs was made on the part of
the plaintiffs.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH.—(Tnts DAY.)
Before the Lou) Cum, Juencr and Common Juries.
BRIDGILS V. RITPON.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of a 7s. for
work and labour done. The defendant pleaded that he was not
liable, or if so, that it was in conjunction with three other persons.
The following are the circumstances of the case :
The plaintiff had been for thirty years printer to the parish of
sepulchre, and of which the defendant was overseer. The
claim of the plaintiff arose from printing hand-bills fer the
use of the parish, and was first made by a letter from his
attorney to the defendant, stating, that unless ke paid the above
sum immediately, together with five shillings for writing the said
letter, he (Mr. Price, the attorney), would take legal proceedings
against him ; on the day after the receipt of this letter, the defend-
ant sent the 9/. 7s. to the attorney, who refused to take it, unless
the expellees were also paid ; what these expenses were, it way
not here mentioned ; but the defendant imagining that they were
the five shillings for writing the letters, sent the messenger
:back with thut sum, as he wished to evade litigation,
but the messenger was told that a writ had been issued, and that
the expences attending it must be paid. Whereupon the defend-
ant, deemingthis an imposition of the attorney, felt justified in
taking adiantage of a defect in the legal protege, ify pleading an
abatement, the other three overseers being jointly liable with him.
,' Lonn Cum? Jostles, in charging the Jury, observed
that_theetto_rney had right to make a charge for writing the
htte
"al that in law all the overseers were jointly liable for work
done Tor the parish.
o
The J 1417 returned a verdict for defendant.
BAiots v.
Ti{hf
24 l w„„
11111.
action brought to recover
sum
from the defendant the
fur lodgings, occupied by his wife for 26 weeks, at
the rate of 24. per see,,k_Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 24 12s.

C(ArilM OF ARO-IFS—Juts DAY•)
This being
the lint day of Term in the Ecclesiastical Courts,
oSfii,t.flilho:hColcioNtruitre,:h:velassiirclwaipittiriearwytheraesnistithiZpFnteArilinvPomeitaictesitht'rsher'oaonuis(liunoitithieor:ifirdiceti:
pro forma, and adjourned, Without transactingw any
public interest.business of

TAUNTON, NoV. I—Trade ieviving
The carpenters are so fully employed that many orders
remain unexecuted. in this town.