Star.
London, England, 1830-02-27 00:00:00

7,372 0 17

Tutal of Meal and
F10ur....

6 3

Species of Coro,
Grab, Meal, and
Flour.

Wheat.. ....

Barley

Oats

Rye I

Peas
Beans.— ..
Maize or Indian Corn

Buck Wheat..
Beer or Bigg

Total of Corn and

7,378 3 17

Grain

Wheat Meal or

Barley Meal.

°stoical
Rye .....
Indian Meal.. ...

Total of Meal and

Flour ...

Species of Corn,
Grain, Meal, and
Flour.

Wheat.

Barley
Oats

Rye
Peas

Beans.... .....
Maize or Indian Corn

Buck Wheat.
Beer or Bigg

Total of Corn and

Grain.... ..... ..

Total of Meal and

Flour . .
By Or 4

'Quantities charged with Duty for Home
Consumption in the United Kingdom in
the month ended lit Feb. 1830.

The Produce
Imported of, and ins.
from ported from, TotaL
Foreign British Pos.
Countries. sessions out
of Europe.
Qrs. Bus. Qrs. Bus. Qrs. Bus.
359 0 1,255 5 1.614 5
340- 1 0 4 340 5
672 - 4
339 S 1,012 1
40 4 0
14 1 4
6 3 6
1,585 4 1,595 8 9,979 2
Cwt. qrs. lb. Cwt. qrs. lb. Cwt. qrs. lb.
38 0 13 111 3 0 149 3 13
38 0 13 111 3 0 149 3 13
Quantities remaining in Warehouse in the
United Kingdom on the Ist Feb. 1830.
The Produce
Imported of, and im-
from ported from, Tout
Foreign British Pos.
Countries. sessions out
of Europe.
Qrs. Bus. Q,rs. Bus. Qrs. Bus.
236,446 4 2,792 1 239.258 5
65,809 1 65,809 1
441,967 441,967 2
26,434 6 26,434 6
9,969 6 154 2 9,424 0
2,885 3 2,885 3
1,187 2 1,187 2
2,339 7 2,339 7
786,339 7 2,946 3 789,286 9
Cwt. qrs. lb. Cwt. qrs. lb. Cwt. qrs. lb.
66,491 225 471 0 7166,962 3 2
426 4 2 6
3 1 22 3 1 22
130 1 3 0
66,501 123 471 0 7 66,972 2 2

66,501 1 23
r of the Coati

'H I T:

fORE, Secretary.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCEM7BIIrUS COURT, Fn. 26.
MACKOLEW V. WHITOY AND °TRW.

The SOLICITOR.OEXERAL and Mr. WAIELT ap for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Hoaxs and other Counsel on the part of the
several defendants. •

This was a suit of rather a cove! description, in which it was
attempted to set aside a sale of certain premises in Leadenhall.
street, made so for back as the year 1799, and under a decree issuing
out of the Court of Chancery, upon the grounds of an informality in
the obtainirg of that decree, and alleged collusion between the
Ivenders and purchasers, defendants to the present suit.
In 1796, Francis Nodin carried on business at No. 1, Leaden-
hall-street, and became indebted to his father, John Nodin, in
about 200/. who accepted a mortgage of the premises to that
amount. A mortgage was afterwards made to Mr. Whitton, a so.
licitor (one of the defendants to the present suit), for 480/. Francis
Nodin, becoming still more embarrassed, assigned over all his
property for the benefit of his creditors, and went to the West In.
dies. Messrs. Sharp and Cox, two of his creditors, were appointed
trustees, and it was stipulated that this property should be sold in
trust, first to pay thereout John Nodin, then Hill, another creditor
(and one of the defendants), and, subsequently the purchaser of the
premises in dispute. A bill was subsequently filed for redemption
and foreclosure, and a degree obtained in 1797, directing the sale,
and the money to be paid into Court. By the alsater's Report it
appeared that the premises were sold for 1,0121. and Mr. Hill was
declared the purchaser. A rule Nisi was obtained confirming this
sale, but a rule absolute never had been applied for to render the
Decree complete, in strict conformity with the rules of the Court.
It was agreed amongst the creditors, as the proceeds of the sale
were not sufficient to discharge John Nodin's claim, and pay the
costs up to that time, that no further proceedings should be taken.
Hr. Hill obtained a conveyance, in which all parties concurred, and
remained in quiet possession of the premises from 1799 to 1817,
when he assigned the property to a Mr. Mitchell, another of the
defendants, who subsequently settled it, on his marriage, on his
lady and issue. Several years ago Francis Nodin returned from
abroad, again became embarrassed, and took the benefit of the In.
solvent Act. The present plaintiff, Blackest', became his assignee,
and hence became a party to the suit by filing the bill in 1825.
It was contended on the part of the plaintiff that the decree was
cot legal, being founded on a rule Nisi, without its being made ab-
solute ; and that Hill, being a creditor, in collusion with Whit-
tor., purchased the property at a less price than its real value.
His Hostoun roceeded to give judgment ; he considered that
had the transaction which gave rise to this suit taken place more
recently than the distance of thirty years, during which time some
of the defendants had held possession, he still Amid have felt no
difficulty in deciding upon its merits. He considered that in all the
material points the practice of the Court bail been complied with
in respect to the decree; and that the omission to make the rule
absolute was fully explained by the whole of the assets being ate
up by the discharge of specialty debts, and the costs of the suit.
It did tot appear that Mr. Hill bad received any part of his
debt, or had Messrs. Sharp and Cox of theirs, the amount being,
by the Master's Report, expended in discharge of John Nodin s
debt and costs. With respect to the price at which the premises
were sold, he was also of opinion that it was an adequate one, and
there was nothing in the whole proceeding to attach a suspicion of
fraud or collusion. He, therefore, ordered, with respect to the de-
fendant, Mr. Mitchell. and his children, made defendants to the
suit, that the bill should be dismissed with costs. With respect to
Whitton, Mr. Sharp, and Mr. Cox, also defendants, he also ordered