The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-12 00:00:00

Wheat.
900 qrs.

2,790 1,230
Malt. 560 gra.
WHITECHAPEZ. 14;
The supply of each kind of meat was by no Ine 2s- 64
yet the general demand was inactive. Beef, from
3s 8d ; Mutton, 3s 4d to 4s 6d ; Veal, 3s 8d to 49 0"'
Pork, 2s 8d to 5s 4d per Blbs

CHANCERY.-_(THIS DAY.)
DAVENPORT V. BISHOP. • ••Id
Mr. TINNEY concluded his reply in this case to-daP
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment. -:(11.111
His Lordship rose shortly aftter two o'clock to sae!'
pricking for Sheriffs in the Court of Exchequer.
ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS
JODDRELL V. JODDRELL. tO.l
This was a demurrer to a marriage deed executed bt
the defendant Sir Richard Paul Joddrell and hisYf,if°,yett
Joddrell, by which her ladyship's fortune of 2,7T,g. 700
was settled on herself, as well as an annuity of 30(- hst
ie
were subjected to certain restrictions to the effect t,
tormer was to be appropriated to the maintenancertil..ut,do
cation of her daughters, and that the annuity arising °"010
house in Portland place was to be considered as a Pr:epbtf
for herself, in case of any separation taking place betw
and her husband. After some years' cohabitation: 11,!!,. to
ship determined to leave the plaintiff, and retire to 0' 110
deuce iu Porland-place, taking her children with ber,eVlo
plaintiff, under these circumstances, conceiving thar. d 0
deprived of the control of his children, eodea"tir..
cancel the deed. the dr
f
Arguments were heard on Monday in support 0-.

murrer, and to-da in behalf f
The case was ordered to stand opverntiff elc till Friday 11, ,i„g
order to give Mr. Romilly an opportunity of IV, . 0
extenso.
~;.„ ijate.tr.
The remaining causes were quite devoid of public -
A)
VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DY.
-
GOODALL V. MAXWELL. .40/11
The further arguments in this part-heard casitoccuPl
Honour the Vice-Chaucellor of England the whole day'

(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
CUTHBERT AND ANOTHER V. Arrvvoon• e cow
His Honour sat this morning as Chief Judge of th a
of Bankruptcy. bert elp/" Mr. FOLLET, official assignee in the estate of Cuth,
Clark, appeared by petition, requiring Mr. Attwaau'd
representative of the house of Spooner, Attwood, 1111:4
to refund certain sums overpaid, and to give up 0 tb,
ing dividend of 250/. on the estate. It seem" Caw'
Spooner' Attwood, and Co. had security frola osPe
bert and Clark to the amount of 5,000/. in the Abe
of fivel,oool. bills, Stein and Co. on Kensington and lied
material question in the case seems to be whether „jai
of security be general, extending to all debts, or onlYllsool
specific reference to a particular loan. The assignee:l3ov,,
1821, seem to have considered, rightly or wronglY!, "0014_,d
security had a general reference to all debts, an,urit-00vA
Me srs. Attwood the bills, Stein and Co. on Kens'il°4-014',;
Ca., which they held under the deed of security, for 2' Or
lowing a further debt of 233/. to be proved against the
of Cuthbert and Clark. been
His HoNoun, in giving judgment, said the petition ,"3.,„yet4
put in, fequiring from the creditor a restoration of 13'''".
of the bankrupts, which was held by him in liquidaroste
an unsecured debt. His Honour would hesitate OW taF
whether the jurisdiction of the Court, could extend_4 t°o
case without the consent of the defendant. But a"',der
the jurisdiction of the Court, considering the e`it ilfoi
' without the affidavit of Mr. Attwood, it appears Oleo
Attwood received certain security, and that in consecllhoe,
this security he had received more than his right. end
tition requires that this be returned.. The last sual,
the estate was paid in 1822, twenty-tme years bell' d
petition. A petition in 1845 is preSented on the grOliek
that security was redeemable, and that the bankrupt! Or
claim on that security. His Honour did 13°st;
the Court had any jurisdiction over this :"direo
If the petitioners will, they must try this poinuo'o,l
and make it out if they can. Taking, P',
Mr. Attwood's affidavit into consideration, it appear-t-00 rA
years ago the assignees either knew there was a contra
so
tending the security to debts in general, or honestly ti°ll
0,6
mistake in so considering it. From 1821 to 1845 the cl,,,Feti;
had never been raised. He could not afford relief to
tioners against Mr. Attwood, but in consideration:
t.1:0,01000;'
Attwood had not appeared to be personally examhlruood
ing ill health, and that the letter sent by
the assignee in 1844 had not been answered, his 0t.7
dismissed the bill without costs, and ordered that the.
of the petition be paid out of the estate. .

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DA"
THE QUEEN V. THORNTON AND BENTLEY' AkG
This was a scire facias to repeal a patent granted to Or,
Thornton, for improvements in cardsetting machines. the p 0,,,
peered at the trial, which occupied two days, that. ,`,00,.°7
tentee had disclaimed four out of six parts of the inc of IPA
and the jury found that he was not the first invent°;„ efr-
remaining parts, and that one was not useful, therebY'"
repeali g the patent. 00 tbt
Counsel on a former day moved for a new trial n 0 . nio
grounds of misdirection, that the evidence of an asalo" /
from Thornton to Williamson, and from II aeiS,.
Bentley had been improperly received; that a scirs of,
granted upon the original specification could not beford
cuted after a disclaimer, and that the verdict was o°-t a
ing to the evidence.
Lord DENMAN, in giving judgment, said the Coal.' .bat'
t,
opinion that there was no reason to disturb the verdic to
at the same time, it held that, as the evidence aa
assignment might be questionable, there should be
granted on that point.—Rule granted.
THE QUEEN v. EDWARD COALES• the fret
A rule having been granted to show cause wi1Y.,,,;01%,0
fendant should not be prohibited from exacting oe. he'
as the Clerk of the Quarter Sessions of Somersetsna°
prisoners charged with misdemeanours., star
totli.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to show cause ag-- r-
rule, and to show that there was nothing in the case
ri
rant the interference of this Court.
itteC°lsd
The object of the application was to call upon
ex
to quash the order that bad been made, prohibiting tm"
tion of those fees.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case ahe Hof
plication at great length, and read several alau:j be,
parties who deposed that enormous or illegal fees "'„
paid by prisoners to the clerk of the sessions befor'ig
the
would be allowed to go to trial. In one of the affidalgaer
deponent stated that in a certain case several poorvired
charged with misdemeanour, would not be all,°A each"i
take their trial until they had paid 21. 15s. v—hotigve
In another case which he (the Attorney. General) t f the
called, more than any other, for the interference ee.,e0.4
justices, was when a poor old man, eighty years of !got,
his two children, who were charged with an assaaTi 005.
not be allowed to take their trial until they had 1,11700a$
illegal fees; the consequence was that they had l; 12°
two or three journies, and when tried were acquitt 0
the expenses they had been put to were su OM;
to have brought them to the very verge
,30 „foil
The affidavits he (the Attorney-General) bat' ereaz"
him were full of such allegations, and. therefore, ",' Piet
ask, were not the justices bound to protect tlwacer
against what he would not characterise by any
term than improper conduct.
-etb
The COURT—Were the fees taken other than them
tables then existing?
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT—NOt one.
sat' a
The AITORNET-GENERAL said there were several,airiat
a passage from one of the affidavits, which stated /700
times the legal amount had been exacted in some jaa'
The COURT—If so, the act was clearly illegal. fpildaa'
DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL said there were live a
and the legal fee was taken from each..
The Solicitor-General followed on the same side the Air
• '
torney-General.eat
DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL then addressed the Court at
l, ,fr
t 6
b,
length, and said that Mr. Coales had been
I,IA- bi 7
office for the last thirty-four years, and that
succeeded his father in that office, and that the Prel thosa,
fondant had always been anxious for the settlement 0.; o:
fe,”, and that he would rather have a salary as lie felt l'ireo
ful to e obliged to take fees. He contended it was 11,01
hardship on the part of his client to have affidavits —spier'
this Coun which he had not answered and could not lo rote
and which would make him out to be the most ext°rteedeil:
man in the whole county of Somerset. He also coolie
.._,„tot:.
that it was most extraordinary that in the whole of joe
of affidavits that had been read, there was only one
mtif °I
one magistrate, and one attorney.
c.v.,
The COURT, after a short consultation, decided in L- of us.
quashing the order, upon the ground that the orderhe Jo'
Bench of Magistrates was evidence of itself that /
mand was legal.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DA-1.1
(Sittings in Banco.)
SMITH V. NEBBITT wit
the Court was occupied nearly the . r hole mern.Ng . •
the arguments in the above case, which presented n° noiii•
of public interest.
The Court rose at two o'clock, and will sit to-03°,
morning at ten to hear appeals against the decisions 0'
Revising Baristora, under the Act 6 Victoria, cap 16.