The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, OCT. O.
WINTER V. LORD ANSON.
The question in this case.was, whether the vender
of an estate retained a lieu upon it for part of the
purchase-money which continued unpaid, under the
following circumstances. One Moseley entered into
a contract for the sale to Winter of certain lands
upon specific terms. The contract was afterivards
completed, and a conveyance made to Winter, in
which the purchase, amounting to 1,4801. was stated
to have been paid. This statement, however, was
incorrect; only 4801. were actually paid, and 'the
remaining 1,0001. was secured to the vender by the
bond of the vendee, payable 12 months after the
death of the vendee. Upon this arrangement the
' vendee was let into possession, which he continued
to enjoy until 1817, when he became bankrupt: His
assignees then sold the estate to Lord Anson, agree-
ing that he should retain in his hands 1,2001., part
of the purchase-money, as an indemnity against any
claim that might be made by the vender or his
representatives. The vendee died, and the bond
became payable; the assignees resisted the pay-
ment on the ground of the bankruptcy; and
on behalf of the vender, it was alleged that
the bankruptcy could not controul his lien on
the estate. It was, his Lordship said, a general
principle of equity, that a vender had a lien on the
estate he sold for the amount of the purchase-money,
or such part of it as remained unpaid. The plaintiff
in this case had done nothing, as it appeared to him,
to wave that right. There was nothing either in the
transaction itself or in the instruments, which ought
to deprive him of the payment of the purchase-
money, and the circumstance of his having agreed to
postpone it until after the vendee's death did not
alter this view of the case. His Lordship therefore
decreed that the defendant, who stood in the shoes
of the vendee, (and it was upon this point that he
decided the case), should be decreed to pay the sum
reserved.

nq ILE CHAMBERS, A BAVERLIPT.

Mr. HORNE appeared in support of a petition pre-
sented by De Begnis, of the Italian Theatre, who
stated that he was a creditor under this commission,
and that the assignees proposed to open the theatre
on their own account. To this, as it would of ne-
cessity postpone the period at which a dividend
might be declared, he objected. It was intended
also, he understood, to open much earlier than usual,
and therefore this application was made at the first
opportunity that occurred.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought there was no
reason for taking the petition out of its due course.
He intended to proceed with the bankrupt petitions
immediately. The present petition was, therefore,
ordered to stand over.

IN RR SUMMERSETT.

Mr. ROSH applied for an order, that a second
commission might be ordered in this matter, and di-
rected to other commissioners. The commissioners,
before whom the matter had already been, thought
there was not sufficient evidence of trading to justify
them in adjudging the bankruptcy. The petitioning
creditor was desirous of taking the opinion of other
commissioners. The Counsel argued that a commis-
sion was a writ which any creditor had a right to
sue out, and which this petitioner might do, but for
an order of the Court, which directed as a matter of
practice that the same creditor should not issue a
second commission while a former one remained un-
disposed of. After some conversation with the
Lord Chancellor, the second commission was di-
rected.

It was reported that Sir Anthony Hart had se
out this morning on his journey to Ireland.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCR. SO.

BAGLEY V. R. DOWNIE, ESQ., }LP., AND OTHERS.
This was an action in which the plaintiff sought
to recover 1051. 15s. for his work and labour as a
reporter for the British Press.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that of this sum
421. was for the arrears of salary, and 161. 10s. was
for travelling expences, and the remainder, 45
guineas, was for salary, at five guineas a week, from
the time when the paper was discontinued up to the
termination of the year of the plaintiff's engagement,
which was a yearly one.
Mr. Robert Cannon was called, but Lord TEN-
TEIWKN said, that as there were so many defendants
(there being no less than eleven), the moot proper
course would be first to prove the proprietorship of
all the defendants.

Messrs. Cannon, Evans, and Haines, the publisher
and editors of the paper, were accordingly examined
on this point, arid proved, that Messrs. Downie,
Bolton, Hoggart, M'Killup, Goodrich, Richard
Winstanley, M'Donnell, and Sedgwick, (which two
last had suffered judgment by default) were pro-
prietors, but that there was no evidence to show the
proprietorship of James and John Strange Winstan-
ley, who were also defendants, upon which
Lord TENTBRDEN directed the plaintiff to be
called.—Nonsuit accordingly.
[ln this case we were given to understand that
an action had been brought in the first instance
against three of the present defendants, who put in
a plea of abatement, stating that they were jointly
liable with the other defendants. The plea in abate-
ment must declare on oath the names of the other
partners who are legally responsible, in common
with the party making the declaration. The action
is then brought agaiUst all the parties, but the plea
in abatement being only proof against the individual
making it, it devolves on the plaintiff to adduce evi-
dence that the other defendants are joint proprietors;
and, consequently, legally responsible for the en-
gagements of the partnership. In the present case,
the plaintiff failing in his attetx►pt to adduce legal
evidence that John Strange Winstanley and .James
Winstanley, whose names were necessarily included
in the declaration, were proprietors of the, Journal
in question, he was nonsuited.]

BROWN V. RICHARD VAUL JODRBLL, ESQ.
This was an action to recover 1261. for work and
labour.—Verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages 1261.

It AY L. WILLS AND ♦ERBELF.

This was an action for tavern bill. Mr. TAL-
POURD opened the pleadings, and Mr. C. PHILLIPS
stated the case. The plaintiff (Mr. Kay) was the
proprietor of the Albion Tavern, Aldersgate-street,
and was, as probably several of the jury knew, a
most respectable man. The defendant John Wilks,
was also a person of whom the jury had probably
heard before. When the debt was incurred, he and
the other defendant, Mr. Verbeke, were in partner-
ship together, in the business of attornies. In one
of the various public schemes which Mr. Wilks's
genius originated, the present action had also its
origin ; for in order to celebrate either the birth or
the anniversary of one of those schemes, the defen-
dants called upon the plaintiff and ordered a dinner
for 74gentlernen, in which they gave particular direc-
tions that no expense should be spared. In the plan
for this dinner Mr. Wilks certainly struck out an
original scheme, for he ordered pink cards to be
prepared, and a map of the tables, with the places
where the guests were to sit marked in numbers
upon it, and to each guest, on his entrance, a ticket,
with a corresponding number, was given; on pro-
ducing which, he was immediately shown to his
seat, where he had nothing to do but to realize the
scheme laid before him. The bill was certainly
large; but when the Jury considered the order that
was given, and when they were told what was
placed upon the table, they would not deem it un-
reasonable. The dinner began with mock-turtle—
there was a crusade of larks, and an innumerable
quantity of other dishes, the whole ending with , a
cabinet pudding, intended, no doubt, to represent
the place where Mr. Wilke proposed that he should
end his schemes. No less a quantity than 116
bottles of the best wines the Continent could pr:+-
duce were drank upon the occasion, a band of music
was in attendance, and
.there was a superabundan4
of all delicacies. The dinner, as might be ex
, pected, went off extremely well, and Mr. Wilks
and all his guests left the tavern delighted ; tie
pleasure of the latter, he hoped had experiencid
no drawback, but Mr. Wilks's delight ceased whlgn
the day of reckoning %pie. Tho bill was deliver d,

'
and a proposal made to pay by long bills, viPic,
would fall due much about the time that the prel
Parliament would terminate; but the plaintiff,
ing he had waited long enough, brought his actl
in which Mr. Wilke pleaded that he was a Malty
of Parliament, and ought not to be sued in to
same manner in which other attornies were U
pay their debts. His plea was, however, overr,,j
William Whitelock, the plaintiff's clerk, exalu",
by Mr. TALFOURD, proved, that the defendantsi
ca
to the Albion, and ordered the dinner. Sevet
one persons 'dined. Nothing was said about Ix
peace, but the order was, that the dinner sbouldo,
provided
wedais handsomestontnheole2lstof
January,
mannerlr3o2s6.si bleihe
dinner
was 252/. 15s. stc
The defendant's Counsel said a few words/
.which a verdict was taken by consent for the am"