The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-25 00:00:00

SATURDAY.

Cause pltikions of no geneiTii- interest occupied hi,
llonour the whole day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAN.)
MALLALIEU U. MELLEIt.

ROLLS' CO UR 7', April 22.
STRICKLAND L'. STRICKLAND.

This part-heard cause, which had ;ng;ged the Court
the greater part of yesterday was resumed today.
The suit was instituted by the youngest son of Sir
George Strickland, and the object of it was to recover
possession of certain estates, worth 7,0001. or 8,000/, a
year, which had been devised by the will of Sir George
Strickland, the grandfather of the defendant in the
cause and the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in-
sisted that he was entitled to enjoy the estates for the
the term of his life, as the title of them devolved upon
him on the death of his last surviving brother, which
took place in the year 1839, in the November of which
year the present bill had been filed. According to the
statement. of the plaintiff, the estates in question were
by his father's will devised to the younger sons, and on
the death of the last surviving one were given to him.
The defendant stated that the devise in favour of the
plaintiff had been revoked, and consequently that he
could not establish any title to the estates in question.
The arguments are likely to occupy some days.

•
---
COURT OF QUEEN'S PENCII, .sprit 23.
THE QUEEN V. LADY PONSONBY.
In this ease, Lady Ponsonby, and some other parties,
who reside in Hampton Court Palace, appealed to the
Justices at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions, against a
rate that had been made upon them for the relief of the
poor of the parish of Hampton, by the parochial autho-
rities. The ground of their appeal .was, that as official
residents of a royal palace, they were not liable to the
Poor-rates. When the case came on for hearing at the
Sessions, the Magistrates confirmed the order for the rate,
subject to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench on
a case to he submitted to the Learned Judges for their
opinion, and the case now came on for hearing.
Mr. Erle, Mr. Adolphus, and Mr. Kelly appearing for
the parish officers of Hampton, and the Solicitor-Gene-
ral and Mr. Hodges for time appellants.
The case on the part of the parish set forth that the
appellants occupied • apartments in Ilamplon C.:urt
Palace by the permission of the Crown ; that until the
rate now appealed against had been made they had never
been rated to the relief of the poor of the parish in which
Hampton Court was situated ; that each of the appellants
occupied separate apartments in the palace; that they were
obliged to reside there during a certain portion of the year;
that in their absence they were compelled to leave a ser-
vant in charge of their apartments, or deliver up the keys
to the house-keeper, and the parish officers contended
that under the circumstances the appellants were liable
to the payment of the rate made for the relief of the
poor. On the part of the appellants it was contended
Hampton Court was a royal palace—that theirs was an
official, and merely possessive occupation ; and, in fact,
an occupation by her Majesty; to whom they were ser-
vants, and that as they paid no rent they were not liable
to poor-rates.
Lord DENmAs, in delivering the judgment of the
Court, said that it was clear that Hampton Court had
been aroyal palace, and it was equally clear that it was
not one now. There was a personal occupation by the
appellants, but none by the Crewn. The mere fact that
certain pictures belonging to the Crown, and other royal
property were deposited there, or that sentries were sta-
tioned there, did not constitute it a royal palace; there
was no personal occupation by the Crown, but an inde-
pendent and exclusive occupation by the appellants;
therefore, the order of the Justices in favour of the rate
must be confirmed.—Order confirmed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 23.
, WILSON V. KEPPEL.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, for the re-
covery of V., before the Under-Sheriff of Yorkshire.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. WATSON now moved for a rule to show cause why
a new trial should not be granted on the grounds,
first, of misconduct on the part of the Jurors, and se-
condly, that the verdict was given against evidence. It
appeared that the Jury had been heard by parties out-
side the room in which they were considering their ver-
dict tossing up money ; and after a cry was heard that
the heads had it, they immediately came out and gave
their decision. The allegation that the verdict was
against evidence went on the fact that there had been
dealings between the parties, and a balance due was set
off against the claim of the plaintiff:
The COURT granted the rule on the ground of a ver-
dict against evidence.

BM], COURT, April '4l.
GURNEY r.
This was an action brought by the
Plaintiff, a brewer,
against the defendant, who is a hop merchant, for beer
sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the amount of
.4/. 145., on the credit of the defendant, as alleged by
the plaintiff: The beer was not ordered by the defend-
ant himself; but by a person of the name of Bamfield, an
agent for selling hops, and a person who acted in the ca-
pacity of a clerk to Air. Morgan, who ordered the bear
for a person named Barton, his own brother-in-law, and'
who failed in his business. Several transactions took
place between Mr. Gurney and Mr. Morgan, and whim
they came to settle their accounts Mr. Bennet, on the part
of Mr. Gurney, gave Bamfield, who acted for Mr. Morgan,
a cheque for the sum (Inc to Mr. Morgan from Mr. Gurney,.
and Bamlield gave Bennet an order on Mr. Morgan for
the 24/. 145., The price of the beer given to Bartc,n,,
There was also a transaction respecting a vat which was
sold by Mr. Morgan to Mr. Gurney for 15/., and it, way
alleged on the part of the plaintiff' that the price Was to
be deducted from the 241. 145., which was denied, by the.
defendant. The question for the Jury to decide was,
whether the defendant was liable.
The Jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff:
Mr. Humphrey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr-
Thesiger for the defendant.
The Court then adjourned.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. April 22.
WILLIAMS A:NTD NOTTIIAN'S BANKRUPTCY.—THE LINEN-
DaArtay TRADE.
In this case the bankrupts appeared before tho C.)nrt
on their adjourned examinations. A large nun-ilk-A- of
creditors were present.
Mr. Maynard appeared, as on a former occasion, for
the assignees ; and Mr. Wright, as counsel, assisted by
Mr. Van Sandau, for one or both of the bankrupts.
Charles Mottram examined by Mr. Maynard—At my
last examination I gave an account of the liquidation cot'
my affairs at the house in Lamb's Conduit-street. Th,,
sum was 7,70-11. 12s. 11d., and 1,5001. for other property;:
and when I left Lamb's Conduit-street, I considered my—
self to be worth 4,0001.
Mr. May-nard—Was there, at that time, a balance in.
your favour ? Mottram—There was ; and here I must-
complain of certain statements in the public papers.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS—Never mind the -papers,
but answer the questions put to you.
The bankrup' Mottram—There was 1,8001. went to.
Wood-street, and my house and furniture at Ilighbury
I considered worth something, beside other property ;
making a total, with debts, of about 4,0001.
Mr. .-Nla.ynard —Where will that appear ?
The bankrupt Mottram—ln my hooks. The only
means I have of forming any opinion is from the books.
In the private ledger, headed Charles Mottram, L. C. S.,
it appears that I brought into the concern in Wood
street 1,836/. 10s. 5d., and I was indebted 2,800/. to my
father-in-law, the whole of which remained when the
balance of 1,8361. 10s. 5d., was made up. The means I
had to pay the debt due to my father-in-law consisted of
the balance of 1,836/. 10s. 5d., 2,776/. Bs. 10d. uncollected
debts due to me from Lamb's Conduit-street, and my-
property at Highburv, which I considered worth fralu
1,2001. to 1,5001. 'lii& state of my private account with
Mottram and Moore at the time 1 stopped payment was
a balance of 704/. Is. 10d., and a family account for dra-
pery of about 260/. The account produced by me at, a
former examination shows how the balance of 704. Is.
10d. is made up. In that account I give credit for
two acceptances of Mottram and Moore for
750/. each, part of which, 1 believe, is now owing
to the parties now holding these acceptances.
The bill of 337/ 10.. 6d. was not paid to Dixon and
Co., but was the amount of a returned bill, which we
paid. After that sum 1 find a bill, as paid to Knowles
of 337/. 10s. 6d. 1 believe that sum to be the amount of
a bill for 337/. Si., and 2s. 6d. for noting. Therecer-
tainly was a payment made to warrant the entry of 3371.
los. 6d. I cannot tell to whom that bill was paid. I be-
lieve to llennah and Lames,
sure to one of them. or to S. F. Stephens. lam

Mr. Maynard—On looking at these books, it appears
the bankrupts have taken credit for that bill twice, and
would have to account for the extra amount in the
balance cash-book ; we have it in the stun of 1,9321., and
afterwards find it. entered as a bill of 337/. 10s. 6d.
Mr. Commissioner Eve.Ns--In these books it certainly
appears to be entered twice ; on the 29th October it is
entered 3371. 10s. 6d., and added up on the amount of
1,9321., and after that-ion have it entered 3371. 10s. Gd.
The bankrupt Mottram—lt appears to be entered
twke, but Jr.), it is erroneous ; I am sure it was not
paid twice.
Mr. Maynard—Can you state what you paid Dixon
and Co., after the 28th of October, on Mottram and
Moore's account ? The bankrupt Mottram—l think
about 3,200/. and 5401. on the 27th of October. They
did not owe us any money, but we did them. My part-
ner, I believe, made a sale to Messrs. Cowper in October.
believe about the 27th or 28th, though the goods are
entered on the 26th. The amount stater is 1551. 179.
Mr, Maynard--'Pas the rate entered in your books at
the time it teas made ?—I believe not. Sir. It was en-
tered in our books, when we made them up after the
bankruptcy, but it is usual, and might have been wade
in a memorandum-book or on a paper. Mr. Williams
would have to make it. The date now stated is the 26th,
but, as I said before, I believe that to be erroneous, as
the fact was the sale was made on the 27th or 26th. The
money, I believe, was paid for those goods. The receipt
of the money was not euatered at the time. Ido not •
know whether these goods were sold at profit or loss,
as I do not know the cost price, or the price. at which
they were sold. The gross amount received for that
sale came into our concern, and has since been disbursed.
Mr. Maynard—What did you draw out for yourself
on or after the 6th of October ?—About 1,300/. ; I drew

His Honour was tngaged &Ong the day in the fur-
ther hearing of this part-heard came. The suit was in-
stituted by the plaintiff Mallalieu against the assignees
of Messrs. Copeland and - Duncan, for the purpose of
haring it declared that he was entitled to a lien upon
certain goods sent out to India in the name of the plain-
tiff; who was, in fact, acting as the agent of the bank-
rupts. The proceeds Of the goods had passed into the
hands of Messrs. Crawford and Co., and the substantial
question was, whether the plaintiff or the defendant was
entitled to the first lien.
Mr. Temple and Mr. Geldart appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Sharp for the defendant Miller ; and the So-
licitor-General and Mr. Teed for Messrs. Crawford and
Company.

:~