The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-14 00:00:00

1-4_IVENING SUN

VICE-CHANCERY--(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
• C.A.SIDY V. CaFFORD.
In this case Mr. Bethell made an application for
an injunction to restrain the defendant from negn-
tinting a bill of exchange for 3,6941., dated JOY
24, 1841, before the month of July, 1842 ; ,
also to restrain the defendant from procuring e
fiat of bankruptcy to be issued against the plain'
tiff, by reason of his not having paid the said
bill previous to the time mentioned. It RP'
poured- that previous to the month of July, 1841,
there had been several money transactions between
the plaintiff, who was a clerk in a public office, and
the defendant, who was a surgeon, The defendant
had, it was stated, advanced to the pllik tiff from time tO
time certain sums, at an interest of 20 per cent. In the
month of July, 1841, the defendant had determined tO
bring those transactions to a close, and he then
sold to the defendant certain stock and railway shares
for the sum of 3,6941., which was made over to the plain'
tiff by a bill ofex change, payable in three months. Accord'
ing to the statements made for the defence it appeared that
the bill had beets given on condition that it should be
renewed from quarter to quarter, leaving the plaintiff
twelve months to meet the bill.
There being some doubt as to the nature of the agree'
meat between the parties, arid as to the interpretation to
be put upon the plaintiff's bill,
I [is HONoun said that before he came to any decision
he should reed over the bill, and he should then make
the order he should think fit.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF WARWICKSHIRE.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been instructed by
certain parishioners of Birmingham and Edgbaston to
apply to the Court for a rule to show cause why a writ
of certiorari should not issue, directed to the Justices of
Warwickshire, and commanding them to bring up a cer-
tain county-rate, made by them upon the town of Bir-
mingham, for the purpose of ascertaining its legality
The affidavits set out that under the provisions of th
Municipal Regulation Act, the sth and 6th of
IV., in the last clanse but one of that statute
her Majesty was pleased to grant a charter to the towll ,yfl
of Birmingham, and one of the consequences o f
that charter being grant©d was that the charges ,i)J
for :the town. were -immediately taken out of th°
county-rate, and contained a power of levying
berough-rata in the nature of that county-rate.
The town might be called upon to contribute to certain
expenses, but•there was a clause in the Act, which !1:2;
solutely exempted it from all liability to countr''
as such. Their Lordships were aware that a,doubt arose
as to whether the clause in the Act, enabling the Crow 11.!!
to grant such a Charier had or had not such ditliCulties
interposed in the way of such privileges conferred, quoad
hoc, as to render it unavailing. There- was a on- .;
culty in setting the Corporation in motion, and pending ,4
the doubts that existed, the rate-payers of 13iriningharn
were advised to pay the borough'-rate which was made
by the Town Council of Birmingham, after they had "111 waited a sufficient time to get the Charter into regular
operation. Their Lordships were probably aware that
the difficulty was, that the Municipal Regulation Act re-
quired that the choice of Magistrates of the Town Council
,y
was to take place at a certain
period of the year, under 4
the authority of a Mayor and certain assessors, and made
no provision for the appointment of these officers ininle"
diately. The Town Council existed until the regular
time had arrived which was required by the statute'
The difficulties and legal objections in the way of tl
borough rate, being made under such a Charter, it being
, admitted that the Charter was valid for all other Po'• ,;
poses, came under the discuision of the Judges in the.
ease of the Manchester Charter; and the majority of the
Judges, assembled in the Exchequer Chamber, were
of opinion that the Crown had the power to grant sunl:l,'Pi
a Charter. Upon that, the parish officers, who 11,,ar
been advised not to act under the clause of the
Municipal Regulation Act, were obliged to if;
quiesce in the decision of the majority of tile So
Judges, and to snake arrangements to pay 6,4
sums demanded under the authorityof the Chamber an •
the Act of Parliament, and they had done so, But nut' •
withstanding that, the County Afagistrates had, he Pre-
semed, under a notion:that the Charter was not valid,
that the House of Lords might disturb the decision of the
Exchequer Chamber,f thought fit to impose a county'
rate on the town, that was to say, in the county-rate
made they had included the towb of Birmingham.
Therefore, the inhabitants of Birmingham, in their re-
spective parishes, were liable to pay a double rate, ne,
madeby the Town Council, and the other by the Count,'
Magistrates. They had no means of bringing the clnef;
tion of the rate made by the Town-Council Wore thell
Lordships, and, indeed, they had acquiesced in it : and
the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber ,sie
correct, there could he little doubt upon the subject.
Lord DENMAN said it was clear the question was 0::
which .must be discussed. The certiorari might go
Le
bring up the order for making the rate, and then tuil
parties could show cause upon affidavits, setting forth au

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY).

IN THE MATTER OF FOWLER.
This case came before the Court upon petition, pray-
ing the confirmation of the Master's Export The luna-
tic,. who was the rector of Rampton, was entitled to the
tithes of that parish. The Commissioners under tlio
Tithe Commutation Act had offered the Committee of
the lunatic 3001. a-year in lieu of the tithes. Upon this
offer being made a reference was directed to the Master
to inquire whether it would be for the benefit of the lu-
natics' estate to accept that offer. The Master had re-
ported that it would, and the confirmation of that report
was the object of the present petition.
His LORDSHIP made the order as prayed. '•;1.1"1-
1
IN THE MATTER OF THE BERWICK JUNK, '79 'tit
In this case a fiat of bankruptcy had issued against au'
the partners in the Berwick bank, and that fiftt,;,had been
directed to the Bankrupt Commissioners ofid3crwiel"
There had, however, arisen the difficulty NNithrrespecilto
those Commissioners, that three of them were interestitd.
parties. Such being the case,
Mr. JAMES RUSSELL applied to-day for the appointr.'
ment of three Commissioners in their room.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not, for.tlifv:!
sake of one case alone, appoint three new Commissioner/Jo'
who would be perpetual. The parties must either ge
Newcastle, which was only 63 miles distant, or they`i
must apply to the Court of Review for a new. fiat, ch; "
rected to new Commissioners. There could be no doubt,
.
that the adoption of such a course would be both incon-
venient and expensive to the parties, but the Court .could
not help it. It was clear to his Lordship that the present-
system was bad, and must be altered.
WARD P. ALSAGER.
The further arguments in this case occupied the C 0,1411-
the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.) oi:,4°
ALLEN V. COSTER. ."01
Mr. ROGERs appeared for the petitioner, and,statigtel
that the petition prayed for payment of certain
held in trust for the petitioner. The petitioner was en'T'i
titled to a moiety of the principal, but in drawingup the +t
petition he (Mr. Rogers) had omitted to state it.. Tho 4
petition stated the will of the testatrix, by which. she
gave the sum of 6,600/. New Four per. Cents„ the
dends to be paid to George Allen and his .wife,. to be
applied by them to the maintenance of their two
.chiP:
dren, George Allen, the younger, and Elizabeth Allen•-'i
until the said Elizabeth Allen should have attained, the
age of 21 years, and at that period this fund ,
wa5,i4":13,1).'
distributed equally between them. His Lordshipryfß4A°
recollect that an- order was made in this case,,;olo"
pointing. Mr: Underwood as guardian to these, elAho'
dren. It appeared that the last dividend had, ,Ilfgral
been received in consequence of that -a.pplicatip#l'*4,4
99
From several orders made and obtained . in t
•
case, the fund had from time to time been reducea,'.t
and these costs had. been placed to the separate accounts
of these infants, and although the infant Elizabeth Allen
had had a large' amount placed to her account, still it
would be found to exceed by 201. only the account of her
brother, George Allen the younger. It appeared that
one sum of 170/. Bs. Id. was paid for the Costs of the el 3" -
plication to discharge this young man from his first ar
prenticeship, which application was granted, and in
consequence he 'was apprenticed to another master. It
appeared that this sum was placed to the separate 90-
count of the petitioner. Then there was another sum'
of 501. which was paid by Mr. Underwood to the former
master of the young man for his past maintenance, and
subsequently there was another sum of 35/., making
85/., placed to the separate account of George Allen• the
younger ; and 30/. was placed to the separate account of
Elizabeth Allen, making a difference of only 20/. Th°
only other sum is that of 210/, for the costs of inquiry
with reference to the marriage of Elizabeth Allen. when
an infant. These sums carried up, the result appeared,;?to be, that 2201. was carried to the separate ace ount
the brother, and 240/. to the separate account of the
sister, in point of fact making only the small difference of
2el. He (Mr. Roger) should therefore hope that his
Lordship would think that as each had received nearly
the same amount out of the fund, there might be properly
made an order for the reeeipt of the moiety of the whole
fund left to George Allen the younger.
His LORDSHIP asked upon what ground the order Was
to be made ? This was a case at which he looked with
the utmost possible anxiety. He had never seen a ease
Which so strongly called upon the Court. to refuse the
Payment of this moiety. On what ground was it to he
paid to this young man; for, according to the intention •
of the testatrix—which intention had been attempted by
certain parties to bo frustrated—it was that this 'moiety
should not be paid to this young man until his sister wad
of the age of twenty-one years, and then to be paid t°
him. Why should .it not still be paid to Mr. under-
wood ? His Lordship had become more intimately ac'
quainted with the circumstances of this case, and he felt
..
that protection should be given not only to the young
lady-but also-to the young man himself. He found hie;
out of employment, and diminishing the fund he had, and ,
living upon those who were striving all in their power '' ;
to cause him to live respectably.
Mr, ROGERS said he had discovered that it was the f
intention of all parties that he should.be placed in a re',
speetable house of business in London. _
His LORDSHIP said that was very desirable, in order
to rescue him from a connection which had been so cul-
pable with respect to hini. His Lordship would be very
glad to attend to anything for his benefit ; hut, in the
meantime, the income must be paid to Mi. Underwoo4,,
till after the,young man was of age. His Lordship could •
not help saying of Mr. Underwood, that-he Wad .nover
met any person in Whom he had more cause' for reliance.
Mr. ROGERS applied to his Lordship for an order for
Mr. Underwood to receive the unpaid dividend.
His LORDSHIP expressed his hope, that what was done
for him would be with the protection of the Court. ' Ile
should be sorry to cast the least imputation on any pe'
son, but he never saw a case which required •so much
protection. The order might be.made.