The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-22 00:00:00

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.

Amount voted in 1841-42 .
1842-43 .

£2,193,537
... 2,084,599

Decrease...

X. 58,998

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

II 0U SE OF L 0 1?D S, Feb. 21.
'Their Lordships sat to-day at ten o'clock to hear Scotch
appeals. The Peers in attendance were Lord Brougham, Lord
Cottauham, Lord Campbell, and Lord Dufferin.

LOAD DUNGLAS V. THE DUKE OF •RGYLL.

This ease came before their Lordships upon an appeal from
the decision of the Court of Session in Scotland, declaring a
Commission, granted by George the Fourth, appointing the
appellant, Lord Dunglas, to the office of Chamberlain of
Ettrick Forest, to be void. The ground on which the Com-
mission was declared to be invalid by the Court below was, that
his Majesty George the Fourth, having surrendered his here-
ditary revenues to the disposal of Parliament, had no power to
grant the Commission he had done,
Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Hope were Counsel for the appel-
lant, Lord Dunglas, and the Attorney-General and Mr. An-
derson supported the judgment of the Court of Session, on
behalf of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.

The arguments not having concluded at half-past three
o'clock, were postponed till to-morrow (this day).

VISCOUNT MAITLAND V. HORNY.

Lord COTTENHAM gave judgment in this case, which was
argued before the House when his Lordship was Chancellor.
Their Lordships, under the advice of the Noble Lord, ordered
the judgment hi the Court below to be reversed, with costs.

VIGERS V. PIKE.

This appeal also stood on the paper for judgment, but their
Lordships
,deferred giving their decision till to-morrow• (this
day).

COURT OF CHANCERY, Feb. 21.

The LORD CHANCELLOR sat in Lincoln's Inn Hall to-day,
and took appeal motions, this being the Second Seal after Hi-
lary Term.

THOIVIPSON V. DERHAIf.

This case came before his Lordship upon an appeal motion
from the judgment of Vice-Chancellor Wigram, refusing to
grant an injunction to restrain the defendants, the assignees of
three bankrupts, from parting with the funds in their posses-
sion, and making a dividend among the creditors of the bank-
rupts, until the decision of the Court in the suit. It appeared
that in the year 1829, Mr. William Hinde, the testator in the
cause, entered into partnership with three other gentlemen as
worsted spinners and wool-staplers. Mr. Hinde was to find
capital, and the other three persons were to be the acting men.
The business was carried on up to Mr. Ilinde's death,
at which time it was ascertained that upwards of
40,0001. was his share of the capital. Subsequent to
the death of the testator, the other three partners
carried on the business, and two of those partners were execu-
tors under the will of Mr. Hinde. In December 1839, the
parties became bankrupt, and toe defendants were appointed
their assignees. In May 1840, the present bill was filed by
the parties beneficially interested under the will of Mr. Hinde,
insisting that a breach of trust had been committed by the ex-
ecutors permitting the testator's property to remain in the busi-
ness, and insisting also that they had the equitable mortgage
by the articles of partnership upon all the real property belong-
ing to it, and that they ought to be allowed to prove for the
deficiency against the estate of the bankrupts. Vice-Chancellor
Wigram refused the application for the injunction on the
ground that he had no jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and for that
decision the preseut appeal was brought.

ROLLS' COURT, Feb. 21.

GORDON V. THE CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN UNION

RAILWAY COMPANY.
Lord LA scGioaLE pronounced his final judgment to-day in
this cause, which had stood over from last week for further in-
vest igation and consideration on some reserved points.
The facts have already appeared in The Sun.
His Lo tumuli., at the last hearing of the cause, was not satis-
fied with the evidence adduced at either side respecting the in-
convenience which might arise to either the plaintiff or the
defendant, by the refusal or granting of the injunction sought
to be obtained by the former. His Lordship had also reserved
the point, whether, if an injunction were granted, there ought
to be any condition attached to it. In giving judgment
this morning, his Lordship said he had had two affidavits
made by the defendants, and one by, the plaintiff. Looking at
the former he feared that an injunction could not be put on
those parties now without occasioning considerable inconve-
nience.—he would not say danger—to all who made use of that
line of railway. In the affidavits he saw no limitation men-
tioned of the time during which the inconvenience complained
of by the plaintiff should continue. That formed the strongest
case against the defendants. In that matter their own option
ought not to be alone consulted. The only difficulty his Lord-
ship felt in the matter was, the apprehension which any Judge
must have in granting an injunction, lest inconvenience should
arise therefrom to a great many persons. He should, therefore,
direct an order for an injunction absolutely. The defendants
not to consider themselves held by the order till after the last
seal-day following Trinity term next ; and undertaking not to
make any additions to the buildings mt utioned in the plead-
ings; as also to bring their petition in the meantime for re-
hearing before the Lord Chancellor or the House of Lords.
The Court then proceeded to dispose of motions involving
nothing of interest.
The arguments, which had not concluded when his Lordship
rose, will be resumed to-morrow (this day).