The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

i• AW INTELLIGENCE.

_;HAIsTCERY COURT—(TH IS DAY).

WARD V. ALSAGER.
The Solicitor-General concluded his reply in this case
to-day, and the Lord Chancellor postpoied his judgment.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

WILSON V. TUNSTALL.

The further arguments in this case were resumed this
morning.
His LORDSHIP, in giving his opinion upon this case,
after recapitulating the circumstances, said that although
there might be a breach of the injunction, yet it did not
follow that he must commit the defendant for that breach.
That Court had as much regard as any Court in the
kingdom to the liberty of the subject, and it had also re-
gard to the feelings of the subject, and was slow in im-
posing any sort of hardship. was admitted by the
Learned Counsel for the • defendant that he had the

oil in question for the same purpose as that for
which it had been used by the plaintiff, and his
Lordship then felt, from what had appeared in the de-
fendant's affidavits, that he determined still to do so. lie
would not state his opinion then as to whether there had
been a breach of the injunction, but give time. to the
defendant, in order that he might make further affida-
vits as to what he intended to do hereafter. He would
therefore wish this case to stand over till next term, in
order to give the defendant time to make such affidavits,
and his Lordship would then be better able to judge of
the case.

VICE-CHANCERY(THIS DAY.)

(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
RUSSELL V. BUCHANAN. .

In this cause the plaintiff's were Mrs. E. S. Russell,
the testator's widow,—ancL her five infant children, who
were beneficially interested under the settlement executed
on the marriage of Mrs.,Russell with her husband. The
defendants, Buchanan and Nicolls, were the trustees un-
der the settlement.

Mr. Wzottem, for the plaintiffs stated that the bill
prayed that a dividend of 1681. which had been received
by the defendant Buchanan, should be paid into Court,
and that the interest thereon, together with that of
the sum of 10,000/., the trust-fund now stand-
ing to the credit of the Accountant-General
in Court should be paid to
,theplaintiffs, who claimed to
be entitled thereto according to the provisions of the
trust-deed.

. Mr. COOPER, who appeared for the defendant Bu-
chanan, admitted the receipt of the dividend by his
client, but stated that certain sums of money
were due to him by the plaintiff. Mrs: Rus-
sell, whose brother he was, and .for• whom he
had transacted business in the capacity of_sOlicitor; and
thOse bills of costs he .put as a set off against the divi-
dends received.

His HONOUR decreed a reference to the Master, to
inquire whether, there was any debt due from
one party to the.other, in .respect of the matters men-
tioned at either side--4he payments of the dividends to
be made to the widow until farther order of the Court—
and the Master to take whatever accounts might be. found
necessary between the parties, and to state special cir-
cumstances.

(Before Vice-Chancellor 'ManAm.)
WILKINSON V. PAGE.

,This case stood,over from yesterday. It was a motion
and cross-motion, to set aside an award made by Mr.
Sergeant Goulburn, in reference to matters in dispute
between the parties, who had been in partnership for a
short time as attorneys. The following are the facts of
the case:—The City Solicitor, Mr. Pearson, on his ap-
pointment to that office, sold one-half share in the firm
in which he was a partner to the defendant, Mr. Page, for
1,500/. ; 7501. was paid at the time, and a bill of ex-
change given for the remainder. Disagreements sub-
sequently arose between Mr. Williamson and Mr. Page ;
the former complaining that Mr. Page had incorrectly
represented himself as notary public, and the latter that
the profits accruing from the business, had been repre-
sented to him as 1,5001. a year, whereas, in truth, they
did not amount to more than half that sum. A bill was filed
by Mr. Williamson for the dissolution of partnership, which
by the articles was to continue ten years. The defend-
ant, in his answer, insisted that fraud and deception had
been practised upon him, and the parties agreed to refer
the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded that
Mr. Wilkinson should pay Mr. Page 7001. on the Ist of
January instant. Mr. Wilkinson moved to set aside
the award, on the ground that the sum in question was
a matter of account, and that the matters referred to the
arbitrator had been left untouched..

Mr. Sharp and Mr. Anderson appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Wood for the defendant.
The hearing was concluded this morning, but his
notsoun deferred his judgment.