The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.

BROWN V. BAMFORD.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied the
Court the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
This being the last day of Easter term the Court took motions,
but nothing of particular interest came before the Court.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY

The Vice-Chancellor of England took motions to.day, it being
the last day of Easter Term. It is generally understood that his
Honour will not sit after to.day till the first day of Trinity Term.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour took motions of bankrupt petitions to.day.
(Before Vice Chancellor WIGRAM.)
WARREN V. RUSSELL AND OTHERS.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case today, which was argued
before him a short time since. The bill was filed by the widow of
the late Mr. Warren, the eminent blacking.maker in the Strand,
against the defendants, Russell and Wright, his surviving partners,
for the purpose of obtaining an account of the partnership's estate
and effects, and also for a sale of the premises in the Strand and
the goodwill of the business. His Honour, after going at some
length into the facts of the case, stated that he would if the
parties desired it, dircct a reference to the Master ; he doubted,
however, the policy of such a proceeding, as it would have the effect
of disclosing the secrets of the trade. He thought that some ar.
rangement might be come to between the parties, by which the
surviving partners, with benefit to all, might purchase the con-
cern, and he would, therefore, direct the case to stand over
for a short time, in order to afford all parties an opportunity to
come to some arrangement.
The Court then proceeded with motions, it being the last day of
Easter term.

SHERIFFS' COURT.---(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL )
CHITTY V. HARMAN.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 9/. is. 7d.,
the balance of an account for work and labour done as a builder.
The plaintiff is a builder at lUchrnond, and the defendant a
gentleman residing at the same place.
Mr. THOMAS stated the case, and called witnesses, who proved
that the whole of the work done was worth 241. 16s. 74d., of
which 161. 19s. 10d. had been paid.
For the defendant it was urged that the plaintiff had, by this
evidence, only proved a balance due of 71. 16s. 91d. That de-
fendant had tendered 61. ss. 2d., leaving a difference of 11. Ili. 7d.
to be cut down. The work had only been valued at 21/. 13s. by
competent surveyors, therefore the defendant was fully entitled to a
verdict. One of the witnesses said that although twenty. one days
were charged for it was only twelve days work, as it was " stop and
go on again time "—(Laughter)—that was, that the men left off
whenever they chose, to go to a public • house.
A long technical inquiry was gone into as to the work done.
The UNDER-SHERIFF in summing up said, that the question was
whether the amount tendered covered the sum due, the defendant
had tendered more than the plaintiff's witness proved to be due. It
was a matter of figures, which the jury could understand without
his comment, but the difference, whichever way it war, was so
trifling, that it was a great pity it had not been split by the parties
themselves; there had been a good deal of conversation between the
jury and the witnesses, as to whether four three quarter inch
" quarterings" could be cut out of a three-inch board, and no loss
by the sawing, or cutting them " feather edge." If the question
in the minds of the jury rested on the saw-dust lost he could not
help them in their calculations, it was, however, very close
" shaving."—(Laughter.) Then there was another question as to
time, it was said that the 21 days were in fact only 12 days work ;
that had been explained, and although the account ran over 11
days only, the working hours in 12 were charged.
The jury, after considering for above ten minutes, gave a ver.
dict for the plaintiff for 1/. 16s. 1 lid. above the amount of the
tender.

The defendant's Counsel wished to know what calculation the
jury had gone on.
The UNDER.SHERIFF said the question could not be asked, the
Jury had, perhaps, " split the difference."—(Laughter.)
SMITH V. AUSTIN.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who Is an omnibus
conductor, to recover the sum of 181. for work done.
Mr. Tnomas stated the case. The defendant had formerly been
a prisoner in the Queen's Bench Prison, and was possessed of some
property, which he had assigned over, so that after he got " white-
wisfieti" he might have it back again. This fraud, however, was
discovered, and he was remanded by the Insolvent Court for six
months, and until certain property was re assigned for thebenefit of
his creditors. The plaintiff', who was a visitor to a "chum" of
the defendant's, was asked by the latter to attend to his business out
of doors, and endeavour is get the parties to give up the property.
This he did, and succeeded. Defendant had alwaya raid that he