Star.
London, England, 1826-07-26 00:00:00

ROTHSCHILD D. SWART&

A motion was male in this cause to dissolve the in-
junction which had hen granted against the defendant.
It appeased from the statement of Mr. HART, Counsel
for the plaintiff, that in October, 1813, Messrs. Roths-
child made a purchase of bullion to the amount of,
200,0001. from M. Alcedo, a Sauth American mer-1
chant. The bullion had been consigned to him by cer-
taid persons abraad, and consisted partly of dollars and
partly of bars of silver. The purchaser agreed to p.sy
a portion of the amount in cash, and for the remainder
a ceitain quantity of French stock, equivalent to the va-
lue of the money, was to be transferred to the name of
'
M. ?I•cedo. 8.1,re, however, the latter part of the
transaction could be completed, M. Alcedo became
bankrupt, and the present defendant was appointed his
assignee. Mr. Rothschild had no objection to complete
the contract, but he was advised that if he did so he
might incur some responsibility as towards the princi-
pals by whom the bullion had been transmitted, and
that he could not act safely without ti.e directions of
the Court. '•
The Loco CHANCILLOII, after hearing the arguments of Counsel
for all parties, ordered the injunction to be dissolved, and the rearm
to be transferred to the defendant.
Mr. Haas su►mitted that the Court would also order the assig-
nee to wits care of the interests of the parties who might be entitled
to it, and who could not be before the Court.
The Loan CIICAMCILLOS saw no occasion to make any specific
order on the subject. The assiguee must deal with the property
according to law, and would, of course, be responsible for any
misapplication.
VICK-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Juts 26.
M'DOUGALL v. sPURIUSR.

A bill was filed in this case by the plaintiff, a solici,
tor of this Court, who has purchased the impropriate
tithes of certain premises within the rectory of Sc.
ll:len's, London, for the purpcse of obtaining the full
value of the tithes:--viz. 2.. 9d. in the pound. To this
bill an answer was filed, in which the defendant resisted
the claim, on the ground of the non-enrolment of the
Act of Hem y VIII. Since this answer had been put in,
the plaintiff had discovered by another answer, filed in
a similar suit, instituted by him against the Leather-
sellers' Company, that previously to the Act of Henry
VIII. evidence of money payment in Lieu of tithes for
tire premises in questi.m could be produced.
Mr. Coe now appeared on behalf of the defendant,
and moved for permission to file a supplemental Answer
to the one already on the files of the Court. The ap-
plication was founded on an affidavit, which stated,
That the defendant had, in the manner above mentioned,
discovered that before the destruction of the monas-
teries in the reign of Henry VIII. and before the passing
of the Tithe Act, there had been a money payment of
3d. a year paid to the Prioress of St. Helen's, at the
rate of 2s. jd. per quarter, in lieu of the tithes of these
par icular premises. It was further stated in the alfida-
vtt, that there was reason for believing this would be a
got d'defence to the claim. The Learned Counsel hoped
th.t the Court would, under these circumstances, accede
to ti, application, inasmuch as it would not put the
plaintiff, as far as the justice of the case went, in a
worse situation than he was before. •
Tire VICE CIIANCELLOR was 01 opinion that the ap-
plization came too !Ate. If it were granted, the case
would commence de novo. Ile would not say that he
was not well inclined to the motion. but he could not
permit it,as it would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs cause.
The applicatlurs was refused with costs.
AI'ILAY V. 110BENT8 AND ANOTHER.

Mr. BICKIIRSTITII said that in this case the defendants,
his c;ients, undertook not to publish a certain periodi-
cal; The Mechanics Magazine, when the case w as men-
tioned to the Court on a !orates day, it being understood
OA an application was to be made the present Seal
for al injunction. Now he begged it to be understood
that the defendants contidered themselves released from
the undertaking, as two days of the Seal had passed,
mid 110 motion for such an injunction had been made.
In the Atone, of 11r. Mato, who is ret4ined by the plaintiff, a
juotor Counsel said he was ready to proceed with the motion, al.
Iltouo his leader was not in Court.
It being three o'clock, the Vic o CUANCILSAIL said it was too late
to take the motiou tb4t day.
I hr case was then postpooed. •
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, lacy 2S.
Thomas Glade, a fancy cabinet maker, was oppoecl
b) PULLIXIE, f r Maly Anna Clarke (insolvent':

sister), ani by Mr. HEATIT for a creditor nosed Woof.
He was supported by M. Cooxi. It appeared from his
culmination, that hr had, srshort time back, 2001. in the
3 per Cents. and 201. in a savings bank; but that lie had
lost it all by gambling it► the funds. The money be•
longing to his sister, for which she now opposed him, he
had also spent in the same manner, having lost in this
way between SOO/. and 4001. He had received a pro-
missory note for 501. as premium with an apprentice,
but he lost it, he said, in travelling from Dover to Lon-
don ; and, therefore, he did not think it nece.sary to
insect it in his schedule. His schedule was alsl silent
as to the transactions in the funds, and was altogether
materially defective.

The CHIZIP CoslutsstoNea. after temarking upon the
fraudulent manner in which the insolvent's balance
sheet had been concocted, and the defective state of the
schedule. fur which he felt strongly disposed to.dismi.,
his petition altogether, ordered the case to st+Jd over to
file a new balance sheet, and amend the schedule, be-
fore the Court pronounced its juignsent.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WARWICK, JuLr 24.
IMAKI.SPZAR V. RANDALL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendant, who is a coach proprietor, for alleged
negligence, through which the plaintiff's horse WAS much
injured and his gig broken. It appeared from the evi-
dence on the part of the plaintff, that he, accompanied
by his brother-in-law, was in his gig, when the coach,
of which the defendant is the proprietor, drove against
it in a most violent manner, and carried away the wheels.
The gig was afterwards repaired at Mr. Wandalrs ex-
pence, but most imperfectly. The horse was aged ; but
it was contended that on that account he was the more
valuable, as he was the more quiet, and he had been
used merely to carry glass, the plaintiff being a glass.
m strufacturer. On the part of the defendant it was
contended, that as the horse was now older, he was the.,
less valuable ; and witnesses were called to show that
the defendant was in liquor. Toe cross-examination of
one of these witnesses, by Mr. Sergeant VAUOMAN, ex-
cited much merriment.
What, be was in liquor 7—l thought so.
Very drunk I—l thought so.
What did be look like?—Why, you we, I thought so • you see,
I ued pad up at his house, you me, and he didn't look as he
usually did.
What, you couldn't pass his house without pulling up? Does he
keep a public-bows, my friend 7—Yes.
I thought so. What, then, you could not pass this man's house
without polling up? Pray, have you not had some liquor in you
to-day I—Not much.
Two witnesses were produced to show that the gig was efficiently
repaired.
Mr. Sergeant VAOGINAN having replied,
The Jury returned-a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages, IN.
GUILDFORD. Jut.v 25.