The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-12 00:00:00

The Marquis and Marchioness of Waterford have
arrived at Rockwell, the Noble Marquis's hunting-
lodge, Caber, from Curraghmore.
The Marquis and Marchioness of Abercorn arrived
at Baron's-court, the family seat, in the county Tyrone,
on Wednesday last.
The Earl and Counteis of Beverley are expected to
pass the winter at Richmond.
The Earl and Countess of Cardigan are receiving a
succession of visitors at Deene Park, Northamp-
tonshire. _ .

The Earl and Countess of Granville have arrived at
Rome from Florence. _ .

The Earl and Countess of Grosvenor arrived in
Grosvenor-square on Saturday evening.
The Count and Countess D'Harcourt arrived at
Manchester House on Friday evening, from Paris.
The Countess de Salis has arrived in Paris after a
lengthened residence in Italy.
The Earl of Caledon has arrived from Canada, where
his Lordship has been nearly three years with his re-
giment, the Coldstream Guards.
litusenzagan ECITTS.

The rate-payers of the county of Worcester are ar-
ranging a determined opposition to the rural police
force. Petitions are preparing in various parts of the
county for presentation at thQ forthcoming Epiphany
sessions. _ _

The Court of Delegates, Dublin, have decided on
the validity of the election of the Rev. Mr. Daly
against the appeal of the Rev. Dr. Wilson.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at eleven
o'clock ; he was engaged throughout the day in hear-
ing appeals.

JONES V. SMITH.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Vice-
Chancellor in the Court below, which was partly
heard on Saturday. The question involved in the
appeal was, whether or not a purchaser was entitled
to the protection of the Court, on the ground of
ignorance, he having had the opportunity of inspect-
ing a document connected with the purchase, and re-
fused to examine it.

Mr.• TURNER was heard against the appeal.
Mr. BETHEL, in support of the appeal, contended
that a Court of I;quity would protect a purchaser ac-
tually ignorant of the circumstances of the case,
where that ignorance was not the result of fraud, but
the practice of the Court was not confined to such
cases. It must be shown that the ignorance was
neither the result of fraud nor of a want of caution.
The fault of the judgment was that it narrowed the
general proposition of the Court, to the proposition
that ruled the case immediately before it.
His LORDSHIP reserved his judgment.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

JUDGMENT.-COTHAM V. WEST.

Lord LAWGDALE gave judgment in this cause this
morning. The case came before the Court upon ex-
ceptions to the Master's report. In the year 1818 or
1819, the plaintiff, who was then an infant, became
entitled by the death of his father, a tenant in tail to
an estate of the value of about 9511. a year. This
estate was vested in James Underhill West and
Thomas West, the trustees appointed under the will
of the plaintiff's father, Laurence Cotham. On the
15th of November, 1836, an account was directed by
the Court to be taken of the rents and profits of the
estates received by the trustees, and of the application
of these rents, and also to ascertain whether certain
sums of money were properly expended on improve-
ments, &c. •By a subsequent order the Master was
directed to inquire whether any and what sums had been
properly paid and expended by James Underhill West
and Thomas West to the plaintiff's mother, for his
maintenance, education, and support. Since the death
of his father certain sums which had been claimed-by
the trustees as paid for this purpose to the plaintiff s
mother, had been so allowed by her ; but there were
other sums the payment of which they also claimed,
but which the mother disallowed. Eighty pounds a

year had been considered a sufficient sum to allow the
mother for the clothing, maintenance, &c. of the
plaintiff, and shortly after this sum had been so
fixed, an account commenced between the
mother and the trustees, and several items
in these accounts, some having attached to them
the signature or:initials of the plaintiff's mother, and
others not, formed the subject of the greater number
of the exceptions. -With respect to the items having
no initials or signatures annexed, it certainly was im-
possible to say that these were legal evidence of the
payments; and so thinking, his Lordship did not
know how he could overrule the Master's finding in
that respect. The Master had found what appeared
to his Lordship to be correct. On the other hand, it
was difficult for him not to say that he should not
confirm the Master's report. There were facts which
made it almost a necessary inference that those sums
had been 'paid. The plaintiff had resided with his
mother ten years, and there was an account subsist-
ing during that time between the trustees and
his mother, in which account the payment of certain
sums were verified by the signature of the mother.
There were other sums not so verified, and here was
the son complaining of those payments. His Lord-
ship then found it difficult not to believe that the facts
were as he stated. The order, before referred to, had
directed an account to be taken to ascertain not if the
trustees had advanced any money, but what sums of
money had been properly laid out. His Lordship had
asked whether there was any further evidence on this
part of the subject, and he had received no satisfac-
tory answer. He thought then, that he must refer it
back to the Master, and give him liberty to state
special circumstances in order that his Lordship might
know whether there were any other circumstances
which corroborated the Master's former finding.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. Buucu.)
DOGGETT V. EASVERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
His Hoisouu gave judgment in this cause. The
question in the cause was in substance, whether in
June, 1838, the plaintiff, John Doggett, represented
to Mr. Tite, the defendants' surveyor and one of their
agents, that the property in Gloucester-court, adjoin-
ing and occupied by the plaintiff, together and in
connection with John Doggett's freehold property in
High-street, Shoreditch, was his part of the latter
property or otherwise the freehold property, or wholly
as to five-sixths, of John Doggett, who in truth had
only five-sixths of the High-street property. The
plaintiff asserted, and the defendants denied this ; the
allegation of the defendants, contradicted by the plain-
tiff, being that through such a representation the de-
fendants, believing themselves to be buying of John
Doggett the fee-simple of five-sixths of the whole of
what the plaintiff occupied, agreed to give a price
upon that footing, which the plaintiff desired to apply
to five-sixths of the High-street property only. The
true was not always the proper, but to such benefit
as belonged to the observation that what the defendants
alleged in this respect was unlikely to have happened,
the plaintiff was entitled. There was an absence of
probability, certainly, in the defendants' case, it being
clear, upon the evidence, that this Company, through
their proper agent or agents, had, before June, 1838,
distinct notice that that part of the property occupied
by the plaintiff, which was in Gloucester-court, be-
longed to the plaintiff; that it was held by the plain-
tiff and Mr. Teel, Mr. Tai being the acting ma-
nager of the Gloucester-court property, and also been
concerned, previously, as a manager for the plaintiff
in the dealings between him and the Company. The
duty of the Directors required that Mr. Tite should,
before he valued the property in question, be made ac-
quainted with what the Company knew upon the sub-
ject; it must be considered extraordinary, in a high
degree,, if, in the month of June, 1838, John Doggett
had, with any fraudulent or unfair design, represented
to Mr. Tite a circumstance so notoriously untrue as
that the Gloucester-court property, so occupied by
the plaintiff, was, as to the whole or any
part of it, the freehold estate of John Dog-
gett. He could have had no rational hope of
deceiving the Company; he did not appear to have
had any ground for supposing that Air. Tite was
ignorant of the fact. Still if it were satisfactorily
proved that John Doggett had committed the fraud
imputed to him, the defendants would be entitled
to his decision on that occasion, notwithstand-
ing the conduct of their Directors or their agents.
That conduct, however, formed only a part of the evi-
dence upon which he considered that the case of fraud
had failed. It was remarkable, considering what Mr.
Oram and Mr. Wm. H. Doggett had deposed, that Mr.
Teel, a witness in the cause, had not been examined
as to any thing which had taken place since June,
1838. sot forgetting what Mr. Tite had sworn, or
g
any reason to suppose him otherwise than re-
spectable,havin he did not believe that the fraud alleged
had been either committed or attempted ; he did not
believe that John Doggett had any dishonest 'or un-
fair intention, or that he had made any inaccurate
representation to Mr. Tite; and if a case of error
without fraud was open to the defendants, he was not
satisfied that a case of error or mistake, which
it was important to the defendants so to cha-
racterise, had been established. Being of opinion
that upon the grounds before him a case for resisting
the plaintiff's claims for specific performance had nut
been established, he had considered whether it would
be proper to direct further inquiry before a jury or
otherwise ; and looking to all the circumstances, not
excluding from his consideration that the amount in
dispute was only 4001., he was upon the whole of
opinion that it was his duty to dispose of the cause,
thereby decreeing specific performance of the agree-
ment of September, 1838, with costs to the present
time, against the defendants.

INSOLVENT COURT-(THIS DAY)

IN RE JAMES LLOYD.

The insolvent had been an accountant in bank-
ruptcy, and about two years ago passed through this
Court owing a large amount of debts. lie attri-
buted bis insolvency to the fact of so little business