The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,-(THIS pAy.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

• WILLIAMS s. BACON.
The LORD CHANCELLOR read his judgment in
this case, which was an application made to him for
a new trial of an issue that had been directed by the
late Vice Chancellor to try whether the plaintiff was
entitled to tithes, or to a modus 4s. 10d. in lieu
of tithes of the lands of Cliff Slade, in Leicestershire.
Upon the trial of the issue, the Court certified that
the
and plaintiff was neither entitled to tithes or a modus;
phe best consideration his Lordship had
been on t
able to
the give to the case, his opinion was, that
fore he r Court ought not to order a new trial, and there-
efused the motion, but without costs.
Mr. r.
14
finkNIVAL V. BOGLE AND OTHERS.
'to —‘dis 814 DEN moved, behalf of the defenda.nts,
ntps,-v,e an ex-parte on
injunction that had been
i plaintiff ID April last, on the application of the
that against the defendants. The bill stated
rem', , the plaintiff was the proprietor of se-
thousand shares in the British Rock
Salt Company ; that he had the certificate of those
Ihare; that he lent 2,000 of them to a person of
:be name of Robertson, (which the Learned Coun-
*l believed to have been an ingenious trick, for the
liurpose of keeping up the price of those shares in
)4ieert
market),ilfter who had since become bankrupt. Ro-
becomlng possessed of those shares,
?`eciged them, and subsequently stated to the plain-
, that he wished to redeem them, but that he
;°n1(1 not do so without the assistance of
'l,. A .sale at that time of the shares
611OulbetirtZanve13iell most injurious to the plaintiff.
Intimated further, that if the plaintiff
"'lid accept bills to .the amount of the 12,0001.,
thad friends in Scotland who would discount
d l!e,m, who were the defendants, and who eventually
3vuer,esdo,ovtehretodefPrulants having had the shares de-
from D them. Another sum of 3,000/..was
q Ltonertson to the defendants, and the real
uesti.en in the pleadings was, whether the shares'
:oeroewt.oabse considered deposited as a security for the
well as the 12,0001. . In the beginning of
I,tl le Y€'4l', the 12,000/. and interest was ordered to
brought into Court, and the
shares not
t( ' be parted with. The Counsel at the bar
111.; asv consulted together,. and then informed
t• la Court that they had -agreed to save the
",
e that otherwise this long motion would have
11, by having been discussed on both sides, as
• leY had agreed to take this order, that 13,0001:
ldt:, Court should he paid out to Messrs. Bogle,.they
wil ip°slting in Court the 2000 shares, and that the
tv .a.ebrnent referred to in the pleadings should be
„ This order accordingly was made
at
_,.er aout. e
prejudice to any question 'that might here-
d,itfendrtaastsinoutgheht cause.not It was stated too, that the
and would not press s for the
slue of the shares at present, the market prices being
alceedingly low.

" LIVESEY V. LIVEStY.
hared " We are requested to contradict the report which', ape-
in.a Aforning Paper of yesterday, and. to say!.
it't question was, whether the appellant, -Edmond Worn
LiveßeY, was entitled to an annuity of 2001. per
trtt after his attaining twenty-one years .of age,. or to
;nornicipai slim of 4,000/., and that his Lordship was of
on that the appellant *as only entitled to an annuity
per annum, until by the death of appellant's
know 11 being survivor, he should become entitled to
Aordo,:' int as appellant had diedhis
itinle."' P, pending the appeal, confirming the decree of the late Sir Thomas
enst,.,„) dismissed the appeal, all parties paying their own
We e
.cousid enainly understood the Lord Chancellor to
Mr, le! the principal question to be, whether or not
f
'2OO/ al, sr had been properly paid his annuity o
of 2i, -Veal' for two years before he attained the age
in derland that Sir T. Plumer had not only doneright
and againaring that the4ool. had been paid in ignorance,
allieat the true construction of the will, by
Was t" Property was left, but that his judgment
jinn /4
t:4 4.'01 founded in haying ordered upon
the peti-
tmlbs e the executrix the 400/. to be retained out of
tordt nt Payment to be made to Mr. L. His
tanti::"P considered the will to have been very ign?-
rl'ade ; but that still was deer-rthat by it
a.y.,:•Was not entitled to more than the 2001.
hi& land that only after he bad attained 21), until
""Dtber's dee

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S OURT.
A,„'N was the first Seal before Michaelmas Term.
sitCOE applied for an order to restrain the Cur-
get?t'tof the Court from suing out a writ against a
14-Thernaii named Hamerton. It appeared that Mr.
Court ton instituted proceedings in theEcelesiastical
these Gloucester against his: wife. Pending
of aorc't
eeedings, she was allowed an alimony
4"' Mr • Year. Mr. Hamerton having advanced
the its sums of money in the early part of
the aim,- 'll the Ecclesiastical Court, applied to have
Molly -11,ratt of these advances. deducted from the ali-
he a. • his lication was 'refused, upon which
fi -Pikaled toppthe Court of Arches. The
—rat
iiihibiatep
that Court was the issuing an
tion which was to stay all proceedings in the
e ttlrbelow ; but,
.before the inhibition could be
ltlltnved on the Proctor of Mrs. Hamerton, he had
Pred a monition from the Court at Gloucester,
,:11Pon the production of this monition to the
kt"tBltor of the Court of Chancery, he was bound to
It writ for the arrest of Mr. Hamerton. Under
wstle circumstances, Mr. Coe trusted his Honour
41,1
tht " interfere to protect this gentleman from ar-
litten a process that was not bailable. He had
thateery diligence in procuring the inhibition, so
Thtleo
VICE-CHANCELLOR
was attributable to him on that head.
Arol asked Why the Court of
" did not interpose its authority for the ptir-
efit'f enforcing its own order
siastf• Coo E replied, that the Proctor of the Effie-
hase4l: Calla had now nothing to do with_ it, as
,L)lieltao'r_ had passed into the, hands of the Chancery
A 111 rv.
-et t • ICR-CHANCELLOR, -on referring to thei
tor
,of Parliament, found that the Ctirs -
the 'as. " s
aUtho •ed and . required" to grant
upon authorised
production of thecontlizi
felt that he
tor be 4115 Honour, therefore,in„„:_
lion
to justified ..in making
quite aiii)4itive Act of Parliament. The case wasb
an order oppu
41entioned440 one, and might, in his option,
(We 1,-,,t° the Lord Chancellor.
ea er 'buerstand that the Lord Chancellor refused
'ervedtain the application, until notice shad be
ott the opposite parties.]

COURT OF G'S BENCH.
KIN
This „„..:
it'zi.it KING V. DAVISON. .
The
~,k, ":" GZNlEVAicitflisetnattetlorthea
•TORNEY
case.nlllSa Tice.
a 4 -
The de-
::lant was indicted for erecting. a manufactory for
.ttlinp.blaek at Crouchend, near Rornsey, to the great
,ce.ouvenienee of the neighbourhood.
o't? was situated near the highway, ;.t constantly sent
The manufac-
tirtitell (lease volumes of smoke, and had been five
d
(!,,,_„' on fire since August, 1826. The health an
in;itert of the inhabitants, therefore, had been greatly
til, dby the establishment-of this manufactory, and
it% 1144ent prosecution was instituted to effect
lam, l.
the IT" Watts lives at Hendon, and is surveyor of
tory
iYne-I,,roads.
1/411(1 fo ully,ars-lane ;
I‘6.'-thall's Mr. Davison's manufac-
it is situated between, thirty
e
ill the Yards on the high-road to Horns y,
Eti ere Parish of Islington ; the manufactory
zt4 Wri;Leted in the spring of 1826, and began
ii , -r, in the summer of that year ; the smellat
vv_rt.re
"It „LiTielY offensive, when the manufactory
Pto"fie effluvia is so disagreeable that it frequently
of t>f4ll-liiees sickness; it may be smelt at the distance
„ •
butiri era, other witnesses, who resided in the neigh-
illi/) 44.4 °f Mr. Davison's manufactory, wore efixas;
witness and corroborated the testimony of the
sr
'he ~-48 as to the offensive and deleterious. eff_eectn. of
ui.
411e41,e4rtufactory. They also stated, that i_frotrah
their
presentas not abated- they must remove f
Ppll habitations.
litt ,e COMMON SERGEANT who appeared for the
Zalits stated, that undei all The circumstances,
,i,tt odvised his client to submit to a verdict.
ge Jury therefore returned a verdict of Guilty,