The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-13 00:00:00

CHANCERS.--(THIS DA )
The Lord Chancellor took appeal motions to-daY•
KANN 9. RICKEII9. roOti°° 1
This case came before the Court upon an appeal ,is
on theiyorder
discharge an order of the Master of the Rolls,
that his Lordship had no jurisdiction to pronounce tij
he
Thehad
I inter°
involved points of practice of no genera
and 4 tbe '
trgli
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion --
meats, postponed giving judgment.
NERDHAM V. NEEDHAM. ._,3 pith
te
The remainder of the morning was occulme" as to wsi
arguments on this motion, the object of which w A 8,060
charge a writ of attachment, an habeas corpus, enu 813 d tli°
• ta
orders and decrees of the Vice-Chancellor 1 rigra
Lord Chancellor.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS m-*"Y.)
His Lordship sat at ten o'clock this day. 01010,
Several motions of an unimportant nature Try,- nostiti•
The only matter of the, least interest wss an 11Priord,
on the part of the Master. of Gresham College, Oa add
the production of certain documents which he ten
was entitled to inspect. tot&
Mr. KINDERSLEY, who appeared for the apP.licantts:ol
that the circumstances out of which this application ard, 019;
simply these :—The Master of Gresham College, 01',V.,ilionl
by the charter of James 1., and the (lead of grant of I,' fort,
Winifred, entitled to a salary to the amount of ell;joale;
part a the president's, and one-half of the fellows come'
je
and as an increase had taken place in them for the erio4l°t
ycarF, he was desirous to see an account for that.Phe
Nes
the commons of the College, as it was clear tbB",ed
entitled to participate in the profits that had ae''"
the institution.
Mr. TURNER, on the opposite side, contended that it,ii°egruw
be injurious to the interests of the College to make til:th
the
sure of its pecuniary concerns which a compliance
application involved. cl ses
His Lotman? considered the applicant was entitled cold
the documents in question for the period specified, 3:l,niiitf he
not conceive how their production could by Poss;: '—
p
g
prejudicial to the College. He would therefore
order to that effect. )
A Y.
VICE-CHANCERY.--(THIS
(Before the VICE-CIIANCELLOP. OF ENGLAND"'

His &moult took motions to-day.
LUND V. WATTS. toctiOn 0
Mr. STUART applied ex parte for a special IN
this case, to restrain the defendant from witbdravws:os.o
the bank of Messrs. Gurney and Co., of Norwich, t"
tr
money which he had received as the personal repfese.vilic,
of the plaintiff, and which he had been ordered tor?';',dlß.
the bank of Messrs. Gurney, in the name of himsell:ose
solicitor. The defendant, it appeared, had paid iaiutioa.
in his own name alone, and hence the present aPlnial
His HONOUR granted the injunction.
DE TASTET V. nEBIE.
In this case his Honour a few days since overrideile:(l
murrer, and an application was now made to el`
former injunction to stay trial. •
The COURT granted the application.
GLASSE V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANIC' ain2,4
This case came before the Court upon motion `-the
an injunction granted a short time since, restrainiagos,
India Company from paying thirty East India Winds,
also restraining a lady named Marshall from pi"'
them. m 1,10
Mr. Stuart, with whom was Mr. Wigram and -
was proceeding to open the case, when -gat int
The VICE-CIIANCELL.R inquired whether the .---coofti
Company would pay the amount of the bond into tioa,
the injunction was granted, as he thought the IWO
that course would meet the justice of the case.
Mr. STUART felt no doubt the East India Comps 1000
adopt the suggestion of the Court. The Learned,lostiii
after consulting with the solicitor of the East India "00,4
said that the Company had no objection to pay the bsOil
of the bonds into Court, provided the bonds Or
over to them. d be br
Mr. WIGRAM, who appeared with Mr. Stuart, s
lieved that one of the bonds had been actually s 0 pe threr
East India Company were most anxious not to oftl)y
injunctions hanging over their heads, as the very f3c jkg- of
doing so caused the bonds to be depressed in the rar...tors
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, as one of the administ'oftlis
justice in the Court of Chancery, could not take notice t Ids
Mr. STUART stated that he had been informed th 4
Marshall had not been served with this application.
cirestrt
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed that under such gt
stances the case had better stand over, in order t
might A tO
be served. te. „rt,
Mr. BETHELL, on the part of the plaintiff; stain CD-01,
they should be most happy to have the bard more,
in
It was well known that the East India ComPori,,,sysi'd
East was supposed to be an old lady. He had a ,
be
pudiated such a notion till the present moment, WI 1030";
bound now to admit that in the East they had a betteb'sitb.4
ledge of the character of the East India Company lion
had in this country, considering the timorous dispost
had displayed to-clay.—(A: laugh.)
The motion was then ordered to stand over.

(Before Viee-Chancellor
FRANCIS V. GROVER. 4t
Mr. ROMILLY moved for an order for a new tritl.nle O.!
This is a will case, which came before his Honour Iry t`'ago. It turned out that the will, after the death 0' ~
tator, was found with a pencil mark struck throuPw
word, " I decree to Margaret Evans, my servant, Hal life
me, 20/. a year during the term of her Helot opt, c
Whether there was or was not a revocation was ~4 10t
fact, which came by his Honour's order before 1141%,,iii5 ,
re
Erie and a jury at the last assizes, at Bristol, and
termined by the jury under the judge's direetile Jed
the words so marked were part of the will. , ;dt&
fendants to-day came before his Honour, coraltbre
the manner in .which the point had been sent • "-AA.
jury ; that they had been made defendants in ,0 boo
which they had to prove an affirmative, in which the
of
of proof was thrown upon them; that the direct
etbeL
judge were prejudicial when he put it to the jurywhole;
had been made out that deceased intended to revoke; ,At "eil
the presumption of law being in their favour, they
have been plaintiffs in the case; and, further, that the A ;
Judge, in laying down the law of the case, attenuate'Ajof
perly and excessively cancellation by 'pencil as, an a'. tIO
vocation. ; e I DY
His HONOUR said that two points had been ra.s
motion. The point of law whether cancellation, stalirlect'd
case, by pencil amount to revocation in law, and lir'
of the Learned Judge. As to the latter his P:4
could not agree that the Learned J11"t'o e
misled the jury. And as the point of law could c°o'rtb`,
to be argued when the cause conies before the Court Orp,i,fillt
directions, his Honour would not order a new trial', ;03
the motion to stand over till the point of law, if dtle-
thought proper, be argued.

COMMON PLEAS.—(T HISAIf)
DAB.)
(Sittings gs in Banco.)
REGISTRATION APPEALS. - „di
efe
The Court this day commenced the hearing of the Oa
against the decisions of the Revising Barristers. 11;11ee- 00A'
36 appeals on the list—of which 3 were from r fr:,
(East Division), 1 from Yorkshire ON est Riding), Don'
Lichfield, 2 from Middlesex, 1 from Lincoln, 5 from isiotic
shire (South Division), 5 from Cheshire (North Dios tb
I from the borough of Chatham, 1 from Notts, I 1191
borough of Dartmouth, 1 from the city of Rochestet
the borough of Scarborough, 2 from Lancashire (NOIA 8 frol'
sion), 1 front New Sarum, 1 from Westminster, amid
London.
The first case taken by their Lordships was that of ti
BISHOP, APPELLANT v. HELPS, RESPONPEST' neoll
in which Mr. Sergeant Talfourd appeared for the alk-
and Mr. Sergeant Byles for the respondent. nee
The appellant ,it appeared, had objected to the resqut
being placed on the list of voters fbr Cheltenhain,„
revising barrister was of opinion that the objectioee."l4:a
not be entertained, as the respodent and the overisse oorti
not received the notice of objection in due time. Ilbs
had been posted in .due time, and the delay was 011 00 tie
of the postmaster through whose hands it passed.
0. to
part of the appellant it was urged that, accorclithLoota
statute, 6th Victoria, cap. 18, the posting of the notice. of _t!!„
deuce of its having been served, while on the Pifle fof4
respondent it was represented that it was only Pr'isbeli.e
evidence, and if it was intended by the statute thatAi
be conclusive evidence, the word " conclusive" wOw e
beibr
been used ; and in this case there was evidence du
t
revising; barrister that the notice was not received in "-
The Court took time to consider their decision.
BISHOP V. COX.
In this case which, like the first, was from the East
_A 00
sion of Gloucester, •
ode"
Mr. Sergeant BAYLIS said, that as this case depe sr,cl
the same question as the previous one, it was linneco
to argue it again, but the decision in the former eits
govern this.
The Court assented.

nAi'
SHERIFFS' COURT..-(TH IS
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
THAME V. HUMBER, for ntellef
This was an action to recover the sum of 201.
hat.
weA ow
The plaintiff is the:landlord of the Ship, Stonee'eA.
rough, the defendant a broker in the Commercial-rolote;
plaintiff's brother proved that the defendant bad 2,, tea
that he had borrowed the money, and expressed Pitlieot'l
that he could not repay it, as his partner had acted dieu`
toward him.
Verdict for plaintiff.
SOLOMONS V. •ROOMDRIDGE. 4J
This was an action to recover the suns of 3/. 'e'A-Sci '"
amount of an attorney's bill. The defendant Pleas'
he never was indebted. of,
Mr. Saul Solomons, the plaintiff's brother, was ea-ley JOll
he deposed that he went to Horsemonger-lane and 5° ecel_,
-,o'".
Groombridge (the brother of the defendant), and I° ectiu-
quence he went to the defendant's and took ins° wee;
for an affidavit to set aside some proceedings for irreg.° et th.,
The next day he went to the Judge's Chambers, a22l,fit
defendant and another brother, William, and an ate'#„-Ilie
made, on which the Judge ordered the proceedings '""
aside. The defendant signed a retainer at the time" a PP"
The witness admitted that the item of 13s. for t
h
fee would not he allowed on taxation.
ree—
solle
Mr. Beard, a solicitor, said the charges were
except t 135.; 10s. would be taxed off:
Mr. Ghelascow confirmed the giving the retainer al sbo
deposed to.
suit,t°
The defendant's attorney said that the origine,dele,-.
against John and William Groombridge but that LT;oie
dant having been served instead of William, the wie-8.- Jell;
eeedings were irregular, but it was necessary that '"i; urg
dant should join in an affidavit. As to the retainer e'e,.o
that the plaintiff's brother induced the defendant tea Ivere
saying that it was a matter of no consequence, 504
matter of form, in order to enable him to go before, teeeifel
The proceedings had been set aside and the plaintiff sett
13s. 4d. costs in that suit by order of the judge. The'-
es. the
money out of pocket in the present bill was only - 001 t,i,e
was also another remarkable feature in the ease' on the
that the first item was made out for an attendant yoba•
defendant, and the second for the first attendance el "trsete'
John Groombridge was called, and swore that he 1115,71 Well •
the witness Saul Solomons, and after the procea,l'orcier7,
set aside lie called on witness and said the judge bet. vitae'
him 13s. 4d. for costs, and that he would only charge
30s. more. Witness had since tendered that sum. 00 of
Cross-examined by the plaintiff—Had taken the b.e.tig• to
the Insolvent Act in August last, and inserted Pla_l".,attes
the schedule. Defendant had nothing to do with them eat
William Groombridge deposed that Mr. G. Solomon eo g°
that the retainer was merely a matter of form, in ord'hise
before the Judge. He did not say that it was to bind 4cease
pay the expenses. Mr. Solomons was very voted,'" 010
witness and his brother would not employ him to tali sari
through the Court, and said that he would make the—
for it. .A vov
'a it
The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, and said
origin
matter whether the defendant was interested in the,.emial
suit or not, if he had employed the plaintiff. the".ect refer
had been obtained by misrepiesentation as to tils, "Jo it 11/
which it was wanted, the plaintiff could not now u
his favour. aaa 'lel°
The jury consulted, and almost immediately VI"
diet for the defendant.