The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-19 00:00:00

that notice was involuntary, if Mr. Pemberton really
thought so, he would order his discharge. His Lordship
addressed the defendant, and asked him what was the
reason he had not made his answer to the bill ?
The defendant said he had not the means.
His LORDSHIP—Come up to the table, and make oath
of that fact, and you, shall have means to enable you to
put in your answer.
Mr. PEMBERTON inquired if the defendant was dis-
charged ?
His LORDSHIP said he ias sent back to the Fleet. and
would remain there till the Master had inquired into his
means, and if they were found as he had stated, a solicitor
would be found for him, and every thing necessary for
him to put in his answer to the bill.
LIEFE V. BISHOP OF LONDON.
Mr. PEMBERTON stated that Mr. Liefe, a native of
Scotland, did, on 3d July, 1838, execute a deed accord-
ing to the forms of Scottish law, by which he conveyed
certain Scotch heritable bonds to certain trustees, and in
the year 1835 he executed a will according to the Eng-
lish law, by which he devised the residue of his estate.
One-quarter he gave to the plaintiff himself, and
two-fourths to the Reverend the Dean of Westmin-
ster, the Bishop of London, and the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company, upon trust,
that they should invest the same in the funds, in such
manner as they should think most desirable, the divi-
dends to be applied for the purpose of establishing the
Christian religion, according to the Protestant form,
amongst the Indians in that ►art of North America called
Rupert's Land or the Hudson's Bay territory. The remain-
ing one quarter of his estate to be divided amongst his five
sisters. It appeared that two trustees had declined to ac-
cept the trust. The plaintiff had also declined, but the
Bishop of London, and the Chairman and Vice-Chair-
man of the Hudson's Bay Company, were willing to accept
the trusts. A question would arise as to whether the pro-
perty could be applied to the purposes named, but the ap-
plication he (Mr. Pemberton) had to make was, that the
trustees should furnish the plaintiff with a full account
of all the properties and monies of the deceased.
After some discus:i ml between the parties it was agreed
that the funds should be applied as stated, provided all
accounts were supplied to the plaintiff, and referred to
the Master, in order that new trustees might be appointed.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 18.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
LORD STUART V. LORD WHARNCLIFFE.

This case came ' befiffre the Court, upon exceptions
made on the part of Lord Wharncliffe to the Master's re-
port, as to the sufficiency of his Lordship's answers to
certain interrogatories put to him by order of the Court.
It appeared that John Lord Bute, who died in tho
year 1793, having willed his right in a certain
colliery, and the debts due to him from the pro-
perty, the present Lord Stuart de Rothsay was the
residuary legatee. Lord Bute had but a third
share of the property in question. The right of
the legatee under the will had been the subject of much
legal discussion, but that right was ultimately confirmed,
and in the year 1818 a decree was granted, referring it
to the Master to take an account of the specified articles.
The colliery had in the mean time come into the posses-
sion of Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Ravensworth, and Mr.
Bowles. By order of the Master, Lord Wharncliffe had,
in the year 1828, put in answers to six interrogatories
relating to the accounts of the property at the death
of Lord Bute. The Master certified that the answers
were insufficient as to all the interrogatories. Exceptions
were taken to that certificate; and as to the second and
third answers, it was overruled. Lord Wharncliffe put
in further answers to the interrogatories which had not
been previously answered to the satisfaction of the Court.
The Master, however, certified that the answers to the
last questions were insufficient. These answers were to the
effect that Lord Wharncliffe had applied to his partners
for permission to examine the books, but, as they had
refused that permission, he could not furnish the accounts
required. Lord Wharncliffe excepted to the certificate
of the Master declaring this answer insufficient.
His HONOUR said that the answer of Lord Wharncliffe
did not appear to him to be sufficient. There was not
enough to show that his Lordship might not have pro-
ceeded to examine the books without having at all asked
the permission of his co-partners. He was, therefore,
of opinion that the examine eon was still insufficient.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
Some motions of no interest were disposed of in the
early part of the morning.
His HONOUR then called the following gentlemen to
the Inner Bar, who took their seats accordingly :—Mr.
Wilbraham, Mr. Mathews, Mr. Koe, Mr. Teed, and Mr.
Lowndes.