The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-11 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Lordship sat at ten o'clock, and was occupied during
the greater part of the day in hearing unopposed petitions.
These were chiefly praying that money lying in the Court
to the credit of certain causes might be transferred to the
petitioners.
His LORDSHIP, in the course of these petitions, expressed
his determination to enforce strictly the 122 d order of the
Court, by which any pleading, petition, motion, or affidavit,
that might appear to be of unnecessary length, should be re-
ferred to the taxing-master, who might be directed to in-
vestigate the same, and if it should appear to hint that they
were of unnecessary length, that he should make such an
order as might appear to him just, as a set-off to the demand
for the costs.

VICE-CH ANCEItY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
NIXON V. THE TAFF VALE RAILWAY COMPANY.
The arguments in this part-heard cause were resumed to-
day. The question in the case relates to certain contracts
for the construction of part of the railway.
The case occupied the whole morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
LIEYESEY V. WILLCOCK.
Arguments were heard on both sides, and judgment given
in favour of the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff-,
Lievesey and Knowles, were on terms for a coal mine near
Wigan, when they met with defendant, who, in considera-
tion of Lievesey and Knowles giving up their interest
in the lease to him, contracted to pay each of them
30s. a week for their personal services as underlookers
in the mine, and to give them or their executors
5 per cent. on the profits. Defendant, however, dismissed
both from his employment : Knowles for intoxication and
neglect, Liresey for neglect only. They came into Court to
sue performance of contract. In consequence of the nature
of the evidence by which the charge against Lievesry was
supported, his Honour hesitated to pronounce against him ; but
as Knowles, in the opinion of the Court, had his conduct
broken tile agreement, and as Lievesey had assumed him as a
co-petitioner, his Honour decided that the Court could not afford
relief to either. The bill was dismissed with 20/. costs,
without prejudice to the cause.
Counsel for plaintiffs, Messrs. Wigrans, QC., and Blun.
dell; fur defendant, Messrs. Russell, Q.C., and Milne.
WOODWARD V. MILLER.
Mr. Miller having purchased a property sold try auc-
tion at the instance of the executors, Woodward] declined
to own the purchase, on the ground of fictitious bidders
having been present to advance the amount of pur-
chase-money. Evidence was put in by the plaintiffs,
admitting that Mr. Broadhurst was present on the
day of sale for that purpose, and gave several biddin,gs
till the price was enhanced to 650/. Mr. Miller said he
bought under the belief that the bidders were bona fide bid-
ders.

Mr. WIGRAM, Q. C., was proceeding with his argument
for the plaintiffs, maintaining that these fictitious biddings
have never prejudiced the sale in law, when our report left.
(Before Vice-Chancellor \Viar.Aac.)
TAMLYN V. REYNOLDS.
The plaintiff appeared to plead his own cause below bar.
The case arises out of the sale of devised estates, over which
plaintiff, as a devisee, declares he holds unsatisfied claims.
So far back as 1818, Mr. Tamlyn appeared before Sir John
Leach.
I lis HONOUR defen cd judgment.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

ELWELL V. THE BIRMINGHAM CANAL. COMPANY.

This was an action taken by the plaintiff against the
Birmingham Canal Company, for a false return to a writ of
mandamus, issued by this Court; damages were laid at
10,000/. It appeared from the statement of counsel, that
the objections of the Canal Company were, that notice of
the damage done to the plaintiff's mills had not been given
within ono month, as required by the Act; that the venue
should have been laid in the county of Stafford; and that
the notice did not specify the extent of the damage done, as
rewired by the atty second sectioa of the Act.