The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-18 00:00:00

CERTIFICATES.

Dec. 4. T. Marsh, miller, St. Martin's-hill, Canterbury,
at the Court of Bankruptcy.—Dec. 4. E. Peters, brewer,
Godstone, Surrey, at the Court of Bankruptcy.—Dec. 4.
T. H. Skelton, stationer, Southampton, at the Court of
Bankruptcy.—Dec. 10. M. Maslen, coal merchant, Croy-
don, at the Court of Bankruptcy.—Dec. 6. T. Turner,
grocer, Sheffield, at the Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. Hemingsley and Co., cut-nail manufacturers, Wol-
verhampton.—R. B. and J. Watson, share-brokers,Leeds
—C. Humphreys, and F. M. A. Dez Maurel, oil mer-
chants, Cross-lane, St. Mary-at-Hill.—W. Scott and J.
Kearns, manufacturers, Leman-street, Goodman's-fields.
—J. Winder and J. Latham, attorneys at law, Chorley,
Lancashire.—.T. Bray and R. Hobson, cloth manu-
facturers, Wolf-stones, Yorkshire.—J. Palmer and W.
Tassel!, graziers, Penshurst, Kent.—J. Plant and P.
Gould, cotton merchants, Manchester.—W. R. Blake and
J. G. Guinness, jun., maltsters Bristol,—G. and J. Wild,
grocers, Oxford-street.—F. G. Moore and J. Hardwicke,
surgeons, Rotherham, Yorkshire.—M. and H. Platt, che-
mists, Chester.—J. Webster and W. Morton, coopers,
Liverpool.—A. Peel and Co., cloth-dressers, Leeds.—W.
S. Grey and Co., merchants, Bombay (so far as regards
T. C. Donald.)—W. Tickle and R. B. Clarke, brick-
makers, Appleton, Cheshire.—J. Dewy and C. Gawen,
cabinetmakers, Brighton.—J. Loft and W. Scoular,
sculptor, Dean-street, Soho.

Died on Friday, the 15th inst., at his lodgings in Grea
Russell-street, Bloomsbury, in the 92d year of his age, the
Rev. Francis Smith, more than fifty years Rector of
Grendon, in the county of Warwick. The presentation
to the above very valuable rectory devolves to Sir George
Chetwynd, Baronet, of Grendon Hall.
OXFORD, FRIDAY.—The annual two-oared race on
the Isis for a pair of silver sculls, took place this after-
noon, when Messrs. Mark Haggard and William H.
Alilman, assisted by Mr. T. J. Prout, steerer, all of
Christ Church, carried off the prize. These gentlemen,
it will be remembered, won the race last year; their
opponents, Messrs. G. H. Richards, and Charles W.
Hutchinson, of Exeter College ; steerer, Mr. George B.
Lewis, of Oriel, had not the slightest chance with them,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—Nou. 16.
EXPARTE VAN SANDAU.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case
to-day, which was argued before the Court upon appeal
from the Court of Review. His Lordship said the facts
of the case might be stated in a few words. A petition
and motion was depending in the Court of Review in
the bankruptcy of a person named Martin. Mr. Van
Sandau was the solicitor on one side, and Messrs. Turner
and Hensman on the other. The Court of Review
made an order upon the petition, and Mr. Van Sandau
being dissatisfied with that order, wrote and circulated a
libel en the Went of Review. In this state of the
matter Messrs. Turner and Hensman presented a peti-
tion to the Court of Review, praying that that Court
would order Mr. Van Sandau to be committed for con-
tempt. The Court upon that petition made an order,
directing that for his contempt he should be committed
to the custody of the marshal of the Queen's Prison.
He was committed, but apologising afterwards he was
discharged. For the part which Messrs. Turner and
fiensman had taken in the transaction, Mr. Van
Sandau commenced an action in the Court of Queen's
Bench against them. They filed a replication, and
pleaded in justification the order. To this plea Mr.
an Sandau demurred, and that case was now standing
for argument in the Court of Qieen's Bench. An ap-
p'ication was then made to the Court of Review for an
injunction, restraining Mr. Van Sandau from proceeding
further at law. The Court made a qualified order—the
Court restrained Mr. Van Sandau from proceeding, ex-
cept for the purpose of raising certain questions. The
Court gave Mr. Van Sandau permission to object to the
proceedings on three grounds, but it restrained him from
raising any other questions. In this state of things and
from this decision Mr. Van Sandau appealed to this
branch of the Court, and the question now was, what
course ought to be pursued by the Court in the present
matter. It was first contended, on the part of Mr. Van
Sandau, that no contempt had taken place. His Lord-
ship thought that no person who read the publication
could be otherwise than convinced that it was a gross
and scandalous libel on the Court of Review,
imputing to that Court the most unworthy mo-
tives. Added to this, the libel was circulated while
the cause was depending ; and further, it appeared to
have been extensively distributed in every quarter, even
in the court itself, while the judge was presiding. No
man could doubt, observed his Lordship, that that was a
gross and scandalous contempt of court. Lord Hard-
wicke had repeatedly laid it down, that scandalising the
court was a contempt. The next point of objection taken
was, that the court had no power to commit for contempt
—upon this point his Lordship thought it clear that the
court had such power given it by the statute of the 3d
and 4th of William IV. in almost direct terms. But
there it was said, that if the court could do it one judge
could not, as the court, as originally constituted, consisted
of four judges. His Lordship could not accede to such a
proposition, as it was clear that the power of the four
judges of the court was now concentrated in the one
Learned Judge, who presided there now. His
Lordship was clearly of opinion that the Court
of Review had the power to commit. It was
then said that the order was vicious because
there was no adjudication of any contempt having
been committed. Now his Lordship thought,considering
he was sitting in bankruptcy, and that from his decision
there was no appeal, he ought to consider long before he
gave judgment in favour of the petition, in which was
granted the injunction restraining further proceedings at
law. It was unnecessary to decide the question whether
the Court of Review had the power to grant injunction,
the question being was it prudent or proper to grant an
injunction in the present case. His Lordship on the
whole thought that the injunction ought not to be
granted, he should, therefore, discharge that part of the
order, and direct the rest of the petition to stand over
till the matter was decided in the Court of Queen's Bench.

1!* DUKE or LEEDS V. EARL AMHERST.
The remainder of the day was occupied with the argu-
ments' in this appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor of England, deciding that a full-length
picture of the great Duke of Schoenberg, painted by Sir
G. Kneller, now hung up in the great hall of Hornby
Castle, the seat of the Duke of Leeds, was to be con-
sidered a portrait, and not a picture, the effect of which
decision would be, that it would become, under the will
of the late Duke of Leeds, the property of his son-in-
law, Mr. Walter Sackville Fox, and not that of the
present Duke, and consequently, if the decision be
affirmed, Hornby Castle will be deprived of one of its
greatest ornaments.
The arguments appeared likely to occupy several days.