The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-16 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
. .

The Court was engaged during the greater portion of
the day in hearing unopposed petitions. These were
for the most part praying for the payment of certain
moneys in Court to the credit of different causes—an
arrangement having been made between the litigants
for receivers to be relievel from liabilities, having com-
plied with the necessary orders of the Court, and for
guardians to be exempted from their duties, their wards
having attained their_majority. These cases were of
interest only to the parties concerned.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took
motions to-day. The Court was occupied the
whole of the morning with a motion for an
injunction in the case of the Duke of Beaufort v. Sir
John Morris, to restrain the defendant from working
a coal mine in Glamorganshire, of which he was
lessee, and the noble plaintiff, the lessor, so as to cause
the adjoining mine to be flooded with water.
The application appears likely to occupy the Court
for a day or two.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN.)

-
Several cases were disposed of during the morning,
which were not of the least public interest. Amongst
them was a case of a bill of exchange for 231. ss. The
plaintiffs were Baker and Williams, and the case was
undefended.—Verdict for the plaintiff's.

WHITE AND SOUTHY V. BAINBY.

This was an action for breach of certain covenants in
a marriage settlement. It appeared by the statement of
the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff,
who was a solicitor, and the defendant, who held some
situation in the Customs, had been married to two sisters.
gr. Southy and the plaintiff become trustees to the
marriage settlement of Mr. White. Defendant got
married in the year 1838, and at that time he was in
possession of a property, half of which was mortgaged for
5001., which sum the defendant agreed to pay the plain-
tiff within five years, and the deed contained a covenant
to that effect. The plaintiff now alleged that there
were two breaches of covenant ; the one, that the de •
fendant had failed to pay the 5001. within the flveyears ;
and the other, that he had not executed a further assu-
rance at his own expense, but sought to cast the expense
of the whole upon the trustees of the plaintiff. These
were circumstances which he (the Learned
Counsel) would not now further allude to ; but they
were such as compelled the trustees to act with great
caution, and to that end they put the matter in the hands
of Mr. Edwards. Defendant alleged that he offered to
pay the money into the Funds, to which the plaintiff' was
willing to accede, provided the defendant would hold
himself liable to the consequence of the fluctuation in
the Funds. The money was so paid ; but when the
stock was sold, the Funds were low, and defendant re-
fused to pay the difference.
Mr. Edwards corroborated Counters statement.

One other witness only was examined on behalf of
the plaintiff, to show what was the practice of the Courts
in reference to the mode of making conveyances, and the
plaintiff's case closed.
CourisEr. for the defendant contended that the decla-
ration had incorrectly left out the covenants, and upon
those variances his client was entitled to a verdict. He
also raised several other technical objections.
The COURT recommended that the case should be set-
tled out of Court, which was not acceded to.

The jury found for the plaintiff, for the damage con
tained in the declaration, subject to a deduction of a sum
alleged to have been paid after the action had com-
menced.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius in London before the LORD CRIEF

BARON and a Common Jury.)

TAPPING V. RUSSELL-HOW THE THAMES RAVEN AND

SOUTHEND RAILWAY WAS GOT UP.

This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff, a
stndFnt at law, to recover 2801. upon an account stated,
to which the defendant, who was an attorney and soli-
citor, had pleaded that he was never indebted.

Mr. Jervis and Mr. Lee appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. Boven, for the
defendant.

The action was founded upon an T 0 U for 2801.,
which was given by the defendant fur money lent and
advanced to him by the plaintiff. It would appear that
Mr. Russell was the promoter of the Thames Junction
and Southend Railway, which was proposed to run from
Southend to join one of the main lines passing through
Essex to the metropolis, but the project met with little
or no support at the hands of the public, and the Company
organised by the defendant for carrying it out was
ultimately broken up. The plaintiff's father and
several of his friends were induced by the defendant,
and Mr. Thomas Tapping, the plaintiff's brother, who
was formerly a special pleader, but who has recently
been called to the bar, to allow their names to be placed
on the Provisional Committee of the proposed railway ;
but it was upon the express understanding
.that Mr.
Russell was to bear all preliminary expenses incurred
previously to the issuing of the letters of allotment. Mr,