The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS COURT, Nov. 20.
COCKLE AND WRITING.

This was a petition of the defendants in the
cause, praying a reference to the Master, to inquire
whether the •plaintiff's solicitors should not pay to
the petitioners their taxed costs, amounting to 1211.
Mr. KNIGHT stated, on the part of the peti-
tioners, that they were owners of the ship Elizabeth
a South Sea whaler, of which the plaintiff, William
Cockle, was mate. The vessel returned from a
voyage in November, 1823, with a cargo of oil, to
one-sixtieth share of which the plaintiff was entitled.
In the course of the ensuing December a settlement
took place between Messrs. Whiting and Cockle,
when the balance found due to the latter was paid,
he expressing himself perfectly satisfied upon that
arid subsequent occasions. However, on the 14th
of February, in the following year, a bill was .filed
by the plaintiff, charging the defendants with fraud,
arid praying that the settlement might not beheld
binding, on the ground that the defendants sold one-
fourth of the oil previous to its arrival at 521. a
tun, arid had only allowed the defendant for his
share of the cargo at the rate of 421. a tun, the mar-
ket price at the time when the vessel came' into
port. The suit proceeded until the 2J of July,
1829, when the Master of the Rolls gave judgment
in favour of the defendants, dismissing the bill With
costs. Petitioners had expended between 2501. and
3001. in defending the cause. Their costs were
taxed as between party and party at 1214 Plaintiff
having left England on a voyage to the South Sea,
and not being likely to return for a considerable
time, and it being also improbable that when he did
return he would be able to pay those costs, peti-
tioners asked that Messrs. Howard and Jones, plain-
tiff's solicitors, might be directed to pay the
amount, on the ground that the suit was, in reality,
the suit of those individuals, who had instituted it
for the purpose of saddling defendants with costs,
or compelling them to pay a sum of money as the
price of protection from litigation. The Learned
Gentleman observed at considerable length on the
fact, that the plaintiff in this cause could derive but
little advantage from its result, even if successful,
while the interests of the solicitors in the suit was
very considerable.
Mr. JACOB having followed on the same side,
His HONOUR, without calling upon Mr. Bicker-
steth and Mr. Phillimore, who were of Counsel for
Messrs. Howard and Jones, felt bound to reject the
petition, and with costs.
Mr. PHILLISIORE said, it was due to his clients to
say, that the Vice-Chancellor did not refuse to en-
large publication on the ground that the solicitors
were the real parties, but on account of the length
of time which the cause had occupied.

COBHAM AND COBHAM.
This was a petition from an infant, praying that
his allowance might be increased from 2001. to 3001.
a year,—that he might be allowed to travel on the
Continent for two years,—atsd that a travelling tutor
might be appointed. The petitioner stated, that
the infant was 19 years of age, and that he had been
placed at Sandhurst College, but had no intention
of leading a military life. It added, that he was
equally averse to entering a University, and did not
wish to qualify himself for any profession—(Laugh-
ter)--he simply wished to travel.
His HONOUR said he could not give the infant
permission to go abroad.
Mr. PEMBERTON observed that Lord Eldon had
allowed infants to travel, their guardians giving se-
curity to bring them back to this country before the
expiration of their minority.
M. SPENCE said the guardians would enter into
such an undertaking, and
The MASTER of the ROLLS granted the prayer of
the pe:itio►► on that condition.

VIOE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 20.
FRY V. SIIERBORNE.
The Court was occupied all day with this cause.
The question at issue is the interpretation of a mar-
riage settlement, and the arguments were entirely of
a legal nature. His Honour said he would give
judgment after he had carefully read the settlement.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 20.
DOE, EX DEM. WIGGIN V. JONES.

The argument in this case, which was supported
with great ingenuity on one side by Mr. PRESTON,
appeared to excite considerable interest at the bar;
but a detail of it would not, we think, be interesting,
and perhaps not intelligible, to the greater portion
of our readers. We shall therefore content ourselves
with a mere mention of it.

The facts of the case appeared to be these :—ln
1822 a judgment was obtained against a person
named Baker for a debt, in an action at the suit of
a creditor of his. In 1826 Baker acquired, by pur-
chase, some freehold property, and in the deed of
conveyance which was made to trustees to bar
dower, was contained a power of appointment, tin-
der which, in 1827, Baker made a security to the
lessor of the plaintiff, Wiggin, by way of mortgage
for a term of years, Wiggin having advanced to him
a sum of money. The question was, under these
circumstances, whether Wiggin had a good title
against the judgment creditor; or whether the
judgment had been defeated by the exercise of the
power of appointment on the part of Baker.
Mr. PRESTON argued that it had been so defeated.
In remarking upon the practice of searching for
judgments in cases where parties were about to ad-
vance money on the security of freehold and other
property, the Learned Counsel said that it %, as one
of utter inutility, and by it parties were put to an
enormous expence. While he (Mr. Preston) was
Counsel for the Corporation of the city of London,
he ascertained that their solicitor paid more in fees
for searches for judgments than he (the Learned
Counsel) had the honour of receiving from them for
all the leases, conveyances, and other deeds which
he had prepared on their part. It was generally
considered that a search for judgments for ten years
back was sufficient; but he had known of instances
where judgments of 40 years' standing had been re-
vived against a party, and allowed to operate so as
to defeat securities under circumstances of the
greatest hardship. In the present case, however,
the law was clear that the exercise of a power of
appointment of this description overreached a jadg-
ment previously obtained.
Mr. lticumoND was heard on the other side, and
The CouRT, considering the question to be one
of great importance, took time to consider of it.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Nov: 20.
THE NOORMAHUL.—SALVAGE.

The vessel in this case was on its voyage from
Manilla to London, with a cargo of sugar, cotton,
and other eastern products, when, in the Athntic
Ocean, she was run foul of in the night of the 12th
of March last, by a large ship unknown, and sus-
tained damage. Soon after the accident, the Wan-
stead, a merchant vessel, bound from Van Dieman's
Land to London, with a cargo of oil arid other
goods, commanded by Lieutenant Langdon, R.N.,
hove in sight, and rendered her assistance, suppled
stores, &c. At the request of Captain Hopkirk,
master of the Noornzahul, the Wanstead remained in
company, and towed the former vessel till they
neared the Irish coast. For the services thus ren-
deredered the sum of 5001. had been offered, and
refused by the salvers as insufficient.
The evidence, which in these cases are generally
contradictory, was in this case unusually conflicting.
Besides the diametrical opposition of the state-
ments on material points, given by the witnesses on
either side, some novelty appeared in the circum-
stances of the carpenter of the Arbor nzahul (John-
son) swearing, in the very teeth of a report made
by him, in conjunction w►th the carpenter of the
iranstead at the time, as t o the state of the former
vessel when the Wunstead came up; be alleged, in
explanation, that the report had been drawn up by
a passenger in the Wanstead, by dictation of Cap-
, tain Langdon.
Mr. C. ROBINSON, who was assisted by the Tri-