The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-27 00:00:00

THE ,SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1842.

I millions, and if certain recognised extra interest charges
be added, such as that accruing on the annual draw-
ings of Deferred Stock, portions of Passive periodically
capitalised at Madrid, &c., we shall be found to be rather
under than over the mark. Yet, as it was but the other
day that the Globe and Chronicle met us with a contra-
diction upon the subject, it will be seen what confidence
may, in future, be given to the denials hazarded by such
authorities.
We mentioned in yesterday's paper that there were
grounds for believing that the claims of the Treasury
bondholders were to be put upon a satisfactory footing,
and we are again assured by parties in the confidence of
the Spanish Government, that the fact does not admit of
a doubt. They take precisely the same view of them that
we take ourselves, as well as their countrymen, Senors
Pebrer and Zulueta. We are unable to-day, however,
to insert at length the sentiments impressed by them
on the several points contended for in connection with
the case.

LAW INTELLIGEN CE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 26.

The Lord Chancellor did not sit in his Court at West-
minster to-day until a quarter past twelve o'clock, not
having arrived from Windsor.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WIMBORNE SCHOOL.

The SOLICITOR. GENERAL, upon this case being called
on, stated that he did not think it would be necessary to
trouble the Court with going into the discussion. The
question in this case arose upon the proper construction
of two charters granted in the time of Queen Elizabeth,
by which the tithes of the parish of Wimborne
were granted to a corporation to be selected
out of the inhabitants of the parish, the object of which
was for carrying on a school at Wimborne. The con-
struction that had been put upon the Charter for years
was, that the tithes were to be applied by the persons
named for the benefit of the school, and that so much as
was not required for that purpose was to be applied for
the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish, and in that
way the charity had been administered for a long series
of years. Upon an information, however, being filed,
the present Master of the Rolls decided that the true
construction of the Charter was, that the whole tithes
should be applied for the purposes of the charity. The
present trustees being now satisfied that the construc-
tion which had been put by the Master of the Rolls upon
the Charter was a proper one, were content to forego the
appeal, and it had been arranged that as they had ad-
mMistered the charity in the way it had been done by
their predecessors, they should be allowed their costs,
that part of the order of the Master of the Rolls direct-
ing them to-pay costs being discharged by arrangement.

HERRING V. CLOBERRY.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were
then proceeded with, and occupied his Lordship the re-
mainder of the day.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 26.
GREEN V. MAITLAND.
The further arguments in this case occupied the Court
the whole of the morning. At their conclusion his Lord-
ship said he would read over the whole of the affidavits,
and defer his judgment to a future day.
His LOrdship disposed of several unopposed petitions.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 26.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)

CHAPMAN V. THE BRIDGEWATER AND TAUNTON NAVI-

CATION COMPANY.

In this cause, which stood over from Monday, the
Counsel intimated to the Court that the parties had
come to a private settlement of the disputed points.

BURRIDGE V. ROW.

The arguments in this part-heard cause were resumed
to-day ; and Mr. Cooper was heard at considerable
length for the assignees of Alderman Winchester, on
the question of the assignment of the policies by the as-
signees of Row to the assignees of Winchester.
His HONOUR, in giving judgment, said that the argu-
ments advanced to-day were, in a great measure, the
same as those urged at the previous hearings of the case.
The only point on which the Court had expressed a
wish that the matter should be spoken to again was the
question of the construction of the deed of assignment
of the policies, and upon that point scarcely anything
had been said, and he must therefore conclude that the
Counsel for the assignees supposed that there
was no probability of success upon it, and that it
would be rather against than in favour of them.
His Honour continued of opinion that the question,
"What ought to be done with the fund," which he should
call the 4311+, appeared to him a question of considerable
difficulty under the peculiar circumstances of the case.
That difficulty, however, existed more in respect of the
title of the assignees of Row than in respect of that of
the assignees of Winchester. It at one time occurred to
his Honour during the arguments not certainly to give
it to the assignees of Winchester. However, having fre-
quently re-considered the subject since the last hearing,
he came to the conclusion that the more certainly safe
course would be to keep back that fund at present, and
give the assignees of Row liberty to apply, if they should
think fit. As he understood it, the fund representing
the dividends had been accumulating since it was
brought into Court, and of course the amount of stock had
been varying every half year. He therefore thought he
should best consult substantial justice, by not letting
Mrs. Burridge, as he was originally disposed to do, re-
ceive the income of that fund, but to retain it and carry
it over to a separate account, to be called the suspense
account ; the accumulations to be continued and carried
over, without prejudice to any question, and with li-
berty to Row's assignees, or any other person, to apply
in respect of that fund as they might be advised ; and
then, if the assignees of Row should come before the Court,
on petition either as respondents or petitioners, he
should be ready to hear and dispose of their case. He
neither encouraged nor discouraged the claim; he merely
said that there was enough to convince him that it was
a reasonable subject for discussion, and that that dis-
cussion might involve matter of their interest ; there-
fore at present he should withdraw from all parties the
sum of 4311. ; then if the assignees of Row should
come before the Court to discuss that question,
there would be two points to be decided—first, whe-
ther they or the assignees of Winchester were
entitled to anything—whether they could displace Mrs.
Burridge's title, and if either of them could do so.
Then, secondly, whether, according to the true construc-
tion of the deed, they or the assignees of Winchester
were entitled. He could neither enter into nor decide
that question in the absence of Row's assignees. The
reason of this doubt was obvious, namely, that
whereas, according to the intention of the settle-
ment, if the policy produced the full sum of 5,0001.,
there would be notlaim against Row's estate, yet there
had been a claim against that estate without
any deduction] or valuation in respect of those policies,
and those policies had ultimately produced the full
amount. That difficulty he had felt from the beginning
of the case, and his mind was not yet relieved from it.
He should, therefore, with a view to do justice in the best
manner to all parties, reserve that fund as, he
had before stated. The trustees were with their
own consent to give notice of the present decree
to the assignees of Row, and then, if within a rea-
sonable time after that notice they neither consent to
come before the Court nor file a bill of their own, the
Court might be influenced by that consideration. His
Honour then read (as we understood) such of the mi-
nutes of the decree proposed by Counsel as accorded
with his views of the subject, and which he there
fore meant to confirm ; they were in substance
that the plaintiffs, in right of the plaintiff, Sarah Bur-
ridge, were entitled, during their lives, to the interest
and dividends accruing on the sum of 5,9921. 17s. 4d.
Bank Annuities, in the pleadings mentioned; that they
were entitled to the same from the year 1833 to the
present time ; that it being admitted that Henry
Winchester, during his lire, and after the bankruptcy
of Wm. Row, had paid four sums, of 119/. 18s. Bd. each,
as premiums on the policies mentioned in the pleadings,
which sums were properly due from, and payable by,
Mr. Row, on his estate, and it being admitted that
Alderman Winchester had been fully repaid those four
sums by Mrs. Burridge, and that his estate had not any
claim in respect of those sums, or the interest thereon,
which had not been satisfied by Mrs. Burridge, the plain-
tiffs had in her right a lien upon the capital of the
, above mentioned 5,992/. Three per Cents. in reversion,
; immediately expectant on the life interest of Mrs.
Burridge ; that the defendants Skinner, Row, and
Thomas Briggs, the trustees of the settlement, were
entitled as against the defendants, Belcher and Phipps,
to hold the 5,9922 Three per Cents. until the sum of
5,000, secured by the bond of Winchester, Skin-
ner, Row, and Briggs be paid and satisfied ;
and that the defendants Belcher and Phipps could
not without making good those 5,0001. and the interest
accumulated thereon, claim any part of the bank annui-
ties or the dividends accruing on them ; that a sufficient
part of those annuities be sold to pay the costs of the
trustees, and that the dividends on the residue of the
annuities be paid during the joint lives of the plaintiffs,
to the plaintiff the husband ; also that the plaintiffs
were entitled to the benefit of the bond, with no costs up
to the present time, either to them or the assignees. The
decree to be without prejudice to any claim of the as-
signees of the bankruptcy of William Row the younger—
, this point his Honour reserved.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
WILKINSON V. PAGE.

In this cause, the facts of which are alreadiftebrefore
egfserp partiesrthioirs tt oh
mattere theug ha
thought
aoirtd,w arbitratione eld
the public, his Honour delivered judgment.
therbe e-
citing the origin and progress of the dispute between
parties,lrla
etnhNdeeiturh
abe
epsnraele proceedings
trahoalirneistfoo further prosecute the suit ; and, accordingly, on
the 10th of September, 1841, an order was obtained
at the Rolls, by which it was ordered that all matters in
difference mentioned and referred to in the pleadings in
the suit should be referred to the award and arbitration
of Edward Goulburn, Esq., Sergeant-at-Law. After
this order of reference had been made, the parties
tt
ah
kingough
outt t h aettheir
the
ainterestse vthoeul
ty e
rb
ee
qbuees
st t ce onn
of
fu
al tee:o
account
2o3fdpaorrtnNeorvshemip dberei
,alsn4gls: and a
was entered
an
intoagreementhe dated t
wee the
nthem,
by which it was agreed that, in the event of the
arbitrator awarding a dissolution, the account
should be taken by a gentleman of the name of Bowden.
It was also agreed between them that Mr. Bowden
should receive the outstanding assets of the partnership,
and pay the same to the joint account of the com-
plainant and defendant, into the banking-house of
Messrs. Glynn and Company, to be first applied in the
payment of the partnership debts, then in the payment
of incidental expenses, and afterwards on the footing of
the settled accounts. Now the Learned Sergeant, to
whom the case was referred, made his award on the 24th
November, 1841. In p 4 in., of fact, he awarded a disso-
lution, awarded certain acts to be done by the parties,
and made a special declaration as to the 7501. secured by
the note. ' In the month of December, 1841, a motion
was made on the part of Mr. Page to make the award an
order of Court.. As it -then-. appeared that there bad
been a mistake in-practice, he gave the plaintiff an op-
portunity of making a cross motion to set aside the
award, and the case had accordingly been heard on

motion and. cross motion. Now, from the terms of the
award it appeared first, that the arbitrator had taken
the 7501. already paid by Mr. Page out of the partner-
ship account, and awarded that sum to be paid on the
Ist of January instant. without reference to the question
whether the accounts should at that time have been
taken by Mr. Bowden or not ; secondly, that the arbi-
trator had not awarded payment of the balance, which
might be found by
.Mr. Bowden, nor provided for the
case of the assets being insufficient to wind up the part-
nership concerns; thirdly, that he had in general terms
directed a guarantee to be given, without saying what
its nature should be. With respect to the purchase
money, he declared that the 750/. paid should be repaid
by Mr. Wilkinson to Mr. Page, and then he made the
following declaration :—" I declare that I do not intend
any liabilities
ect of the said
toot,
theaffescati,d
Worilliinamasnaygown ipseagt,:t,oiivarreysp,
promissory note for 7501., but it is my wish and inten-
tion that any such liabilities of the said defendant in
that respect, as between him and the plaintiff, remain
wholly unaffected by thisupon my award." There was then
respect to the 7501.
nea
ixgeneral
odd
each
irane ce
htt ihooent
hatehN‘r,aatn
dt
uh.
teu l
rrElhee
which had been paid as part of the 1,500/. purchase
money of a moiety of the partnership concern, it had
been argued for the plaintiff, that the amount merely
insisted that that ought to form an item in the accounts
between the parties, and that the arbitrator had done
wrong, therefore, in ordering that sum to be paid
without reference to the accounts ; and with respect to
the other 7501., it was contended that the question
whether Mr. Page was or was not ultimately liable
was a matter in difference between the parties, and
that consequently the arbitrator making his award had
left open one of the very questions referred to him for
settlement. Upon some of these points he had no
difficulty whatever in pronouncing an opinion. If the
750/., paid by Mr. Page to Mr. Pearson, and the rights
and liabilities of the parties in respect of it, were matters
in difference between the parties at the reference, he
would have had great difficulty in treating that as an
error in law not affecting' the validity of the award.
Upon the second point he could not help thinking that
the Learned Counsel had over-rated the difficulty in
supposing that the Court would hesitate to make an
award for the payment of any balance which the accounts
might show to be due from Mr. Page to Mr. Wil-
kinson, or from Mr. Wilkinson to Mr. Page ; and
if that were not so he would hesitate to decide
that the award was invalid, on account of the na-
ture of the remedy. The strong inclination of his
opinion was, that the authorities obliged him to make an
intendment in favour of the award. Upon the remain-
ing objection he had experienced great difficulty. The
arbitrator stated that the whole sum of 1,5001 was a
matter in difference ; he then proceeded to award
that the 750/., part of that sum, should be paid by
Mr. Wilkinson to Mr. Page, on or before the Ist of Jan.
inst.; and he then declared that he did not intend to vary
or affect any liabilities of Mr. Page, in respect of the
promissory note for 7501. The question whether Mr.
Wilkinson or Mr. Page was the party ultimately liable
upon the note, was a matter in difference, mentioned
and referred to in the pleadings in the cause. The state
of that question was simply this:—The primary liability
of each party to Mr. Pearson was admitted, in the ab-
sence of special circumstances ; but if the alle-
gation of fraud could be wide out against
Mr. Wilkinson, he would be liable for the payment
of the whole 1,500/. He was of opinion that the arbi-
trator meant to decide that the special circumstances
relied upon by Mr. Page ought not to affect Mr. Page's
natural liability upon the notes both to Mr. Pearson and
Mr. Wilkinson ; but the arbitrator had declared that
Mr. Page's liability should be wholly unaffected by the
award, leaving the question raised by the pleadings un-
decided. The mutual releases which the arbitrator had
awarded could not help the case, for they would only
affect a subject which he did not intend to affect. It
was with great regret, therefore, that he was compelled
to refuse the defendant's motion, and accede to that of
he plaintiff ; but he gave no costs upon either motion.

JONES V. HUGHES.
His HONOUR delivered judgment in this case, granting
.he injunction, with liberty to the plaintiff to take such
proceedings as he might be advised, to perfect his title
at law.

ton and Payne, page 376, that a bill drawn in this coun-
try, and not leguly stfimped, was not avnib'.•lc mly
purpose wl,atever, except as aguin.:t the cir:f.\ er. in the
case referred to, the bill purported to have been drawn
in Paris.

• Mr. BEES, on the part of the holders, contended that
the probability was that the bills were ante-dated. It
was not enough for the acceptor, or for the assignees
who represented him, to show that the drawer was in
this country on the days of the date. The onus of proving
that the bills were actually drawn in this country lay upon
them.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS considered that the
date of a bill was prima facie evidence that it
was drawn on that day. He would, however, hear
any proof offered that the bills in question were not
drawn on the days of the date, and that they were really
drawn in Guernsey, without an intention to defraud the
revenue of this country. If Mr. Bees could point out
any authority to show that the onus of proving the actual
drawing on the date lay with the acceptor, he would
give it every attention. At present the question before
him was merely one of fact : Was the drawer in Lon-
don, as alleged ? He would give his judgment on Tues-
day next, Ist Feb., and in the meantime would attend to
any points which Mr. Kearsey or Mr. Bees might think
proper to suggest.
In the course of the argument, it was stated that the
bankrupts would have been solvent if they could have
got rid of their liability on these bills.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 26.

IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM HATTON.

The insolvent carried on business in the Kingsland-
road as a grocer and baker, and was opposed in person
by James Walton, a miller in Hertfordshire, on the
ground of having obtained goods from him by fraudu-
lent representations.

It appeared that the insolvent had dealt some time
with the opposing creditor, and having lately fallen into
difficulties, Mr. Walton refused - to advance any further
goods except for ready money. The insolvent thereupon
stated, that he had become entitled to a large sum in the
Three per Cent. Consols, in consequence of the death of
a distant relative of his wife, who had appointed him
residuary legatee and executor. Upon these represen•
tations, Mr. Walton consented to let the insolvent have
goods upon the usual terms of credit, and imagined all
to be going on right in the.Kingsland-road, until he re-
ceived a notice that the insolvent was about to pass
through this Court. The insolvent had caused himself
to be taken in a friendly arrest by his brother-in-law for
a small sum, which was alleged to have been due on
some betting transactions connected with the last St.
Leger Races.

The LEARNED COMMISSIONER said this was a case
which required a severe sentence on the part of the
Court, as there was nothing to be more reprehended
than arrests at the suit of friends and relations, for the
purpose of defrauding the legitimate creditors. The
sentence of the Court was, that he be imprisoned for
the term of six calendar months from the date of his
vesting order.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

CLERKEINWELL.

On Tuesday Richard Kerrison, aged twelve years, was
placed at the bar, charged by Charles Luff, tobacconist,
of Well's-place, Islington, with having stolen nine cigars.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor, that
the prisoner was connected with a daring gang of young
thieves, who prowled about the neighbourhood of Isling-
ton and committed the most impudent depredations. On
Monday night last witness left his boy, eleven years of
age, in the shop, and whilst there, the prisoner, with a
gang of other juvenile desperadoes, was observed lurk-
ing about. At length the prisoner and four of his com-
panions rushed into the shop, pushed the boy down,
whilst they made an effort to seize the till. The pri-
soner made a snatch at a bundle of cigars, which he took
from the counter, and the whole of them ran out of the
shop. Au alarm was made, and witness immediately
pursued them-and overtook the prisoner, whom he took
into custody, and handed him over to a policeman. The
prisoner, on being pursued, threw the cigars into the
road, which were afterwards found by a passenger and
returned to witness.

Richard Horren, errand-boy to the prosecutor, iden-
tified the prisoner, and gave evidence in confirmation of
the above statement.

Inspector Jervis, of the G division, recognised the
prisoner as an old offender in petty thefts, who had been
in custody before although so young, and he was at that
Court about a fortnight ago.
Mr. COMBE asked the prisoner what he had to say
to the charge ?
Prisoner (crying)—l was sent into the shop by a big-
ger boy—he told me to go in.
Mr. COMBE convicted him summarily, and sentenced
him to two months' imprisonment in the House of Cor-
rection.