The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-01 00:00:00

HAMMOND V. STEVENS.

Mr. PErvs moved, on behalf of the defendant, to dis•
solve an injunction that had hemgranted in this
restraining thep fro:!) renlovi%it from a farm the stock.
Km6wr took a preliminary ohjoction. The in-
junction was granted as long ago as the 28th of August,
with an intimation that if the defendants wished to have
it dissolved his Lordship would be prepared to hear them on
any day .during the vacation. No step was taken till the
28th of last month, when notice of the present motion
Wi3 given ; and the application was made on the coining
in only of the answer of the wife of one of thrpale de,
fendants. This aoswt.l Mr. riilgYA c'oi'iteniled was to be
coolie'red rules of the Court, as an affidavit,
and as such he thought himself entitled to some time to
answer it, which he applied for before the further hearing
was gone into.
The LORD CHANCELLOR over-ruled the objection, and

Mr. PKPYA proceeded ; the plaintiff and the husband of
the lady had been in partnership together. The farming
stock was valued, and they continued to carry it on to-
gether for a considerable time. The plaintiff watt after-
wards excluded from the occupation of the farm ; he com-
plained that he had been unlawfully so,- and that his
money had been used in the cultivation of the farm.
The case on the part of the defendant was, that the farming
stock belonged to the father of the lady, and that by his
will she became entitled to it for her own separate use;
but it turned out that the will had not been proved till
two years after the existence of the partnership between her
husband and the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that
the farming business had been carried on under the eye of
this lady, and that she ought to have taken the objection
earlier. The injunction was to restrain the removal of the
stock.
Mr. SWANSTON was beard on the same side.

Mr. KNIGHT appeared for the plaintiff, and submitted
that he was entitled to uphold the injunction. It was
sworn that the plaintiff had paid the landlord the rent of the
farm ; that he had advanced money to cat ry it on; that
the testator, at the time of making his will, was in insol-
vent circumstances. The plaintiff had been the means of
keeping the defendants from a workhorse, and now, after
setting themselves up in the world at his expence, they
turned round upon him, stating that he was no partner,
and entitled to nothing.
Mr. Paevs replied.
His Lonnsmr thought the plaintiff had nut made out a
sufficient case to support his injunction, and ordered it to
be dissolved.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION.
DAVIS AND ANOTHER. V. i` rICNT AND OTHERS.

This was an application ory of the drawers of a
bill of exchange for 200/., to restrain the holder of it
front issuing execution upon a verdict obtained by hint
against the plaintiffs lire the amount of that bill.
Hortnej(with whom was Air. Txxo):etated that the
bill, which was the subject of the present application,
originated with the Rev. Peter Fenn, an individual veils
had become but too notorious. It appeared from the alle-
gations in the plaintiffs' bill, that Air. Fenn, who hail va-
rious dealings in bills with Mr. Cook, induced that gentle-
man to accept an accommodation bill for 2001., a blank
being at the time left in the bill for the name of the
drawers. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Davis and Norwood, were
subsequently prevailed on to have their names in-
petted in the bill as drawers,. merely as a matter
of accommodation to the parties, who had originally
concocted the bill. This took place in December, 1827.
The bill was then endorsed by Fenn, to a person named
Jones—and Vincent subsequently took it up- from Jones,
and oomtnenced an action, as bona fide holder of the bill,
against the present plaintiffs, the drawers. He obtained a
verdict for the amount, and his Honour was now asked to stay
execution on that verdiet,on the ground that Vincentbad given
no consideration for the bill, but that he was, in fact, act-
ing in collusion with Cook, the • acceptor. It appeared
that the Rev. Mr. Fenn having absconded in March last,
Cook prevailed on Vincent to get the bill into his hands,
and the mode of his obtaining it from Jones was, in the
Learned Gentleman's opinif,n, pregnant with suspicion.—
He paid Jones 1651. in cash, and gave him his I 0 U for
the remaining 35/. It was admitted that a large
proportion of the 1651. was advanced to Vincent
by the mother of Cook, the acceptor of the bill. It was
also rather an important feature in the ease, that Jones in-
sisted on erasing his name from the back of the bill when
he handed it over to Vincent. If it were a real bona fide
transaction, it would obviously be the interest of Vincent
to have as many names as possible on the bill, instead of
which he allows an intermediate security to he struck out.
Tkis occurred on the 26th of March last, the day before
the bill became due. Coupling this transaction with the
;node in which money was advanced to Vincent by the. mo-
ther of Cook towards getting the bill from Jones, it was
not going too far to conclude, that Cook was leagued with
Vincent in the action against the plaintiffs in the present
suit. It was admitted Cook had various paper transactions
with Fenn, the matter, so far as it respected these individuals
was purely one of mutual accommodation, but the plaintiffs
had nothing whatever to gain by it. However, to the great
surprise of the plaintiffs, they received a letter on the 2Sth
of March from Vincent, stating that he was the holder of a
bill of Exchange, drawn by them on John Cook, for 2001.
This would be a very natural communication from Vincent,
supposing that he was a bona fide holder of the bill, and had
had no previous communication with the plaintiffs on the mat-
but His Honour would find from Vincent's own version of
the transaction as detailed in his answer, that he had an
interview with one of the plaintiffs on the very day before
the bill become due, when at the request of the plaintiff,
and for his convenience, Vincent was induced to take the
bill front Jones, and hold it over until either the
drawers or acceptors could find funds to take it
up. .He (Mr. Horne) requested his Honour to
contrast the formal letter of Vincent with his admis-
sion that he saw all the parties only two days Itefore.
It was also most strange that if Vincent were as he repre-
sented himself, he should in a few days after write to the
solicitor of the plaintiffs, stating that he was positively di-
rected by Mr. John Cook to proceed against them for the
amount of the hill. Here was Vincent on one day stating that
Ile was directed by Cook to sue the plaintiffs (the solicitor,
of course, of Cook), and in a short: time after suing the
plaintiffs as the beau fide holder of the same bill. He was,
in fact, inverting the usual order of proceeding, by attack-
ing the drawers before the acceptors.

The VICE.-CHANCELLOR asked whether the action at
law was defended by the present plaintiffs.

Mr. SUGDEN—oh yes, all the parties to the hill (Cook
and Jones) were examined ; and this occurred after the
defendants' answer was put in, but the plaintiffs did not
venture to read it at the trial.

Mr. HORNS--Does my Learned Friend think that any
gentleman at the bar would advise the reading of an answer
undri such circumstances. We all know how adroitly
these things are drawn up; hut my Learned Friend has
omitted to state that a true bill for perjury has been found
against Cook for the evidence given by him at that trial._
Mr. fl. then read some passages from the answer of Vincent
which denied altogether that he was in any manner acting
in collusion with Cook, but as the Vice-Chancellor (with-
out even hearing the defendants' Counsel) did not think
that there was sufficient -to warrant his granting the in-
junction, we deem it unnecessary to go more into detail.
Big HoNoun refused the application, with costs. He
did not think that the slightest imputation rested on the
character of Vincent.

KING'S BENCII.
Nothing of importance took place up to the period of
going to press.

Mr. Secretary PEEL arrived iu town yesterday
evening, from the seat of his father, Sir Itoextur Pm., at
Drayton Park, Staffordshire, Mrs. P.M and family secorn_
panied the Bight Hon. Gentleman.

A King's Messenger wos sent off from the
Foreign-office, Downing-street 7, a late hour ou Wednes-
day night, with despatches for Lord HarrEsauxv, and also
for Lord COWLL'Y, our Ambastador at Vienna:

THE SNYDAL MURDER.--Up to the mo-
ment of :our going to press, we have not learnt that the
murderer has been appiehended --Doncaster Gazette.
We are happy to hear that the Messrs. BELL
are going on successfully in weighing the effects lost in the
ilindostan Indianian, 20 years ago, off the Receivers ; they
have already recovered 5,000 dollars and about 60 tons of
copper ; we wish them every success, particularly Si we
understand the East India Company hate requested them
to appropriate to their own use all they can rescue from
the deep.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-4THISOIr')

.171-1011,1 LIOYDZ,
DEAL, OCT. '..l.—Arrived from Londont, the rs;
Hutchison, fin. Cadiz; Claude, Merritt, for Derne`m'arto
Eliza, Milne, for Cadiz ; Eden, Slade, for
Hoseason, for ditto ; Dawson, Pearce, and Ceerer,'",..4
in! ditto ; Nev Fame, Munro, for Malta; Dorothestxnej
Etc Gizenao pectnr, Priend, for "tile of
rur I;nston ; fltetwood, Buck, for Jamaica; Du for
Bronte, Harris, for Jamaica; Taylor, Cbrsii,sti'lep
Jamaica; Shepherd, Lewis, for St. Kitt's; and We'-

Forzeamo, for Jamaica.
Ali(lrel'
DA RTMOUTII OCT.. 30.30.—Arrived the Elise, - ,
from flavatmait and Altarma. • WI
Ilot.vimArt, OCT. Mt.—Arrived the Chile, ••—•""'
Vera Cruz.

Arrived the liewhitirn, Philips, at Peterhead' fit°
Davis' Straits. • di Ple
A ship, seipprised to be the George Canning, from
York, or the St. George, arrived off Holyhead on Ow"