The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Mardi 1.
Tile Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn.hall to day.
SITTINGS IN THY HOUSE Or Well

-The Lotto CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat, stated that he had ori-
ginally arranged to sit in the House of Lords three days a week for
the purposeofhearing appeals. Since that arrangement had been made,
however it had been determined by several Noble Lords and him-
self, that it would be better for him to sit in the House of Lords
two days in one week and four in another. It was his intention,
therefore, to sit next week in the House of Lords four days.

IN THE MATTER. OF HEIMAN, THE BiNICRUPT.
The further arguments in this part.heard matter, which came be-
fore his Lordship upon a special case, from the decision of the
Court of Review, occupied the Court the whole morning.
His Lordship rose at an early hour to attend a Council.

ROLLS' COURT, March 1.
DAY V. CROFT.
This was a petition praying his Lordship's approbation of .a
scheme for the establishment of a charity fund. It appeared
that the late Mr. Day, of the firm of Day and Martin, had by
his will devised to certain trustees, upon trust, a sum of
100,000/. for the purpose of forming out of the interest accru-
ing thereon a fund, to be called " The Blind Man's Friend
Charity," which was to be disposed of in annuities to such
blind persons as should be properly recommended as fit
objects of cbarit3, and the present application was for an order
of the Court approving of the scheme, as detailed and set firth
in the petition.

A point was raised by Counsel on behalf of the trustees, as
to whether the charity should be confined to England or ex-
tended to the United Kingdom. It was contended that the
testator being an Englishman, and requiring by his will that
the trustees of the Charity Fund should see that no improi er
persons were admitted to the charity; and that though he had
not particularised England, yet there would be great difficulty in
the trustees detecting cases of imposition, if the charity was made
to extend to either Scotland or Ireland, and as there was no
scarcity of applicants in England, the charity should be confined
to this country.
His Loßnstrtr• conceived that the intentions of the testator
would be best carried out by extending the Charity to the
United Kingdom. He accordingly overruled the objection,
arid granted the order sought by the petitioners.

IN RE BROOKSBANK AND FARN.

The arguments in this cause were concluded to-day.
Lord CANGDALE, in giving judgment, said that the peti-
tioner, the Duke of Brunswick, had employed the respondents
as his solicitors from the month of February, 1838, to the
month of November, 1841, and in respect of the business done
there had been four bills of costs delivered up. As to two of
them, there could be no doubt the petitioner was entitled to
have them taxed. The whole question in the cause arose upon
the alleged right.of the petitioner to have the two first bills of
costs taxed. They were paid in July, 1840, and it was
alleged that there was a right of taxation. Notwithstanding
the payment of them, and notwithstanding the remarkable cir-
cumstance that after thelength of time during which the balls were
in the pos.scssion of the petitioner, not one error was alleged or
shown, his Lordship thought that he could not comply with
the prayer of the petition, as far as related to those bills.
There .should be an order, of course, to tax the other bills,
The costs of the petition to be paid by the petitioner.
The Court rose shortly before four o'clock.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, March 2.
(Before the VICE-CIIANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
BRYPGES V. BRANFILL.

.The further arguments on this part heard case, occupied his
Honour the whole day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wicavd.)

This case came before the Court upon an original and supplemental
bill. The plaintiffs in both causes were Messrs. Crawford, Colvin,
and Co., who carried on business, in partnership, in the City of
London, as East India merchants. The object of the suit was to
compel two classes of defendants to interplead in respect of a
sum of 4961. 19s. 6d., the subject of the original suit, and
61. 16s. 6d., the subject of the supplemental. The suit
arose Out of the consignment of certain goods in 1835 and 1836,
by the firm of Messrs. Copeland and Duncome, which had since
become bankrupt, on behalf of the firm of Messrs. Baisley and
Hanslar, which had also become bankrupt. The plaintiff and do •
fendant were the assignees of the two bankrupt firms.
His HONOUR, after commenting upon
•all the proceedings, said
the decree prayed must be made in both cases.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, March 1.
RE HENRY W. YOUNG.
The insolvent was a broker residing at Maidstone, and the
debts appearing in his schedule amounted to upwards of 1,6111.
of which the greater portion was alleged to be without con-
sideration. Mr. Cooke appeared in support of his petition to
be discharged.
He was opposed on behalf of Messrs. Wood and Bishop,
upholders and cabinet-makers, carrying on business in the
Minories, on the grounds of having executed a warrant of at-
torney in favour of his brother for a sum of 8001., by which he
had gained an undue preference over the other creditors, and
also that the alleged debt, on account of which the instrument
was executed, was not bona fide, or for consideration, as the
money was stated in the schedule to have been advanced so
far back as the years 1835 and 1836, and there were no
distinct entries of debit in his cash-book on that account. It
was also stated, in opposition, that the circumstances of both
the insolvent and his brother, at the time the alleged loan
passed between them, were such as to render it not only im-
probable, but impossible, that either could have command over
the sum of 8001.
Mr. COOKE addressed the Court for the insolvent, and read
a letter from Messrs. Millat and Co., Monument-yard, City,
bearing date at the time when the money was lent in which
they sought his custom, for the purpose of showing that he must
have been in independent circumstances at the time, or such
respectable merchants would not be anxious to deal with him.
In reply to the Learned Chief Commissioner the insolvent
said he hoped to have been able to repay hiS brother from a
legacy he expected from his father-in-law, who died about two
years ago, but was disappointed.
Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS said he should adjourn the
case for a short time, as there were certain points in the insol-
yen 's balance sheet upon which he desired further information.
WEDNESDAY.
IN RR JOHN RAYMOND IMITHR.
The insolvent was an apothecary and surgeon, carrying on busi
ness in Edward's.place, Camberwell/ The amount of debts, a
stated in his schedule, was rather trifling, and consisted chiefly o
bills due to tradesmen for household expenses, with the exception o.
one for 981. due to Niessrs. Carding and Blacker, wholesale chemists
His petition to be discharged was oppos'ed in person by one o
the partners in this firm, on the ground of having obtained credit
from them by false representations. The opposing ereditor stated
to the Court that the insolvent informed him and his partner
the house and premises in which he resided at Camberwell were
his own, while in point of fact, when they put in an execution for
this debt, his father came forward and claimed all the furniture and
effects, which the Sheriff was compelled to give up to him, and all
that was available for the debt and costs were the fixtures and stock
in the shop.
In reply to the Court the witness said the insolvent did not
actually say the furniture was his, but such was their inference
from his manner and general conversation. He did not defend the
action, and consequently they were put to no more costa than was
necessary to issue execution.
The insolvent was ordered to be discharged forthwith.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

• William Henry Taylor, twenty-eight, was indicted for the
manslaughter of Anne Weatherfield. Another count of the
indictment described the deceased by the name of Charlotte
only, the surname being unknown.
Mr. CLARKSON appeared for the
- It appeared from the evidence that, on the 29th of Ja-
nuary last, the prisoner came home in a state of par-
tial intoxication. He resided in the Commercial-road,
and the deceased resided in the same house. On the night in
question, the deceased, in company with another person, went
in search of the prisoner, and they found him at a neighbouring
public. house. On his coming out of the public-house, he be-
came- angry, and struck the witness, and on the deceased
interfering, he struck her, and threw her down twice. The
deceased immediately went to bed, and her head was much
swollen. She complained of the pain during the night; she
became much worse, and died in the course of the next morn-
ing. The surgeon, who made a post mortem examination of
the body of the deceased, was of opinion that the deceased had
-died from a rupture of the brain. Had medical assistance been
procured in time she might have been saved.
- The employer of the prisoner gave him a good character.
-He had employed the prisoner for eleven years.
Mr. CLARKSON having addressed the Jury,
The RECORDER summed u? the evidence, and the Jury re-
turned. a .verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was sentenced to
six months' imprisonment and hard laliour.
George Clark, 25, labourer, .and James Bryant, 38, a
cabman, were indicted for breaking into the dwelling-house of
Henry Sheedy, and stealing one cask and twenty-five quarts of
-•rum, value 31. 55., his property. •
It appeared that the prisoners went in company with
each other to the house of the prosecutor, who is a
. •

publican, and resides in the borough of • Southwark. The pri-.
soner, Bryant, came with his cab, and. waited in the street fur
the other prisoner. This was about one o'clock in the morn-
ing. The prisoner, Clark, brought out a small cask of rum,
and it was placed in the cab. Bryant then drove off to a well-
known house which is kept for the reception of stolen goods in
Kent-street, Borough. The jury did not think that the prisoner
Clark-was sufficiently identified, and consequently acquitted him,
but found the other prisoner guilty of receiving goods knowing
them to have been stolen, and he was sentenced to nine month;
imprisonment and hard labour.
John Dudgeon, aged 21, and John Poarch, aged 30, wets
indicted for stealing, and Edward Platt, 25, fur receiving,
well knowing it to have been stolen, a quantity of horse-ha:r
of the value tif 101., the property of John Tosswell.
This was an extremely long case, but was one merely of
ordinary felony possessing no features of public interest. The
robbery was committed by the prisoner Dudgeon (the case
failed. in proof against Poarch), and was then sold to the pri-
soner Platt at a price considerably under half its value.
The Jury found the two prisoners, Dudgeon and Platt,
Guilty, and they were sentenced the former to ten years'
transportation, and the latter seven years' transportation beyond
the seas.

Barnard Josephs, alias Barrett Josephs, 30, was indicted
for stealing a quantity of old metal, the property of William
Raybone, of Clerkenwell.
Mr. C. Jones conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson
defended the priscner.
This was a case of constructive felony. The prosecutor
stated that he was in the habit of dealing with the prisoner in
the old metal business. On the 29th of Dec., the 'prisoner
came to his (witness's) place in Clerkenwell to purchase
some copper. Thoir usual mode of doing business was
by barter. When the primer came to purchase metal,
he paid for it with other metal, such as copper, zinc, &c., and
when any surplus arose on either side, that surplus was made
up in money. They never gave each other credit. On the
day in question the prisoner came with a cart to purchase
some copper, saying he would pay for it in money. The
copper was weighed, and put into the cart, The ac-
count was made out by the prisoner, and the witness
signed the receipt. but received no money. The prisoner
coolly walked out of the place with the receipt. He did riot
cal! out to him to come back.

The RECOIMEII.--I suppose you were so lost in astonish-
ment that your voice was gone. Witneis—Well, I don't think
you are wrong. (This answer caused a roar of laughter
throughout the Court, and in which the Recorder heartily
joine I. )

Exarnination continued—Saw the prisoner after the above
transaction, when the witness asked him to return the metal,
but the prisoner answered that that was impossible, as he had
sold it before he had bought it, adding, that it was a most sin-
gular thine., but he had lost his pocket-book.—(Laughter. )
Mr C. JONES —I suppose you thought that was a do? Wit-
ness--Yoti are right.—( Laughter. ) Did not see the prisoner
again till he saw bim in Whitecross-street prison.
Cross-examined—Did you get a summons against the pri-
soner? Witness—You must not use your talent to confuse me.
Mr. CLARKSON—I am afraid the tit of confusion is coming
over you again. Witness—Why, perhaps, it is ; but you are
making me confused ; but then you are well paid for causing
confusion.—( Loud laughter.)
Mr. CLaiticsox—When you applied for. the..summons did
you see my friend (pointing to the prisoner) there? Witness
(with a countenance expressive of great surprise)—What ! is
he a friend of yours ?—( Roars of laughter.) Has dealt with
the prisoner some time. When the prisoner was committed,
he obtained bail immediately.
Several other witnesses were called to corroborate the evi-
dence, but