The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-18 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY•.

IN RE STEWART—COLMAN V. STEWART. e
Mr. PEMBERTON applied to the Court for the dischar.go
of this defendant, he having been committed to pri.',ea
under the following circumstances :—A bill had been t,i'
in Chancery against him, to which he had neglecter
make any answer, and in consequence an ettachteeto
41,
was issued on the 11th of May, 1840. In June, 1S
the
he was served with a notice to enter an answer t© tip
bill within fourteen days from the date of the notice• `co
consequence of this the defendant caused an appearnuo
to be entered, and he was discharged from custody"
the ground that defendant ought never to have been. e°
mitted. He. (Mr. Pemberton), referred his Lordsail) 1.4
the case of Lewis r. Evans, which came before the D°.
Chancellor Cottenham lately, in which the defendant in
the case had been committed to prison for want of 40
pearance, but an appearance was entered subsequent, 1,
the attachment, and on that ground the Lord Chenc'ea
for discharged the prisoner. The appearance had bees
made in the present case, and the question was, could
defendant legally/be detained in custody.
His LORDSHIP said if the defendant had really' itro
peared, it would be his Lordship's duty to order liiin
put in his answer, and, if he had not appeared, thee,,,,
Lordship must order an appearance. When he first 1,
peered in Court he should have had an appearance ety
tered for him at that time ; and if he then paid
costs he would have been entitled to his discharge ;
in his neglect to pay the costs, he was properly e°,.
mitted to custody. The question now was, had he
hi
tered his appearance voluntarily, and it appeared to
that it was not, as he had entered his appearance in c°
sequence of a notice served upon him in the Fleet. 40
Mr. CRAIG, who opposed the defendant, said, that
defendant had not \ proceeded upon that notice, oho
called upon the defendant to enter an appearance Wit 0
fourteen days, and the appearance of the defendant w
entered two days after that notice had expired. 0..
His LORDSHIP said that' became a voluntary OP°
ance, and would be something to proceed upon. t,
Mr. PEMBERTON read the affidavit of the defenoi(
which stated that he believed, from that notice, the
lito
he did not enter an appearance, it would be prejudicif,
his interests, and he therefore entered an appears
within sixteen days after the date of the notice.
Mr. CRAlG—Therefore, that would be a voluntar,37 /4).
pearance.
His LORDSHIP said that the question was, whether
that notice was involuntary, if Mr. Pemberton rep
thought so, he would order his discharge. His Lorcl?r,;s
addressed the defendant, and asked him what wig
reason he had not made his answer to the bill ?
The defendant said he had not the means. ash
His LORDSHIP—COMB up to the table, and MO r $0
of that fact, and you shall have means to enable you
put in your answer.
Mr. PEMBERTON inquired if the defendant Was
charged ?
His LORDSHIP said he was sent back to the Fleet, 131
would remain there till the Master had inquired into,tor
means, and if they were found as he had stated, a soliclior
would be found for him, and every thing necessary
him to put in his answer to the bill.
LIEFE V. BISHOP OF LONDON.
_• Of
Mr. PEMBERTON stated that Mr. Liefe, a nantiler4,
Scotland, did, on 3d July, 1838, execute a deed ceo
ing to the forms of Scottish law, by which he collie
certain Scotch heritable bonds to certain trustees, Ora-
the year 1835 he executed a will according to thQAte•
lish law, by whieh Ate- deviseer-utte-reetd: Otis --ad
One-quarter he gave to the plaintiff -himself,
two-fourths to the Reverend the Dean of YCOt,": -
ster, the Bishop of London, and the Chairman and
4.,.a5t,
Chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company, upon "oh
that they should invest the same in the funds, in soi,
manner as they should think most desirable, the ttze
dends to be applied for the purpose of establishinPi rob
Christian religion, according to the Protestant t0,,,a
amongst the Indians in that part of North America 01.
Rupert's Land or the Hudson's Bay territory. The rents
ing one quarter of his estate to be divided amongst his.
sisters. It appeared t hat two trustees had declined t° tso
cept the trust. The plaintiff had also declined, but
air
Bishop of London, and the Chairman and Vice•Chopt
man of the Hudson's Bay Company, were willing to ac ro.
the trusts. A question would arise as to whether the Pa.
perty could be applied to the purposes named, but the
plication he (Mr. Pemberton) had to make was, that
tot
trustees should furnish the plaintiff with a full ace°
of all theproperties and monies of the deceased.
Id
After some discussion between the parties it was agl,
at
that the funds shpuld be applied as stated, provide", to
accounts were supplied to the plaintiff, and referred d,
the Master, in order that new trustees might be appoint

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY),
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
LORD STUART V. LORD WHARNCLIFFK. .0
This case came before the Court, upon excePti..o•
made on the part of Lord Wharncliffe to the Masters to
port, as to the sufficiency of his Lordship's answele.
certain interrogatories put to him by order of the Cli
It appeared that John Lord Bute, who died in
ao
year 1793, having willed his right in a eerlia7.o.•
colliery, and the debts due to him from the Ptbe
perty, the present Lord Stuart de Rothsay ~ita
residuary legatee. Lord Bute had but a t". of
shire of the property in questkon. The right
eb
the legatee under the will had been the subject of 0311 d,
legal discussion, but that right was ultimately confirtne
and in the year.lBlB a decree was granted, referring, 1.,
to the Master to take an accouut of the specified article
The colliery had in the mean time come into the Para;
sion of Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Ravensworth, and 7:A:
Bowles. By order of the Master, Lord Wharncliffe 117. i
in the year 1828, put in- answers to six interrogaterla,
relating to the accounts of the property at the dead
of' Lord Bute. The Master certified that the answe:.
ww
ee rr ee na
taken ffici
n to that
a tht
ats
ctoo artillfictahteei;ntaenrdrogasatotroies. the Es
execoenpdt
overruled. fop
interrogatories
og
aLordtori
elsVwhhairellheii fr
hadC 1:11
itnh ifrodr
taint
esrwaelriss,w tt
o•ot
answersto was
the
been previously answered to the satisfaction of the Coq,
.The Master, however, certified that the answers to'l4
last questions were insufficient, These answers were tot
effect that Lord Wharncliffe had applied to his partaeo'd
for permission to, examine the books,• but, as they ka
refused that permission; he could not furnish the acconPro,
required. Lord Wharncliffe excepted to the certinr.
of the Master declaring this answer insufficient.
His Hosfoun said that the answer of Lord Wharne'Ot.
did not appear to him to be sufficient. There wallow'
enough to show that his Lordship might not baVe'riolt
ceeded to examine the hooks without having at all trd,'
the permission of his co-partners.. He was, there-0,
of opinion that the examination was still insufficiellf-'_'
BURRIDGE V. ROW. '
This cause which came on for hearing onfurtber
tions and costs, engaged the Court the greater port
of the day, and was totally devoid of interest. • •
(Before Vice-Chancellor nucE.) • the.
Some motions of no interest were disposed of 01 .
early part of the morning. to,
His HONOUR then called the following gentlemen,
the Inner Bar, who took their seats accordingly gr.
Wilbraham, Mr. Mathews, Mr. Koe, Mr. Teed, am',
Lowndes.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.) ,
PERKINS V. BRADLEY.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause.
Perkins was possessed of a sum of 6751. Three-air
Half per Cent. Annuities. On the 13th of Febrnbr
1838, he mortgaged that stock to Henry 'BradlePtecl
the purpose of securing to him the sum of 2.5/., reel her
in the deed to have been then advanced, and flirted-
sums intended and expected to be advanced, not Weil".
ing 25/. It was admitted in the cause that 25/. was
fie
fee paid to Mr. Kelly for the purpose of defends
Henry Perkins on his trial for felony. On the 21st
orl
February in the same year, another mortgage W 54 et; ,
cuted by Henry Perkins, subject to the prior 01(:-;;;1
gage, to Henry Bradley, for the sum of 4281 the',
Two persons having put a distringas °novel
stock, proceedings were had in the Court of :cost
for the purpose of having it removed, and the resulttieg
that it was discharged. On the 7th of March a meesent 1,4
took place between the parties, at which were Pr the:ii
the defendant, Henry Bradley, and James Perkins!Aley,
father.of • the plaintiff: At that meeting. Henry 137 d, a
suggested that, the distringas having been remoseriso
letter should be written to Henry Perkins, thppenwienrio'f:at-r
at Cambridge, requesting him to execute a
torney enabling them to receive the stock. That Troll'
was executed, and on the 12th of March, 1838, oted
Bradley received the money. If the matters had r, be-
in that state, no difficulty at all would have arisen as the
tween the plaintiff and Henry Bradley. "libeing
14th •of March, however, Henry Bradley per
gone to Cambridge, obtained for Henry 00
kins another deed, by which he charged ale 'Coo
with a further sum not exceeding 100/. Another