The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY•)

COURT OF CHANCERY..
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat, Li
mated his regret that he was under the necessity ,
leaving the Court to-day, at twelve o'clock, on publi
business. His Lordship accordingly sat till a felt,
minutes past twelve, and then rose.

WRIGHT V. WARD.
The whole morning was occupied in 110'11
S
Counsel in this case of appeal from an order it'
Lancelot Shadwell. The plaintiffs filed a boilf l, fill
interpleading bill, and obtained an ex-parte injune;
Lion from Sir A. Hart, to restrain proceedings
law; a general demurrer was subsequently P;
in to the bill, which came on to be argued before Phis
Honour, the present Vice-Chancellor, who alloehe,
it, and thereby destroyed the injunetiou—howe.

appeal by the plaintiff;
Messrs. HEALD and KNIGHT were for the OP
lant, and Messrs. SUGDEN and NORTON for them:e
spondents. The former gentlemen expressed ehend..
selves perfectly astounded that Sir Lancelot' it
well should have allowed this demurrer, a'sr'ort,
the very clearest case ever presented to a `—thst
demonstrating as clear as the sun at noon-dg the
no demurrer could hold here ; the latter, in et
whole course of their practice or lives had nefer,r,nt
with, or heard of a case, where it was more evi"—
the party was entitled to demur. ' beg'
n His LoDsHIP had been more than once astoto6t
to hear Counsel on opposite sides in the Coort;ii;
press themselves with the confidence they the
their views of the practice in the same case. 14% erect
present instance, however reluctantly he dilie-eel
from the Learned Judge below, yet he was obligbe
to come to a conclusion, in accordance with t
.;
impression the arguments had trade on his
li
mind, and that impression led Litt; to decide had
trary to the Vice-Chanceller. The executors °et
brought an action, and the question was, whatilby
upon the facts stated in the bill, and adolittedthe
the demurrer to be true, there was sufficieot„°;: d a
bill to satisfy the Court that the party filing, ;acts
right to file, and could sustain it ? Upon had.
his Lordship's opinion was, that the plain"' ev of
The facts substantially were these :--A
500/. was left to trustees ; there was a debt w•-;►or
the obligee had a right to claim from the °bbg t
on the bond to the amount of 500/.; an arranehealit
was entered into by the trustees and the oblig°r„' tn. o'
the debt due upon the bond should be Britries
printed for the discharge of the legacy; all -Pteo
adopted this arrangement, and the interest had
eon
de, or,
regularly paid for a great series of years in
mity with the terms of that agreeinent ; and
such circumstanses, the Court thought it iinPAss"
s
to say, the trustees had not a ground to file an p,re
taro a bill against the obligor. His Lordship tbere
overruled the demurrer, revived the injunctiooi at.
ordered the deposit to be returned to the iippell°

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
VOVAII V. TRUSS. the
His HONOUR gave judgment this morning• °I the
motion made for the appointment of a receiver t°
rents and profits of certain houses, which are t
subject of this suit—he thought- that a ree' itie
ought to be appointed to.the three-seventh soft
rents. The case was quite destitute of interest' )1
• of the
from the very complicated nature of the ebilins d
different parties his Honour's judgment occur
more than half an hour in the delivery.