The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-10 00:00:00

NBR LORD MAYOR.

Shortly after three o'clock the new Lord Mayor,
accompanied by the lite Lord Mayor, the Recorder,
Aldermen Thomas Woad and Gibbs, together with
the other civic authorities, came into Court, and in-
vited his Lordship to the entertainment at Guildhall
this evening.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 9.
DATHYANY V. THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD.

In this cause, which has been before the Court on
a former occasion, nn l' which came-on to be heard on

demurrer,
His I G9-„,6f-Cipini that-,th, plaintiff did
not seek relkf tvi-349;4 the Court could at-
tend to, and he pccoiklin.o Allo*eci !lemurrer.
uddiSsnitCli-t:

In thiscause, which 'came before the Court upon
plea, the plaintiffs' were James and John Houlditch ;
the defendants, Christopher Gerard Rigbye Csllins,
Bird Brodie, George Barker, and William
Webster.
In July, 1841, the plaintiffs were holders for valu-
able consideration, of five bills of exchange for several
sums, amounting altogether to 4,8501., and which were
respectively drawn by Henry Gompertz, and duly
accepted by Mr. Collins, one•of the defendants. The
bills, which were drawn for three months,
were not honoured, and the plaintiffs commenced
an action in May, 1841; in the Court cf Exchequer,
against the defendants, which the latter defended.
The plaintiff obtained a final judgment on that occa-
sion for 4,9311. 14s. 10d., total amount of principal
and interest of the bills of exchange, coats of the ac-
tion, &c. The bill prayed that it might be declared
that the plaintiffs were entitled under, and by virtue
of the above-mentioned judgment, to be considered in
this Court as mortgagees of the lands, tenements, he-
reditaments, and leasehold estates of the defendant -
Collins. To this bill the defendants Barker and Web-
ster put in a plea that the defendant Collins was resi-
dent in the island of Jersey, and that the plaintiffs had
caused a writ called an ordre provisoire to be issued
by the Bailiff in that Island against the defendant for
the amount of the bills and the costs of protest.
That writ was to the effect that the `plaintiffs
were permitted to have seized, arrested, put in
execution, and sequestered if it was so required,
the apparent property of their debtors in all places
where such might be found, to be applied to the
payment of what might be found truly and justly due
to them as strangers or persons expatriable. By
virtue of that writ Collins was seized and thrown into
prison in St. Heliers. The judgment debtor was
thus, it was alleged, taken in execution, and the de-
fendants, relying on the Ist and 2d Victoria, sec. 16,
cap. 110, applied to the Court to have the obligation
on their part to answer the plaintiff's bill dispensed
with, and that the costs of the application might be
allowed them.
His LORDSHIP, in giving judgment, said that the
words of the Act of Parliament appeared to him per-
fectly plain, and nothing was more certain than that
he had no authority to extend the operation of the
Act by any construction of his. The plaintiffs in the
cause were j udgm ent creditors of the defendant,and were
entitled to have charge of the whole of his property.
There was a clause in the Act of Parliament to the
effect, that if in such circumstances the creditors
having a judgment and charge should cause the
persou of the judgment debtor to be taken or charged
in execution upon such judgment, Then that such
judgment creditor should be taken to
,have relin-
quished his right to the charge. The single question
in the present case then must be, whether the judg-
ment creditors had caused the person of the judgment
debtor to be so taken or charged in execution upon
the judgment. If he had done so the charge then
was relinquished ; if he had not, the Act of Parlia-
ment could not apply. What had been really done
in this case was to adopt proceedings in the Courts
of Jersey, for the recovery of the same sum
which had been reversed by judgment (as was plainly
indicated by the documents set forth in the plea) and
not execution upon the judgment, which was a course
that could not be taken in any foreign Court. The
proceeding in the Courts of Jersey was mesne pro-
cess, which did not appear to his Lordship to be a case
within the terms of the Act of Parliament. The
judgment debtor was not taken or charged in execu-
tion upon the judgment, and the plea must there-
fore be disallowed.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 8.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

1N RE THE METROPOLITAN WOOD-PAVING COMPANY,

ET PARTE.
Mr. WARBFIELD applied, on the part of the Metro-
politan Wood Paving Company, for an injunction to
restrain Mr. William Saunders from using certain
blocks of wood constructed upon the principle of Count
de Lisle's patent, which belonged to the Metropolitan
Company. The Learned Counsel stated that Mr.
Saunders had laid down a certain quantity of wood
pavement adjoining the Churchof St. Mary-le- Strand,
composed of blocks of wood identical with those of the
Metropolitan Company, although they had in part been
sawed asunder to make up what were called compound
blocks.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Do you bring the fact
home tes Mr. Saunders ?
Mr. WA KEFIELD —Yes, your Honour, from the ma-
nufactory to the ground upon which they are laid.
Indeed the blocks in question were originally manu-
factured for the Company, but were rejected, on the
ground that the material was not according to con-
tract. _ _

Several affidavits were read in support of the appli-
cation, and a specimen of Count de Lisle's patent
handed in, the principle of which, the Vice-Chancellor
said, he was well acquainted with, and granted the in-
junction.

NOVEMBER 9.
FISHER V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

His lioNoua, iu giving judgment, said that there
were cases in which, by the consent of both parties,
they might be both brought before the Court for de-
cision, but he did not understand that in the pre-
sent case he was authorised to decide on the main
question. The matter stood thus :—A letter had been
written by the solicitors of the vendors to the solici-
tors of the Great Western Company, stating that Mrs.
Ostler, the party to the original agreement, was, at
the date of the letter, labouring under a state of great
mental infirmity, incapacitating her from giving her
consent to the conveyance. He did not find that the
Great Western Company had, by their answer,
admitted this to be the fact, or that the letter
sent was true; there was no admission that
such was the fact then, or is the fact now.
If they did not consent to that fact, his assuming the
fact in the first place, and then deciding on that as-
sumption, appeared to him to be quite in vain. All
that he could do in the present state of the case was
to order a reference to the Master to settle the draft
of the conveyance, giving him liberty to state any
special circumstances as the ground of selling the
conveyance in the form he might approve of. The
Company admitted the title, but a question was raised
as to the form of the consents. He should, therefore,
order a reference to the Master to prove a proper
conveyance, reserving the case for further directions
and costs.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 9.
GILLET V. AUSTIN.

The defendant in this case vvas taken under an exe-
cution by the Sheriff of Worcestershire. to satisfy the
plaintiff's debt. When taken by the Sheriff's-officer, the
defendant told him that the warrant was void, it being
four months old, and was enlarged. Upon this the
plaintiff commenced an action against the Sheriff, to
which he pleaded, but he afterwards withdrew his
plea, and the defendant Austin was then taken a se-
cond time by the Sheriff's-officer, and lodged in gaol.
Mr. GREY now moved for a rule to show cause why
he should not be enlarged. The affidavits set forth
several circumstances, which went to show that the
Sheriff, finding that he had no substantial defence to
the plaintiff's action for enlarging the defendant in the
first instance, had satisfied the plaintiff's claim, and had
the defendant arrested a second time in the plaintiff's