The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-07 00:00:00

DISTRESS IN PAISLEY.

-
PAISLEY, MARCH 3.—(From a Correspondent. here.
with send a statement of expenditure of the Relief Committee
for the town of Paisley, fur the week ending 26th February,
1842; es also a return of the numbers of the .destitute who
received relief during the same period, adopted and ordered to
be printed by the General Relief Boird, at tbi. meeting held
in the County Hall, Paisley, on Monday, the 98th February,
1842. It tills appears that during the week the total expen-
diture wts 874.; the number of persons relieved in Paisley
14,747, and in other pert; of Renfrewshire 2,482—t0tal 17,229.
nay *lie interns you tko a fiery large county meeting is
now assembled(two o'cleel9; P. M. Stewart, Esq., M. P. for
Renfrewshire, in the Chair. They have agreed unanimously
to commence a subscription for our distressed operatives, on
the motion of 'Sir William M. Napier, Bert.,"sOcopdAliy
• J3lantyre.
•

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, March 5.
The Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn Hall to-day. His
Lordship, after disposing of several lunatic petitions, pro-
ceeded with the further arguments in the part-heard case " In
the matter of Derham," which occupied the Court the whole day.
The Lord Chancellor wilt sit in this Court on Monday (thi.
day), Tuesday, Wednesday, and Saturday, and in the House of'
Lords on Thursday and Friday.

ROLLS' COURT, March 5.
THE ATTORNEY-CENEREL v. HERON.
This was an information filed on behalf of a charity,
which had been founded about a century ago by Lady
Thorold. That lady had been possessed of a consi-
derable estate in Lincolnshire which she devised to
certain trustees upon trust for the support of a num-
ber of schoolmasters. All the trustees had died, and no new
ones having been appointed, it appeared that the guardians of
the present Sir John Thorold, who was a minor, supposed
they had a right to appoint trustees of the charity,
Those trustees made certain payments for the benefit of the
schoolmasters, and considered the re,t of the property as be-
longing to the family of the Thorolds. 'I his appointment
of stees was invalid, and the present application was to ob-
tain a reference to the Master to have an account against the
trustees of what they had received, and to have new trustees
appointed.

\lr. PEMBERTON appeared on behalf of the charity.
Mr. WHITE, Who appeared for the defendants, stated that the
present Sir John Thorold had attained his majority, and could
of course appoint trustees of himself.
Lord LANGDALE decreed a reference to the Master, ac-
cording to the prayer of the bill, with liberty to Sir J. Tho-
rold to re-appoint, with the approbation of the 31aster, the
same persons, or any others, as trustees.

ATTORNEY- GENERAL V. VINCENT.
The information in this cause was filed against the defendant,
as owner of certain property in Newbury, and the object of it
was to have the lease of a house there in his possession cancelled.
The corporation of Newbury, who were the plaintiffs, being
trustees of the house in question, the rents of which were ap-
plicable to the service of the poor, granted in the year 1755 a
lease of it for the term of 999 years to a man named Budd, at a
arly rent of 151., he covenanting to lay out 1501. on it in
improvements. The real intention of the lessors was to grant
a term of 99 years, and the figures 999 were inserted in the
lease by mistake. The defendant Vincent, in whom the
house had now become vested, stated that considerable sums
had been expended in the improvement of the premises by the
person under whose title he now c:aimed, and refused to give
up the lease.

IPE3IBERTdN, who attended for the plaintiffs, stated
that they proposed to let the defendant hold the lease till the
year 1854, that was a period of 99 years from its date, and
then that they should, get posse•sion of the premises. It was
evident that by the defendant's acceding to that proposal jus-
tice would be done to all parties, as nothing could be more im-
probable than that a lease would be granted on such conditions,
as those alleged, for so long a term of years.
Mr. KINDERSLET, who appeared for the defendant, said he
was not instructed to accept of the proposal made at the other
end of the table; however, until his client could be consulted
on the matter, he had no objection that the case should stand
over for some time.

It Has then agreed, with the concurrence of the Court, that
the case should be postponed for a week.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, March 5.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND. )
BRYDOKS V. BRANFILL.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied the
Court the whole day.
( Before Vice- Chancellor BRUCE. )
No case of public importance was heard in this Court.
( Before Vice-Chancellor WIG RAM.)
BULTEEL V. LORD ABINGER.
In this case Counsel addressed the Court yesterday for Sir
Edmund and Mr. Benjamin Currie.
'the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on behalf of the defendant, said
the suit had been instituted without any expectation of ob-
taining a decree for specific performance. Its real object had
been to force Lord Abinger to sign the contract by the threat of
a suit, and by the insinuation of partial conduct towards his son.
He contended that the letter of the 23d of July did not convey
authority to sell to Mr. Bulteel ; it merely stated that "consider-
ing my connexion with the proposed purchaser ( Mr.R. Scarlett),
so far as he is concerned, I shall take no steps to assist
him in the purchase." The contemporaneous letters supported
that view. The contract of the 30th of July was repudiated by
Lord Abinger, before it was signed by the two other trustees;
and Mr. Bulteel being avvar: of that fact, ought to bear the costs
of the suit.
Mr. SIMPEINSON and Mr. ELMSLEY were heard this morn-
ing on the same side.