The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-19 00:00:00

WARD V. ALSAGER.

This case stood on the paper to-day in order to en-
able the Solicitor-General to conclude his reply ; but In
consequence of the hoarseness of the Learned Gentleman
the further arguments were postponed to Friday.

TOLEDO V. VISTA.
This case came before the Court upon motion for
the discharge of an order pronounced by the Vice-
Chancellor of England, by.which his Honour directed that
an injunction which had been granted, restraining the
transfer. of stock, should be dissolved, unless the sur-
viving plaintiff, Colonel Toledo, filed a supplemental bill
on or before this day. The original suit was instituted by
Colonel Toledo, who was the natural son and committee,
according to the laws of Spain, of the late Duke del In-
fantado, and the object of that suit was to obtain an in-
junction, restraining the defendant Vieta, who was the
physician of the late Duke, from transferring a sum
of 10,0001., standing 'in his name in the English
Funds, in trust for a lady who had lived with
the Duke and his children. It was alleged by the
plaintiff that the amount in question had been ob-
tained from the Duke when he was in an imbecile sta`e
of mind. On the case coming on before the Vice-Chan-
cellor of England, he granted the injunction, and from
that decision the defendant appealed. During the pend-
ing of that appeal the Duke del Infantado died, and the
suit became abated. Upon this event taking place,
the order was made which it was now sought to discharge.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the motion to stand
over for five weeks, in order to give the parties time to
obtain certain documents from Madrid, the injunction to
be continued in the meantime.
IN TIE MATTE'S OF WILKINS, A LUNATIC.

The rest of the day was occupied by the further
arguments in this part heard Lunatic petition, the only
question in which was, whether a farm ought to have
been let for 100/. or 130/. a-year.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the ar-
guments, postponed his judgment,

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 18. .
IN RE STEWART—COLMAN U. STEWART.
Mr. PEMISERTON applied to the Court for the discharge
of this defendant, he having been committed to prison
under the following circumstances :—A bill had been filed
in Chancery against him, to which he had neglected to
make any answer, and in consequence an attachment.
was issued on the 11th of May, 1840. In June, 1841,
he was served with a notice to enter an answer to the
bill within fourteen days from the date of the notice. In
consequence of this the defendant caused an appearance
to be entered, and he Was discharged from custody on
the ground that defendant ought never to have been com-
mitted. Ile (Mr. Pemberton), referred his Lordship to
the case of Lewis v. Evans, which came before the Lord
Chancellor Cottenham lately, in which the defendant in
the case had been committed to prison for want of ap-
pearance, but an appearance was entered subsequent to
the attachment, and on that ground the Lord Chancel-
lor discharged the prisoner. The appearance had been
made in the present case, and the question was, could the
defendant legally be detained in custody.
His LORDSHIP said if the defendant had really ap-
pprtriendh,
si t
answer,ivouldbea
nhdi trhr de s.
hadhi p.' sn
odutyt appeared,
pto e a
rorder t
hheinmhtios
,eilhaeto hvvias,dpisrcohpaerrglye tcobniut..,
Lordship must order an
taimppeca;raanncde.difalnhVeahpetplahnreapnfiaierdest atchnpe--
ept isae en-
tered ap-
pearedin
mr
would
juolmudr t
have
altivee shouldhee
n entitled h av
minithtiesdnteogcluecsttotdoy.payThtleie-
tered his appearance voluntarily, and it appeared to him
questioncos now was, had he en-
tered
that it was not, as he had entered his appearance in con-
sequence of a notice served upon him in the Fleet.
Nir. CRAIG, who opposed the defendant, said, that the
defendant had not proceeded upon that notice, as it
called upon the defendant to enter an appearance within
fourteen days, and the appearance of the defendant was
entered two days after that notice had expired.
His LORDSHIP said that' became a voluntary appear-
ance, and would be something to proceed upon.
Mr. PEMBERTON read the affidavit of the defendant,
which stated that he believed, from that notice, that if
he did not enter an appearance, it would heprejudicial. to
his interests, and he therefore entered.. an appearance,
ithin sixteen days after the date of the .notice.
• Mr. CRAlG—.Therefore, that would be a 'voluntary ap-
pearance. • . . . •
His LORDSHIP said that the questioh was, whether ,