The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-22 00:00:00

'HAT M T .

Ssirrurnmn.—Meadow Hay, from 8/ 108 to 6/ ; Clover
ditto, 4/ las to 61; Oat Straw, 11 14s to 11 16s ; Wheat
Straw, 11 163 to 1/ 18s per load. Trade dull, at about pre-
vious quotations.
_ _

CUM-BERLAND.—Meadow Hay, 8/ 12s t. 4/ 8s ; Clover,
ditto, 4/ lOs to 6/ ; Oat Straw, 1/ 16s to 1/ 18s; Wheat
Straw, I/ 18s t. 21 per load. A fair average supply, and
a sluggish demand.
WHITEMAPEL.—Meadow Hay, Si lOs to 51; Clover, litto,
4/ 10s to 6135; Oat Straw. 1/ 14s to 1/ 16s; Wheat Straw,
1/ IGB to 1/ lis per load. Supply good, and trade dull.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

LANGLEY V. FISHER,

Mr. TunNErt (on the part of the defendant) contended that
the arguments on the side of the plaintiff had failed to es-
tablish the fact of a collusion having taken place between
Mr. Prideaux and Mr. George Dyke Fisher. and therefore the
case for the plaintiff could not be sustained. The Learned
Counsel then cited the case of Kennedy v. Green; to show
that the law was clearly laid down in conformity with the
position he assumed, and continued his arguments at great
length.
Air. COOPER, on the part of the bankers, Messrs. Clutter-
buck, Therwall, and M'Kenzie, of Bristol, who claimed a
len on the estate for 1,6001. which had been advanced to Mr.
George Dyke Fisher on his promissory note and other security.
Mr. LovErr followed on the same side.
r. FINNEY replied.
His LORDSIIIP gave judgment, and went in extenso into
all the features of the case, which have already appeared
fully in il'he Sun. He considered that there was
no proof that Prideaux was solicitor to Mr. George
Dyke Fisher, nor was there any direct proof
of what took place between him (Prideaux) and Mr. Robert
Langley. He did not see why a man who considered that a
claim which might prove troablesome, might not levy a fine
without the imputation of being guilty of a fraudulent trans-
action. No case had been cited to show that Mr. George
Dyke Fisher and Mr. Prideaux stood in a relation ana-
logous to that of any parties who came before the Court.
He considered that from all these circumstances he must dis-
miss the case with costs.

TICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
GLASSE V. THE EAST INDIA CODIPANY.
The further arguments in this part-heard case were re-
sumed and concluded to-day. Our readers will recollect
from our report on a former day, that the case came before
the Court upon notice to dissolve an injunction granted
against a Mrs. Marshall, a daughter of the plaintiff, and also
against the East India Company, restraining the former
from parting with 'certain East India bonds, and the East
India Company prom paying them. The amount
of the bends was 3,5001., and the question
in the case arose from a dispute between the plaintiff and his
daughter, with regard to the right to the bonds. It appeared
from the affidavits that before the filing of the bill, five of
the bonds had been out of the possession of the parties, and
that three of them had been presented for payment by the
Bank of England, who had purchased them.
Mr. Stuart, with whom was Mr. E. Wigram and Mr. Lloyd,
appeared for the East India'Company ; and Mr. Bethell and
Mr. Speed supported the continuance of the injunction,
Mr. STUART having replied,
His HONOUR gave judgment with respect to the general
right of the Court to interfere in such a case as the present.
He had n• doubt that it had an inherent right to exercise its
jurisdiction in cases of fraud, unless the Act of Parliament
was so precise and cogent as to take that right away. Now,
in the present case, there was nothing in the words of the
Act that expressly declared that the East India Company
should be liable to pay the bonds in whosesoever hands
they might be, or by whatever means they had been
obtained. It was not to be said that if A came to the East
India Company with bonds, in his hand, and he was knocked
down by B, who by that means got possession of them, that
the East India Company were bound to pay the amount to B.
The case of the plaintiff presented a case of fraud, and that case
had not been met by the othet side. The whole matter, it
was true, might be 'explained, but that explanation remained
to be given, and the Court could act only upon the case before
it. The plaintiff's wife, it appeared, lived, if his Honour
might use the expression, in amicable separation from him ;
she died in October, having at that time belonging to her
certain East India bonds. It was represented that the
daughter of the lady, who lived in a separate dwelling from
the mother, came there after her death and took the pro-
perty away. The plaintiff then took out administration and
prima facie, it did not appear that Mrs. Marshall had any
legal right to those bonds. Then the present application was
made to the Court that Mrs. Marshall, the daughter.
should be restrained from parting with the bonds, and that
the East India Company should be restrained from paying
them either to Mrs. Marshall or any other person. Now that
application appeared to his Honour prima facie to be one.
that ought to be granted. If the injunction to that extent
was afterwards proved to be too large, the party making the
application would have to pay the costs. With respect to the
party having possession of some of the bonds, it might be
right to dissolve the injunction upon a proper case being
made for that purpose, but no such case had at present
been proved before the Court.
Mr. STUART—Does your Honour think that it is possible
to retain the injunction against the East India Company with
respect to all the bonds?
Ills Iloresen considered that he had not at present a case
before him, calling upon him to dissolve the injunction with
respect to any of the bonds. As to the statement, that if the
Court interfered it would enable the thief to part with the
bonds with greater facility, his Honour considered that
there was no foundation for such an assertion, for if the
Court exercised that authority, which it undoubtedly pos-
sessed, the thief would be less likely to obtain the bonds.
His Honour would therefore continue the injunction, but
' would reserve the question of costs, because it might appear
upon further discussion of the case what the truth of the facts
really was. -Injunction continued.
Mr. BETIIELL said he had another application to make in
the same case, against the Messrs. Rothschild, in respect of
certain Dutch bonds which they admitted to be in their
possession.
Mr. Teter, who appeared for the Messrs. Rothschild, had
no objection to the application, provided Mrs. Marshall had
been served with notice.
Mr. Brriteee said that she had. He thought the best
course would be, instead of moving to restrain the Messrs.
Rothschild from parting with the Dutch bonds, to allow them
to sell them, and bring the money into Court, and then dis-
miss the bill against them, paying their costs.
Mr. TRIPP said that Lis clients, the Messrs. Rothschild,
had had flake from a respectable firm in Lincoln's Inn that
the bonds bad been purchased by trust money.
Mr. BURGE, on behalf of the parties principally interested,
had no objection to the proposition of Mr. Bethell.
The COURT then ordered that Messrs. Rothschild should
sell the bonds admitted by their answer to be in their pos-
sessien, and bring the amount and the dividend into Court
within two months, and that therefore the bill should be
dismissed as against them, with costs, to be taxed by the
Master, and paid out of the monies standing to the credit of
the cause.

(BefOre Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
TESCIIEMAKER V. SHIERENS.

This is a suit on the part of Mrs. Teschemaker, formerly
Mrs. Shierens, against the next of kin to her deceased
daughter Albertina Shierens. Mr. and Mrs. Shierens were
married in Demerara in 1816, and there was issue of two
children; and a settlement made between the parents gave,
in case of the death of one of the parents, one• half the pro-
perty to the surviving parent, one-half to the children, ex-
cept that, in case the wife being survivor, should marry she
should have but one-fourth of the whole. Albertina, the