The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CLIANCERY. Jan. 21.
WARD V. ALSAGER.
TheSolicitor-General concluded his reply in this case
Am', and the Lord Chancellor postponed his judgment.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 21.
WILSON V. TUNSTALL.

The further arguments in this case were resumed this
morning.
His LORDBIIIP, in giving his opinion upon this case,
after recapitulating the circumstances, said that although
there might be a breach of the injunction, yet it did not
follow that he must commit the'defendant for that breach.
That Court had as much regard as
.any Court in the
kingdom to the liberty of the subject, and it had also re-
gard to the feelings of the subject, and was slow in ink-
posing any sort of hardship. It was admitted by the
Learned Counsel for the defendant that he had the
oil in question for the same purpose as , that for'
• which it had been used by the plaintiff, and his
Lordship then felt, from what ned appeared in the de-
fendant's affidavits, that he determined still to do so. He
would not state his opinion then as_ to whether there had
been a breach of the injunction, but give time to the
defendant, in order that he might make further affida- j
vits as to what he intended to do hereafter. He would '
therefore wish this case to stand over till next term,, in
order to give the defendant time to make such affidavits,
and his Lordship would then he better able to judge of
the case.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 21.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
COCKBURN V. RAPHAEL.

'This case came before the Court' on a petition put in
by the defendant, Mr. Alexander Raphael, praying that
it might be referred to the Master to take an account of
the funds oft a oertain charity, and that the funds of the
charity might be administered in this country, and
placed under the jurisdiction of this Court.
It appeared that Mr. John Raphael, the father of the
petitioner, a 'Roman Catholic, but of Jewish origin,
had died in India, and left by his will a certain fund,
which • was to be devoted to the establishment
of a school, or schools for educating Armenian
youths in the Roman Catholic religion. By a
former decree of the Court of Chancery, it was or-
dered, in conformity with a report of the Master, that
the principal school should be established at Venice, as
being the place best suited for carrying into effect the
objects of the charity. A school was consequently es-
tablished in that city of the description con-
templated by the testator ; and it was conducted
by the abbot and monks of St. Lazarus. The'present
petitioner had got a power of attorney to receive the
funds from the Accountant-General, which he after-
wards transmitted to the monks, for whom he acted as
agent in, this,country. The petitioner after some time
thought he bad reason to suspect that these funds
had been improperly administered ; and he complained
in particular that the monks had given no account of
certain sums transmitted by them to Constantinople. It
was on these accounts that he had come to the Court with
the present application. It was stated on the other hand
for the defence that the sums transmitted to Constanti-
nople were devoteh to the maintenance of a branch-school
established in that city. Accounts were also put in for
the purpose of showing that the funds had been admi-
nistered with the greatest possible economy. A further
objection. was taken to the application of the petitioner,
on the ground that the Court could not interfere with the
administrator of a charity established by a former order
of the Court of Chancery in a foreign country.
The case had not been brought to a conclusion at the
rising of the Court, and the further arguments were post-
poned till to-morrow.-

(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
RUSSELL V. BUCHANAN.

In this cause the plaintiffs were Mrs. E. S. Russell,
the testator's widow, and her five infant children, who
were beneficially interested under the settlement executed
on the marriage of Mrs. Russell with her husband. The
defendants, Buchanan and Nicolls, were the trustees un-
der the settlement.

Mr. WIGRAM, for the plaintiffs stated that the bill
rayed that a dividend of 168 L which had been received
by the defendant Buchanan, should be paid into Court,
and that the interest thereon, together with that of
the sum of 10,0001., the trust-fund now stand
ing to the credit of the Accountant-General'
in Court should be paid to the plaintiffs, who claimed to
be entitled thereto according to the provisions of the
truct-deed.

Mr. COOPER, who appeared for the defendant Bu-
chanan, admitted the receipt of the dividend by his
client, but' stated that' certain sums of money.
were • due to him by the. plaintiff. Mrs. Rtts-
sell, whose brother he was, and 'for whom he
had transacted business in the capacity of solicitor; and
those bills of costs he put as a set off against the divi-
dends- received.

His llosoua decreed a reference to the Master, to
inquire whether there was any debt due from
one party to the other; in respect of the matters men-
tioned at either side—the payments of the dividends to
be made to the widow until further order of the Court—
and the Master to take whatever accounts might be found
necessary between the parties, and to state special cir-
cumstances.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WICRAM.)

WILKINSON V. PAGE.

This case stood over from yesterday. It was a motion
and cross-motion, to set aside an award made by Mr.
Sergeant Goulburn, in reference to matters in dispute
between the parties, who had been in partnership for a
' short time as attorneys. The following are the facts of
the case:--The City Solicitor, Mr. Pearson, on his ap-
pointment to that office, sold one-half share in the firm
in which he was a partner to the defendant, Mr. Page, for
1,5001. ; 750 L was paid at the time, and a bill of ex-
change given for the remainder. Disagreements sub-
' sequently arose between Mr. Williamson and Mr. Page ;
the-former complaining that Mr. Page had incorrectly
represented himselfas notary public, and the latter that
the profits accruing- from the business, had been repre-
sented to him as 1,500/. a year, whereas, in truth, they
did not amount to more than half that sum. A billwas filed
by Mr. Williamson for the dissolution of partnership, which
by the articles was to continue ten years. The defend-
ant,.in his answer, insisted that fraud and deception had
been practised upon him, and the parties agreed to refer
the matter to arbitration.. The arbitrator awarded that
Mr: Wilkinson should pay Mr. Page 7001. on the Ist of
January instant. Mr. Wilkinson moved to set aside
the award,. on 'the ground that the sum in question was
a matter of account, and that the matters referred to the
arbitrator had been left untouched.

Mr. Sharp and Mr. Anderson appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Wood for the defendant.
The. hearing was concluded this morning, but his
Hoxoutt.deferred his judgment. .

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH, Jan. 21.
WATERS V. THE EARL OF TIIANET.

The'Cotriu gave judgment in this case, which was an
action upon two bills of exchange drawn in 1801 at
three months' date, and accepted by the defendant. Pre-
viously- to the bills. becoming due. the defendant
gave a written promise to the plaintiff to pay the bills
when he was of ability to do so, and in consideration
of not ,being then pressed for payment, undertook riot to
avail himself of the statute of, limitations. In 1835 .the
defendant succeeded to-the title and estates of the Earl
of Thanet, but the plaintiff being_abroad, was not made
aware of it for seven or eight years afterwards. At
the trial the defendant pleaded the statute of limita-
tions, and the Jury found a verdict, for
,the plaintiff for
the amount claimed. A rule for. a nonsuit was
subsequently obtained on' the ground that the statute of.
limitations began to run from the time the defendant was
of ability to pay. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff,
that the right of action did not accrue until a demand
was made. The defendant in the present case was of
ability to pay in 1825, • but it was argued that the
plaintiff did not know of it till within six years
before the action was brought. As a general rule,
it might be assumed that the knowledge of a debtor's
ability was locked up in his own breast ; but there was
generally; some evidence from outward appearances
which would lead the creditor to infer his circumstances.
Where a debtor promised to pay when able, the cre-
ditor must be supposed to be on the watch.
The period, however, from which that must be com-
puted was. the time when the fact took place, and not
the time when the creditor became acquainted with it.
For theserreasons the Court was of opinion that the de-
fendant was entitled to the nonsuit claimed by him on
account of the action not being brought before the ex-
piration of six years after the defendant became of ability
to pay.—Judgment for the defendant.

GREEN v. MURRAY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
the sum of 6001., being the value of a Metropolitan Wood
Paving Share. The ease was tried before Lord Denman
at the sittings after last term, and the plaintiff nonsuited
on the ground that no demand had been made by the
plaintiff before bringing his action. A rule to set aside
the nonsuit and for a new trial was subsequently obtained
by Mr. Warren, on the ground that no previous demand
was necessary in a case like the present.
The COURT was of
_opinion that the duty cast upon
the defendant, was not like the duty cast upon a person
to pay a sum of money, for that was what all persons
ought to do when indebted. It might be extremely in-
convenient to transfer a share, or other matter of that
description, at any time, and the demand was, in the
opinion of the Court, a necessary part of the • plaintiff's
case. In the present case; the demand was not for the
transfer of the share, but for the payment of its value in
money, in consequence of its being sold. The rule,
therefore, for a new trial must be discharged.

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.--HINTON V. DIBBIN AND

OTHERS.

The COURT also gave.judgment in this case. It was
an action brought to recover the value of a quantity of
silk which had been entrusted to the defendants, as
common carriers for hire, and which had been lost by
their - negligence. The plea was that the defendants
%ere carriers after the passing of the Act Ist Wil. IV.
C. 68, and that, in pursuance of the provisions of that
Act, they had caused a public notice to be affixed in
their office, that certain excepted goods therein enume-
rated, being above the value of IN., should pay an in-
creased rate of carriage—that the silk in question was
one of these excepted articles, was above the value of
101., and that there was no engagement to pay the in-
creased charge. In the replication it was stated that the
defendants, as common carriers, had been guilty of gross
negligence. To that there was a rejoinder that the
goods had been delivered by the defendants to their ser-
vants in the ordinary.course of business, and that they
had been lost by their servants while under their care,
and negativing any want of care on the part of the de-
fendants. To that the plaintiff had demurred. The
question in the case was; whether, since the passing of
the Act Will. IV., carriers were liable for goods lost
from gross negligence on their part without notice and
without payment of the increased rate having been
made. In the declaration the expression was misfea-
[ sance, but that was dropped in the re7-:leation, and negli-
gence' substituted. In deciding upon the present -case,