The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-11-28 00:00:00

Nov. 28, 1848

LAW INTELLIGENCi

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 21,

hit A 'Miivn
Th, "er-GENERAL V. SIR J. WALMESLEYO
602 Attorney-General showed cause against a rule to
irtf.a verdict for the defendant in this case, which was
th'eTrlnation for money had and received to the use of
4411%.,_r0wn under the following state of things : One
sh,...Y_tage being indebted to the Crown in certain duties
heCt, became a bankrupt at the time that the defendant
ifty large quantity of his property in his possession by
Ital‘ :security for advances to nearly £3,000. The malt
figge,.,l2..ed, but the defendant's claim being set up, an ar-
the accPl was made that it should be allowed, and that
ilkinede,rns should sell and pay him the amount, if scer-
!itNi! be correct. This step was not taken, but it was
Siniso:nat the defendant should sell the whole malt, pay
kbee:' whatever was due to him, and hand over the ba-
tlieb the Crown. After the sale, however, but before
tahunlce was paid, the officers of the excise discovered
tentia„el were wrong in a point of law in allowing the de-
kidut lien against that of the Crown, and withdrew
sanction to the bargain. The defendant afterwards
tleterer the balance to the sheriff for the Crown, and. re-
llbittthe demand of the Crown for the amount retained
11110, 055 the ground that though his lien might be bad
Vtohl, Yet that the arrangement in question amounted to
Ithent,tal? Payment by the Cro*n under a full knowledge
"e's; and it was now contended by
%at Telly and Mr. Crompton, for the defendant, that
'll,7.altlie true construction to be put upon it.
kit `th naron Parke, however, was decidedly of opinion
eerTe was no payment at all contemplated or effected
gown under the circumstances of the case. There
flittictinditional arrangement, indeed, or order to the
411, eia,f as the agent of the Crown, to pay the defendant
ISt thlt? when the amount had been correctly ascertained ;
le§d it` Step had not been taken before they wrote to re
'h'that the fact of pm
ayent could not be sus-
and the rule ought to be discharged.
rest of c rule was the Court concurred, and so
,--` discharged.

COURT OF CHANCERY

Nov. 22

eilliett Tv,: WALSH V. GLADSTONE.
and Mr. Wray supported a petition in this
Ample
an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England,
Atia!legacv of £4,000 to be paid to the President
Nei, forth Yollege, in Yorkshire. The bequest was
1/40%9' the lat
er , c Mr. Blundell, of Ince Blundell; as also
It etti ue same amount, for the benefit of Old Hall
oop°llege, in Hertfordshire. The learned gentle-
the two uo the two establishments alluded to were esta-
sl44 Catholic
of them a century ago, for the education of
ke youth, and they suggested that som-
ti! ec,heme should be drawn up for the appropri-
-0,40„-18 Dequest. The Court must have further in-
." as to the constitution of these bodies, so as to
itr.,,vie due employment of the gift.
g:!edb nneY said, the President of Ampleforth, as ap-
tlise Ltbe affidavits, received and paid all sums for
in the establishment' ; but if the Court required
The eoermation, he prayed for time to supply it.
tileNtleterrd
Chancellor said, he made no remark on the
Coor,4ad discipline of these establishments. What
for had to look at was the security of the fund,
F tile 'flat purose he wished further information as
otth. Permanent p
character of the College of Ample-

Qtt
Ce_ti,iii,;lNN, Nov. 22.—The undernamed gentlemen
/11L— u,a3, called to the degree of Barrister-rat-Law by
1)-"' 'Society of Gray's Inn, viz., 'Mr. W m. Payne,
to %glass Finney, and Mr. John Barber, M.A.
4%141) W. PAGET AND LORD CARDIGAN.—This
titter alleged Crim. Con. has een set down for trial in
0144:cnou Pleas for the ensuing sittings after term.
t„4111
thee lintlertnentioned gentlemen were on Saturday called
446 bar by Hon. Society of the Inner Temple
earleati eth,Percy Macauley Ashworth,
lalesgl3rge Heeawitt, Essqq"., and John Walter de Longue-
luard, Esq. m.A.
414/lee-Chancellor having decided the case between
/I,ahtret,(4)„ ,9.a executors and the corporation of Gloucester,
}7/e ne dismissed the claim of the corporation to Fe-
.9ok ,Te legacyof £200,000, a meeting of the corporation
, Nli,Tace, at which it was unanimously resolved to ap-
the ouse of Lords against his decision, and £lOOO
IttlithorizHed to be immediately paid towards the expenses
1621Ppeal.
ItlibteSHlßE WINTER ASSIZES.—We undeptandthiLt
been definitely settled that a winter Assizeshall
I. the ,!.,,e _Castle of York, early in the
mayi mouth,
be then
4tzit'ortital of the criminal prisoners who
at least eighty. It
4.04 ,? ,b,ren determined we believe' that eighteen other
11141 ; "le kingdom,where the number of prisoners. for
given amount, shall also be delivered by
for which purpose six of the judges
1/41 the Uircuits.
4%elltioneiLd't TEMPLE, Nov. 25.—This evening the after-
ttiltislenleto k the customary oaths before the
honourableo society, and were thereupon
814 :ailed to the degree of barrister-at-law
James St.
e'lrel[3l3wliug Sydney, New South
1'44-lO3durke, Gower-street ; George Frederick Fowle,
ii:,%yesniNdyiltsVre ;
Joseph M k Isaacs, Tor-
Amherst, Kenilworth,
biZekehire :estiobermt George Stapylton, Brompton-
)qtiobee;,, John Christian Cowley, Heathfield, Surrey ; John
glkile.iirt,?eorge, Denmark-hill., Camberwell ; Alfred
unt, Purley, Berkshire , William Langford
"tiet Wrexham, Denbighshire ; John Angus Homes,
It.ih„.ieai;DGeorge utters. Sidmouth, Devonshire; Na-
alia,`,„°rte, Barbadoes • George Herbert. Plymouth ;
Erel'lthrle‘.n.rey Adams, Of Normancross, Huntingdon-
tires Al bolas Charles Radiger, Brompton, Kent,
vtic
NCI: 7Nst OP BILL TRANSACTIONS.—In the Court
lie,\tl3on Pleas on Wednesday, a case (Smart
;44tou-as tried, Which illustrated the blessings of bill-
-11107'ng• It a eared that the plaintiff, who was
„I'wn in the sportingpp world, having amassed a large
Veto"' ruone employed it in discounting bills. The
444'" beinYg' inwant of money, about two years since.
tq tjtlling been introduced to the plaintiff, it was agreed
loath: Plaintiff should lend him £4OO on his bill at two
117,110-I', f°r Which accommodation for which accommo-
l'4,lge was to charge £lOO. This bill, when it became
tti..l4;'fhving been -honoured, it was renewed
th:Ppear_w‘ruch renewal made it amount to about £lOOO.
°r eared that the defendant shortly afterwards paid
hlit'gulal bill of ZIOO, and the £lOO interest thereof.] ;
trlitt:ries_nTiy contended by him, that having paid this,
itste4w..torbitant interesbt, he was freed from the charges
tAtiled ;It, attempted to e made by the plaintiff. The
dat length, the jury re-
? 4 f°r
uge
having
summed
up
d a verdict for the de-
tildiip half an hour, and returned t.