Court Of Chancery, Tuesda...
LAIV REPORT. Oaeu- &wuu; us tsw case appeared In our numbers of last Week, The =tion was for attacbnmeat for want of gufficient Answer, and the reason given by-the defentlants was,that the defect, could only be supplied by the wife, who could not answer without the direction of the C6ut, and the matter was of so new a character that the Court hesitated to give the order. Mtr. AMstsReY, the solicitor for the lady, said that she was quite ready to answer if the Court should order and empower her so to do: but *be was at present incapable, having been shut up on pretence of lunacy, in t,he common gaol, for three years past, by her husband. The LoRD CHtANCELLOR directed that the time for serving the nuachment aheuld be enlarged to Thursday in the next week, apd that ahe should be direted to put in the supplemental answer. USTBAN5 AND SON, 1N TRE ZMATTIlTES OF TlIE TWO BLACK- BURO;S, BANKRUPTS. The Lonn CHANCELLOR said, that havinglooked into the cases, it-did not appear to him thlat the ktowledge of the separate and joint trading would affect the right to prove uRder both commissions, if hse petitioners really pessessed it at the time of receiving the divi- d_end unuder the joint commission. Upon this last point he would erst tbe counsel, after havig drawn his own minutes and subjected them to the insipection of counsel. JONES V. TUE ALBIOn10 COMPANY. The plaintliff was trustee under a marriage.settlement, in which IordiEnaisrnore undertook to give 9,0001. with his daughter to Itajor Bolders: 6,001: weie to be raised imrnmediatelv, and 3 0001. subse- quently, in wblch the Majer took but a life-intierest 6n the death of the Major, the Albion Company came upon the trustee for 3,0001., the value of an annuity pTeviously granted to them, which would, i. that case, override the claim of the beirs. Accordingly, the Mfaster of the Rolls had ordered the monev'to be paid into court. The pre- sent application as to restrain thte effrcts of that order pending an nph,taLo CHANbfcELLOR said that the trustee, (who acknow- ledged havin.g the money in his pesessien in the form of Exche- quer bills), having no beneficial interest to take, could have no ob- Jectiou te paying it into court. COURT OF CHANCERY, TuSsDAY. Nov. 16. A .YES V. VARLEY AND WIFE.