The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-09 00:00:00

1833, at the request of the partnership, he lent '
them the remainder of the Cuba bonds upon
the deposit of Norristown and Bally Railway
shares to the value of 33,000/. ; and in 1840 these
shares were exchanged for Cairo City and Canal
Bonds, which were deposited in the appellant's box
at the 'banking-house. Of this box the bankers had
the key, and after their bankruptcy in September,
1840, the appellant discovered that the securities he
thought were in the box, had been removed, and
debentures in the Commercial Steam Packet Company
and in the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal
Company, had been substituted. In 1841 the appel-
lant presented his petition to the Court of Review,
praying that these debentures might be put up for
sale ; that the appellant might be at liberty to bid for
them, and that he might prove for the deficiency
against both the separate and joint estates of the
bankrupts. On the case coming on before the late Sir
John Cross, he ordered a sale of the securities, gave
the appellant liberty to bid for them, and also to prove
against the separate estate of John Wright for the
amount of the first loan of 2.5,000/. Cuba Bonds to
him ; but with respect to the second loan of 28,000/.
Cuba Bonds, his Honour held that the appellant had
no right of proof at all, and from that decision the
present appeal was brought.
Mr. BETHELL and Mr. Puuvxs appeared for the ap-
pellant, contending that a breach of trust had been
committed by all the partners, and that such being
the case, the appellant had a right to prove against the
separate and joint estates of all the partners.
Mr. SWANSTON and Mr. Dixon were counsel for
the assignees, and submitted that the judgment below
was correct, and ought to be allowed to stand.
Mr. PURVIS, in the absence of Mr. Bethell, having
replied,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he must consider the
case before he gave judgment, which he would do in
a day or two.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 8.
The Court was engaged with consent petitions and
short causes in the early part of the morning.

CORT V. WILSON.
In this cause the bill had been filed for the admi-
nistration of the testator's estate, who had died some
years ago, and by his will bequeathed 1,3001. a piece
to his three natural cl-Aqdren, the plaintiffs in the re-
cord, and had directed that these legacies should be
paid in priority to all other legacies. The testa-
tor had also given other legacies to different
parties, after the payment of which the r -
sidue of his property was to go to his three chil-
dren. At the time of his death, the testator had been
in partnership with Mr. Wilson, who had been ap-
pointed the guardian of the children, and there appeared
to be some.cloubts as to whether all the assets of the
firm would be realised. The Master had, under the
decite of the Court, made a report that there were no
debts on the estate, and Mr. Wilson had been directed
to pay into Court, from time to time, such sums of
money as the estate might realise. A further report
of the Master had been also made, from which it ap-
peared that there would be sufficient in the fund paid in-
to Court to satisfy the plaintiffs' claim in respect of their
legacies, but not sufficient to leave any residue, and
therefore the amount of the legacies of 1,3001. each,
was all the interest the plaintiffs could have in the
estate.
Mr. PEMBERTON, who appeared for the plaintiffs,
said that what was now proposed was to have all the
costs of the suit taxed, and to refer it to the Master
to inquire and report what sum should he set apart,
out of the money paid into Court, for the legacies.
Mr. KINDBRSLET appeared for Mr. Wilson, the
guardian. All he asked was, that, for the
future, the income of the children's legacies
should be allowed for their maintenance, ac-
cording to the Master's report. Also to refer it to
the Master to inquire whether any and what sum
should be allowed to Mr. Wilson, for the purpose of
making up for the time past, during which the sums
paid into Court on account of the legacies, were not
sufficient for their maintenance; to inquire what
arrears there were of the interest on the children's
legacies, which the fund had not yet been able to
supply ; and also what amount had been allowed for
the maintenance of the children.

Mr. PEMBERTOS—That is the object we propose.
Order granted.

NOKES V. WH kRTON.

This part-heard cause, which had engaged the Court
the whole of Saturday and Monday, was resumed
to-day, and Mr. Pemberton brought his reply to a
conclusion.—Judgment deferred.
" The Court rose at one o'clock.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 8.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
EVANS v. JAMES. _

The hearing of this case was resumed. It was an I
application on the part of the personal representative
of the plaintiff to remove a deed executed by him, as
conclusive evidence of a debt of 1,5001. due to de-
fendant, who had acted as the solicitor of the plaintiff
for a number of years. The deed was drawn up
by the defendant himself, and witnessed by his clerk.
"Mr. BETHEL, in support of the application, said that
no account of the items of the debt had ever been
rendered.
Mr. Stewart was heard on thepart of the defendants.
His Hoxoua said he must read over all the plead-
ings before he gave his decision.—Ordered to stand
over for judgment.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir JAMES WIGRAM.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. FOSTER.
The hearing of this cause, which was part heard
before the commencement of the long vacation, was
concluded this morning. It was an information
against Mr. Foster, Mr. W. Patten, M.P., and
another gentleman, as trustees of the Manchester
school.
In his reply on behalf of the defendants on
Saturday, Sir Charles Wetherell stigmatised the suit
as an attempt, since Manchester had become a
borough, with all the adjuncts which attach to
boroughs, to democratise the school, and even to
sansculottize it, by converting it from a classical into
a commercial academy. Part of the case of the de-
fendants was directed to show that the master had
by tradition a right to take boarders, which right had
been disputed by the Counsel for the plaintiffs.
Mr. ANDERSON addressed the Court this morning
in support of the information.
His HoNor a said he should certainly not decide
the case without referring again to the cases which
had been cited; but he certainly did not entert sin the
least doubt as to the principle on which he ought to
act. In this case an information was filed, and cer-
tain persons were made trustees. Pending the pro-
ceedings in the cause, and before a decree had been
drawn up, some of the persons who were trustees at
the beginning had ceased to be so, and three new
trustees were appointed. Before the decree had
passed, a supplemental bill had been filed against the
three new trustees. That bill insisted that the new
trustees were bound by all that had taken place in
the cause before they had become trustees. The
three new trustees, who had been made parties to the
supplemental bill, had put in an answer, in which
they had set up
.several matters which would go to
show that the original decree ought not to have been
pronounced ; they insisted, in fact, that they had a
right to make a defence of their own as to the relief
sought by the information. Exceptions were taken
on the ground of impertinence; it was stated that
• inasmuch as they were bound by former proceedings,
all that was said about merits was irrelevant. The
Master decided that it was not impertinent, and
exceptions were taken to the Master's report.
Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Russell were heard
for the defendants, and
The. case was ordered to stand over for judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 8.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. WALTON.
In this case a scire facias had been issued, for the
purpose of trying the validity of a patent, which the
defendant had obtained for certain improvements in •
troduced by him into a machine for carding and comb-
ing wool and cotton. The invention consisted in the
substitution of India rubber for leather, as the bed for
the teeth of the carding machine, whereby superior
elasticity was obtained. The issues set up on the
part of the Crown were, that the invention was not
calculated to be of public use ; that it was not found
out by the defendant; that it was not a new manu-
facture; that the specification WM insufficient ; that it
was useless for some of the purposes stated in the
specification ; and that it had been in public use before
1834. The trial took place before Lord Denman in
the sittings after last term, and the Jury found for
the Crown, thus invalidating the patent.
Sir THOMAS WILDE now moved for a rule nisi for
a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence. The validity of the patent had
been tried twice before in actions brought by the
patentee for the infringement of his patent
in both of which he had received verdicts.
On the trial it Nv mild be contended that the invention
did not essentially differ from the inventions of APln-
tosh and Hancock, whereas elasticity constituted no
feature of their invention, while it was the distin-
guishing characteristic of the invention of Mr. Walton.
Lord DENMAN thought it a very fit case for further
inquiry. The defendant was entitled to a rule to show
cause at least.—Rule nisi granted.

HUNT V. HELPS.
This was an action broughto.n by the plaintiff, a paper
manufacturer, carrying business. in Bermondsey,
against the defendant as the public officer of the Bri-
tish Alliance Insurance
ornhy, to recover 2,000/.,
the amount of a policy urance, for goods
destroyed by fire. The declaration' drawn. up
in the usual form, and it was set out wasthieirreilrn
hthat in
the policies of insurance granted by the Alli-
ance Company that, in case of the destruction
articles by fire, the assured should, within a certain
day day thereafter, give in the statement of particulars of
the articles so destroyed, on which the el •
aim was