The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-04 00:00:00

1 WHEAT. 1 BARLEY. OATS. RYE. 1 DEANS. 1 PEAS.
PRICE .. 58s 2d 33s 2d 25s Od 35s 4d 41s 8d 453 10d
DUTY... y 142 Od 4s Od 3s ed 7s 6d Is Od Is ad

MARKET NEWS.-(THIS DAY.)
EMT IVIALIMUTS.
SMITHFIELD.—Meadow Hay, 31 lOs to 4/ ss; Clover
ditto, 4/ lOs to 5/ 15s; Straw, 1/ lOs to 1/ 14s per load.
Supply good, and trade dull.
CUMlStittLAND.—Meadow Hay, 3/ lOs to 4/ 16s ; Clover,
ditto, 4/ 5s to Si 15s; Straw, 11 103 to 1115 s per load. Trade
heavy, at the above quotations.
W it ITECRAPEL.—Itteadow Hay, 3/ 10s to 4/15s ; Clover, ditto
41 lOs to 61; straw, 1/ 105 to 11 14s per load.. A full average
supply, and a dull trade.
MEAT 111.A.MECISTEL
SouTHALL, DEC. 3.—Although the supplies of fat stock on
sale to-day were tolerably good, the general trade was firm,
on the following terms : Beef from 2s 8d to 4s 4d; Mutton,
3s 8d to 5s ; Veal, 4s to 4s 8d; and Pork, 4.3 to 4s 10d per
Blbp. to sink the offal.
ltamFono, DEC. 3.—We had a steady trade here to-day,
and prices were generally supported :—Beef from 2s 8d to
4s 4d; Mutton, 3e 6d to 5s ; Veal, 4s to 4s 8d; and Pork,
4s to 4s 8d per 81bs. Suckling Calves, 18s to 30s; Quarter-
old Store figs, 16s to 20s; and Mulch Cows, with their
small Calf, 161 to 191 each.
LEWES, DEC. 2.—Beef, from 3s 10d to 4s 6d ; Mutton,
4s to 5s ; Veal, 4s to As aid Pork, 3s 8d to 43 8d per
81bs. Supply moderate, and trade firm.
NZIXTGATE AND MEALIEWITAIM.
Prime Beef,' Mutton, and Pork sold freely at full prices.
In other kinds of meat very little was doing.—Beef, from
2s 8d to 3s 8d; Mutton, 3s 4d to 4s 6d; Veal, 3s 10d to
4s 10d; and Pork, 3s 10d to Sc 4d per Sibs.

CHANCEItY.--(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor is not yet sufficiently convalescent
:0 sit in his Court in the Old Hall, Lincoln's Inn.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Lord Langdale sat at ten o'clock.
CARR V. GILLESPIE.

Mr. KINDERSLEY applied on behalf of the defendant in this
cause that he might be allowed a commission to sue out wit-
nesses at the town of Brentford, in the province of Canada.
The facts were simply these :—A bill had been filed by two
irfants fur the recovery of property to which they were en-
titled by a settlement made by their father, Robert Carr, and
which consisted of some lots of land situated on the New
River in Canada. The property had been mortgaged by
Robert Carr to the defendant, who now held it in his posses-
sion. The bill of the plaintiffs alleged that a fraud had
been committed on their father, Robert Carr, in effecting the
mortgage, lot 2 of the land being substituted for lot 1, which
was inferior in value. It was contended by the defendant that
the mortgage was perfectly in conformity with the law of
Canada, and that the settlement was informal, not having
been registered. On the 11th of November defendant filed
his objections to the bill, and the plaintiffs obtained an order
for an enlargement of the application. The defendant stated
by affidavit that his object in making this application was to
bring matters to a speedy termination.
Mr. TURNER, on behalf of the plaintiffs, stated that they
had sent ovor to Canada for documents most important to
the understanding of the case, which it was expected were
now on their way to this country.
Lord LANGDALE considered that the motion should stand
over for the present.

JODDRELL V. JODDRELL.

Mr. KINDERSLEY applied on behalf of Sir Richard Jod-
drell, the defendant, for an order to stay all further pro-
ceedings in this cause until after the decision of the House
of Lords respecting his Lordship's order overruling the de-
murrer.

Lord LANGDALE.-If your client is ready to pay the money
into Court, according to the order, and you undertake that the
plaintiff shall be paid the money to which she is entitled by
the terms of the deed, I will make the order.

Mr. KINDHRSLEY consented, and no objection being made
on the part of the plaintiff, the rule was accordingly made.

VICE-CHANCERY..—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
This being the first seal after Michaelmas term, his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in his Court at Lincoln's-
inn, and took motions to-day.
PICKERING v. THORNTHWAITE.
This case stood on the paper to-day for judgment. It was
argued during the last term, upon a motion to dissolve an
injunction restraining the defendent from suing out a fiat of
bankruptcy against the plaintiff. Both parties are book-
sellers and publishers of eminence, the plaintiff carrying on
business in Piccadilly, and the defendant in Paternoster-row.
We refrained from giving any report of the case during the
arguments, on account of the serious and conflicting charges
made in the affidavits on both sides; and in justice to all
parties we think we cannot do better than give his Honour's
judgment fully.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND said, in giving judg-
ment to-day--Now, in this case I felt myself called upon,
before I ventured to dispose of it, deliberately to read and
consider not only the affidavits that had been made, but also
the correspondence that was partly brought forward by Mr.
Bethell when the case was argued, and also the correspon•
deuce that has been supplied since. I have not read the
original letters, but I have every one of the copies; those
letters don't appear to me materially to affect the case, any
further than generally to corroborate the case as made out
by the defendant; because it is apparent upon the face of
them, that' the mother and brother were implicated, in
the sence of having their own:property involved in the tran-
saction that took place between the plaintiff and the defen-
dant. And it also appears from the letters that various bill
transactions took place from time to time between the plain-
tiff awl the defendant, and that there was an account de-
pending between them. Now, the general nature of the case
is this :—ln the year 1810 the plaintiff and the de-
fendant became acquainted; in 1818 the defendant began
to assist the plaintiff, and in 1820 it seems, that
the assistance took this determined character—it wes an as-
sistance for the purpose of setting the plaintiff up in
business. These transactions went on till August, 1845.
The plaintiff representing that there were transactions be-
tween him and the defendant; and then he is pleased to
state in his first affidavit that in the month of September
last notice was given to him on the part of the defendant, of
a lemand in the shape of an account, which account he
characterises as fictitious and fraudulent, and not merely so,
but that it is made by the defendant and his solicitor, Mr.
Lawless. Now, that was a most startling proposition, and
ar, the same time, though I could not help feeling, upon ex-
amination, that such a large, general, and serious charge
nt ea -'fail, more or less, yet, I thought it my bounden
d aty,lfaying regard to the =dein which the Court always
e xercises its jurisdiction in granting injunctions ex
parte, to feel myself bound by the statement of the plaintiff,
however much I might look forward to the time when the
truth of that statement would be questioned. I therefore
felt it to be my duty, upon the statements of the plaintiff, to
grant the injunction, which is now sought to be set aside.
The plaintiff's affidavit is, in my opinion, made with some
sort of indistinctiveness, because, in it he refers to books that
he says were shown in March last, but what books they were
does not appear. Now, Mr. Lowless states in his affidavit,
and he is confirmed in that statement by the correspondence
between the solicitors both for the plaintiff and the defendant,
that after the accounts bad been prepared by the defendant
himself, they were submitted to Mr. Lowless, in order that
lie might check them with the vouchers, and Mr.Lowless swears
most distinctly, and he is not contradicted by the affidavit
made by the plaintiff, that he was no party to making out the
account, but that it was made out by the defendant himself,
and then submitted by Mr. Lowless for inspection, in order
that he might check it by the vouchers in the books. He
swears the account was genuine and correct. Now it struck
me, upon consideration, that the plaintiff must have used the
expressions, fictitious and fraudulent, in vague generality, be-
cause an account might be erroneous because there were mis-
takes iu it—because figures were mis-copied_because wrong
calculations were is it ; might be considered erroneous because
there were right calculations in it, and the inferences from
those calculations might not operate against the defendant..
It might, perhaps, be truly said, that one part of the trans-
action was barred by the Statute of Limitation, but that
would not have the effect of making accounts fictitious
or fraudulent ; and I cannot find out any facts
that show the account really was fictitious or fraudulent.
Mr. Lowless is no party to the cause, and in my opinion,
his character is as completely unsullied as if no such affidavit
had, been made as that upon which the plaintiff applied for
his injunction. Now, as to the defendant, Mr. Thornthwaite,
the allegation is that the account was made up by him and
Mr. Lowless, and that it was fictitious and fraudulent. Now
as to one Mr. Lowless— the story is absolutely false ; the
defendant represents that there were accounts kept from the
earliest time, and it appears from his joint affidavit and that
of Mr. Cooper, that the latter came to him as a
clerk and assistant ; that from 1833 to 1835 he actually
kept the account between the plaintiff and defendant ; and
that they were so is manifest from the plaintiff's own affi-
davit. There is not a single particle of evidence that I can
make out which is against the statement of Mr. Thorn-
thwaite, or that tends to show that there has been anything
fictitious in the account he has made out. His affidavit is
supported by that of Mr. Lowless, because he deposes to the
feet that, when the account was made out, he was employed
to advise upon it and check it. Mr. Thornthwaite's affidavit
positively denies the fact that the account was fictitious and
fraudulent; and I cannot conceive anything on the affidavit
in reply that removes that statement. It may be true that
when an account comes to be taken, that so large a balance
as that stated by the defendant way not be found to be due