Star.
London, England, 1827-08-16 00:00:00

GLASGOW, Aw= 11.

Tuesday night, about nine o'clock, an explosion of
gas took place in a spirit and tea cellar, Kirk-street,
Calton. During the day, some persons had been drink-
ing in the front room, and had stolen the brass cock of
the gas pipe. The shopman, unaware of the theft, went
as usual in the evening into the room with a candle to
light the gas. The room being full of gas, the foal air
immediately caught the flame ; an explosion immedi-
ately ensued, the lower half of the room door was torn
in pieces, and nine panes of glass in the window were
scattered in all directions. A lamp-lighter named John
Cameron, lately belonging to the police establishment,
hea►ing the explosion in a house about 400 yards dis-
tant, suspecting what had happened, went out and ran
to the cellar, and found the room all in a blaze. Not
the least daunted, he put his naked thumb on the gas
pipe, and by this means the gas was kept back till the
stop-cock was turned, and no further damage was done.
The young man that went to light the gas was driven
back to the counter by the force of the explosion, and
his head and arms were scorched, but not dangerously.
The lamp-lighter who displayed such courage had his
thumb severely burned. A large crowd soon collected ;
aad Mr. Leckie, so universally respected by the inhabi-
tants, was immediately at the premises, kept complete
order, and satisfied himself that the safety of the neigh-
bourhood was completely secured before he retired.
The energetic conduct of the proprietors of cotton
works has been attended with the signal success to be
expected from a proper display of vigour and prompti-
tude. On Saturday a deputation from "the body" ap.
plied to Mr. Thomson, soliciting liberty for his strike-
work spinners to resume work at the prices which they
had spurned a few days previously. Mr. Thomson dis-
carded the deputation instanter, stating that he would
never be controuled by "the body" in the choice of his
servants; that if any person wanted work, they might
apply to him individually, but in no other form. His
old spinners then entered one by one, and expressed
their thankfulness to be allowed to resume work at the
fr.rmer price, which was permitted, after they had ex-
pressed due contrition and sorrow for their thoughtless
conduct, and promised that there would be no repetition
of it. Had this concession not been made, 20 mills in
this vicinity would this morning have been at a stand;
and about 4.000 individuals, exclusive of those depend-
ent on them, been thrown out of them. It is well known
to the intelrigent portion of the trade, that although
there is a better demand for yarns, there is no such im-
provement in price as to.warrant any advance in spin•
Ding.—Cplasgow Chronicle.
Daring the late thunder storm, Mr. Geo. Wilson, of
Craigue, S. otland, had a narrow escape from an appalling
death. Tne electric fluid, attracted by the guard chain
of this Gentleman's watch, in its descent, shattered this
and another steel chain and the main spring of his watch,
all the works of which we to at once den:olishesh

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT 00 CHANCERY, Ava. lx
Eaciwa V. HOWARD.
SOGDIN reminded his Loidship, that a feir Jet.
since an injunction had been granted, restraining the
holders of certain bills whith Messrs. Brown had in.
dorsed, as agents, from proceeding in an action upon
them. He now appeared to move the dissolution of
that injunction ; and the affidavits in support of his
motion stated, that Messrs. Brown had not acted as
agents in the tralnsaction, but wholly on their own
account. Under these circumstances, having indorsed
the bills, they were completely liable, and the injunction
ought to be dissolved.
The LORD CHAEcar.r.ort asked Mr. Whitmarsh (whd
had originally moved for the injunction), whether he
had read the affidavits on theother side?

Mr. WHITMARSH replied in the affirmative, but was
anxious that the matter should be postponed; is his
leader, Mr. Twiss, was absent.

Mr. SUGDEN did not see the necessity for allowing
the case to stand over, as there could be nothing clearer
than that the injunction could not be sustained.

The Loan Csinncetton agreed that there ought to
be no postponement, especially as there appeared to be
no affidavits to meet those just filed by the defendants.
He should therefore dissolve the injunction with costs.
Mr. Sunnite applied for costs between solicitor and
client, as the parties lived at Manchester, and had been
compelled to undergo large expenses.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought he should not be
justified in allowing them.
At a subsequent part of the day Mr. Twiss appeared
in Court, and stated that he had certainly no affidavits in
answer to those filed on the other side.

RX-PARTZ HARZ IN RR MARSH AND CO.

This petition, presented on behalf of Sir Thomas
Hare, was in the nature of an appeal from an order
of the Vice• Chancellor, and it prayed to be allowed
to prove a considerable debt under the joint estate.-s-
The claims had been dinllowed by the Commissioners,
on the ground that the transaction between Sir "lhomis
and Mr. Fauntleroy was of a private nature, and
ought not to be mixed up with the affairs of the
Bank. The decision of the Commissioners was appealed
from to the Vice-Chancellor, and his Honour was of
opinion that an issue ought to be directed to try the
facts in dispute. It appeared that in 1822 Sir Thomas
applied to Mr. Fauntleroy for a loan of 15,0001. through
a Solicitor of the name of Montriou. Mr. Fauntleroy,
in his capacity of executor to Major Stone, made the
necessary advances. Of this sum Sir Thomas took only
4,0001. and the remainder he directed, through the bank-
ing house of Marsh and Co. to be invested in four pee
cent. stock; in truth, only 4,0001. of this residue was so
invested, and forged stock receipts had been sent to Sir
Thomas by Mr. Fauntleroy.
_ _ _

Mr. 1311CLERSTZTH appeared as Counsel in support
of the Petition, and contended, that as the S oek had
been invested (or alleged to be invested) through the
means of the bankrupts, they were new liable for the
debt. In some parts of the transaction, Mr. Stracey
had been engaged, add the whole of the dividends had
been paid to Sir. Thomas through the house of Marsh
and Co. It was originally a fraud committed by Mr.
Fauntleroy individually, but by the subsequent acts the
whole firm had made themselves liable for the debt.
It WAS under these circumstances, therefore, contended
that the debt was provable under the Commission. The
Petitioner was peculiarly anxious that , the question
should be at once decided, without undergoing the te-
dious and expensive proceeding of a trial at law.
Mr. HILALD and Mr. MONTAGU were heard against
the Petition, and contended that the separate estate of
Mr. Fauntleroy was alone responsible for the debt.
The Loan CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the
lquestion was involved in too much doubt and difficulty
for him to decide without the assistance of a Jury. He
should therefore confirm the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, by direct,ng an issue accordingly.
VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Aug. a

EX-PARTS DRACOTT IN RE ARCHER.
This was an appeal from the decision► of the Corns
missioners, who had refused the proof of a sum of 501.
which the bankrupt had covenanted to allow his daugh-
ter annually, for the joint lives of herself and her bus•
band, the latter agreeing to secure to his wife an annuity
of 501. a year, in case she survived him. The Commia-
sinners conceiving that the transaction was against
public policy, had refused to allow the proof.
Mr. PEMBERTON contended that this was a valuable
consideration on the part of the husband, fot the pi esent
annuity granted to his wife by the bankrupt. There
were also other clauses in the deed. The husband had
also covenanted, in case of separation, not to sue,
trouble, or molest her, the father agreeing to indemnify
the husband tor his wife's debts. He was ptoceedin to
argue against the decision of the Commissioners, when
The VICE CHANCELLOR desired to hear what could
be said on the other side in favour of the proof.
Mr. MONTAGU stated the fact to be, that the daughter
and her husband having quarrelled, and being after-
wards reconciled, entered into this agreement about
three months before the commission issued. This, he
contended, was e►idently made in contemplation of
bankruptcy, and that the other covenants weie merely
a cover to conceal the real truth, it had been decided
in Whitbread v. St. John, that the rule of policy in
marriages was, that they should not be dissolved except
by the Act of the Legislature. He, therefore, contended,
this agreement was against the policy of marriage, and
the decision of the Commissioners must be susta ned.
The Vice CHANCELLOR stated himself to be of a dif-
ferent opinion. He thought the Commissioners were
right, though they were right for a wrong reason.
He did not see hlw the agreement could be called
a fraud against the policy of marriage. The co-
venant was a legal covenant, and an action upon
it might have been maintained against the father,
had lie continued in solvent circumstances; but the
difficulty which occurred to him was, whether the
agreement was not a fraud upon the creditors? This
difficulty it seemed had not occurred either to the Com•
missioners or the Counsel. His Honour, therefore,
directed it to stand over until to.morrow, in order that
this point might be argued.

EX-?ARTS CHASIDIM3 IN THIS SIATIIIR OS JAMES.
In this case• Mr. RICHARDS was about to present a
petition from Mrs. Chambers, when he was interrupted
by Mr. Coz, who invited as to the parties attesting and
indorsing the petition ?
Upon investigation it appeared that these parties were
two persons of the name of Dugelby and Mann, neither
of whom were solicitors.

• The ViCe-CHANCELLOR dismissed the Petition, as
matter of course, with costs. H observed that matey
persons intruded themselves into that Court who we►e
not solicitors regularly admitted, and it WAS tikie slept
,should betaken to put a stop to the practice.

E

I