Star.
London, England, 1827-10-31 00:00:00

• , 1,41/ INTSLLIGENCL .
•
COURT OF CitARCERT, Ocv. 30.
.
The Loan CHANCIILLOR came down to the Court
—tl;is mornitig,pursuant to notice, for the purpose of de-
livcring
certain judgments. There was a tolerably full
aaendance of the bar. HissLordihip had all his judg-
ments written, and read them in succession imme-tately
cut taking his seat. The several causes to which they
r4med. had been beard during the preceding Teems.
WiNTRIL D. LORD ANSON.
The question in this case was, whether the vender of
an estate retained a lien upon it for part of the purchase
money which continued unpaid, 'under the following
circumstances? One Moseley entered into a contract
fix the sale to Winter of certain lands upon specific
teems. The contract was afterwards completed, and a
conveyance made to Winter, in which the purchase,
amounting to 1,4801. was stated to have been paid.
This statement, however, was incorrect; only 4301,
wets actually paisti, and the remaining 10001. was
secured to the stoMfer by the bond of the vendee, pay-
able twelve months after the /death of the vendee.
Upon this arrangement the vendee was let into pos-
session, which he continued to enjoy until 1817, when
he became bankrupt. His assignees then sold the
estate to Lord Anson, agreeing that he should retain
in his hands 1,2001. part of the purchase money, as
au indemnity againtt any claim that might be made
by the vendor or his representatives. The vendee'died,
and the bond became payable; the assignees resisted
the payment on the ground of the bank' uptcy ; and on
'
behalf of the vender, it was alleged that the bankruptcy,
could not control his lien on the estate. It was, hts
Lordship said, a general principleof equity, that a vender
had a lien on the estate he sold for the amount of the
purchase money. or such part of it as remained unpaid.
The plaintiff in this case had done nothing, as it appear-
ed to him, to wave that right. There was nothing
either in the transaction itself or in the instruments,
which ought to deprive him of the payment of the pur-
chase money, and the circumstance of his having agreed
to postpone it until after the vendee's death did not alter
this view of the case. The case of Macreath and Sy-
monds bad been relied on in argument on the other
side, bet his Lordship thought it bore no analogy to this
case. The annuities there acre decreasing in value
deify; here the sum was secured to be paid entire. His
Lordship therefore decreed that the defendant, who
stood in the shoes of the vendee, (and it was upon this
puha that he decided the case), should be decreed to
pay the suns reserved.
THICAMTORNIT GRNIRAL AND TIM CORPORATION 01
ILL EM IL.
This was an appeal from a decision of thelate Master
of the Rolls. In the reign of Henry VIII. certain land-
ed property in Devonshire had been conveyed to the
corporation of Exeter, upon trust, to lay' out the pro-
ceeds in alleviation of the burdens on the poor of that
city, and otherwise for the relief of the poor of tl.e same
place. The information stated, that at the present day
the corporation disposed of the fund thus placed in their
hands in payment of two lee hum rents, which must
otherwise be raised by means of a rate, in affording
food and other neceisaries to the prisoners in the city
gaol, and in alms to such of the poor inhabitants as did
not receive parish relief. This, Iris Lordship thought,
was a proper distribution of the funds, and he did not
feel inclined to disturb it.
It was suggested by Conusel,ihat an inquiry ought
to be made into the funds in•the hands of the corpora-
tion, and this, after some diicussion, was ordered.
IN RR CHARISM; A BANKRUPT.

Mr. HoRNZ appeared in support of a petition pre-
sented by De Begnis, of the Italian Theatre, who stated
that he was a creditor under this commission, and that
the assignees proposed to open the theatre on their own
actouct. To this, as it would of necessity postpone the
period :AI which a dividend might be. declared, he ob-
jected. lle had no objection to being engaged at the
Opeta House, but he did not think the assignees would
discharge their duty to himself and the other creditors
by entering into the speculation of opening the theatre.
It was intended also, he understood, to open much
earlier than usual, and therefore this application was
macfe fit the first opportenity that occurred.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said he thought there was
no reason for taking the petition put of its due course.
He intendecho proceed with the bankrupt petitions im-
mediately, and hoped to get through with them shortly.
The present petition was, therefore, ordered to stand
over. IN RR ZUMMERSETT.
Mt. Rosa applied for an order, that a second com-
mission might be issued in this matter, and directed to
othei Commissioners. The commissioners, before whom
the matter had already been, thought there was not
sufficient evidence pf trading to justify them in adjudg-
ing 'the bankruptcy. The petitioning creditor was de.
mons of taking the opinion of other commissioners.—
The Counsel argued that a commission was a wtit
which any creditor had a right to sup out, and which
this petitioner might do, but for an order of the Court,
which directed, as a matter of practicg, that the same'
creditor should not issue a second commission while a
former one remained undisposed of. He then stated the.
substance of the affidavits, to prove, that the person,
against whom the comtnission•was issued was a trader
within the meaning of the statute; and alter some con-
versation With the Lord Chancellor, the•secoad coup Di-
s,
sion was directed.
,CQLUIT IiENCEL, vt;esrsarvsess,
Prior LOra TistTrAuut ancrCompula thnies.

/MOULT AGAINST R• DOWNIE, SEQ. IN" AND OTHERS.
This was an action. iis.which Me plaintiff sought to
recover 1051.155,f0r his work and labour srsa reporter
for the British Pi ess.
The ATTORNYY GRNERAL said, that of this sum, 42/.
was for the arrears of salary, and 161: 10s. as lot.
travelling expenses,- and the, remainder' -CS goinest,
was for salary, at fide guineas a. week, from then time
when the paper. waseldisurtiusted. up -to the tei mi nat
of the year of thiaplaintdriteugagement, which was a
yearly one.

. f'

Mr. Robert,Qannon was. called, but Lord TINTIIII-
DEN seidithatp thine wore so many defendants (there
being no less thin ten)fthe most proper would be
first to proses leinoprjetorship of all' tbe defend'atits.
bleisrs. Cannonf,Xprans, Haines, the 'publisher and
editors of the pAprf e were accordingly examined, on
this point, andi red, that Messrs. Dow*, Bolton,
lloggart, M'IC. 0, Goodrich, Nchard Winsiaide*,
M'Donnell, Jgwick (which tom last jsad tutted
judgment brithfanli) were proprietors, bat thsqe,was,
no evisleoce lb 'show Oa proprietorship of. Jarmo and'
John Winstaniey, who wets lils9 defendants, upon which
Lord Tiscrollnap directed the plaintiff to be called.
Nortsuit accortfibgly. ,
/mown AOAIPPT =UUCP!) PAUL JODRIML, ESQ.
This was an action to recover 1.261. for. work and labour.
The ATronwso GsamsnAL said. that the plaintiff,
who was a carpenter, was einployod by the defendant
in the winter of 1824, to do some carpenter's work at