The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-15 00:00:00

NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
111110113 TUB LORD eIIANCELLoRI IvJ.INCOLN'tI INN HALL, TWIG DAY,

AT T.
Appeals.
Crawshay v, Collis, per Pitt v. Duels, appeal Bacon v. Proctor, sp•
lodgment part heard peal
Brown v. lie Taatet, do. Same v. Same, do. I,ivesay v. Live-any, do.
'Statte Grlmetead, Brat Mattock, hlirk v. Attorney-General v.
bankrupt pet. to be aPPral Jollide, do. and pct.
spoke to Katchbull v.Harvoy,do.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
nr. FOR Tlll3 LLLLL LINCOLN'I INN. ISIS DAT, AT
■AL/-PAST MINN.
Exceptions and further DIINCSIODf.
Bulletining Motions.
Nock v. Cooke, ex. and
ful therdir. part heard
Grant s. Lindsay. fur-
ther directions and
costa, per order
Grant v. Abbott, do.
Grant v. (ladders, do.
Avery v. Russell, do.
Attorney-Gen. v. Cor-
poration of Hunting-
dun, exceptions
Napier a. Napier, do.

Simpkins v. Poulett,
further directions to
be •poke to
In re Harlow, bankrupt
petition
In re Wakefield, do.
In re 13rathbaw, do.
Sutton v. Deere, eactv-
lions and further di-
TeCti.,ns

Spray v. Burkett, fur
Cher dlr. and costa
James v. Shurp, ex.
Binder v. Smith, do.
Backaehlan v. Camp-
bell do. 2 vet+, fur.
direction and r
Hawley v. Itmlhard, 3
causes, ex. and room
Attorney Gen. v. Lech-
mere, further direr.
float and costs.

Coale v. Tomlinson,
do. past heard

CanseeTiurti
ill re lio%kyns, petition
111 ort r. Lowthwayte,

COURT.—Tors DAY, Al
'l' Directions, and Petition.
Coroeck v. Le Orange,
cause
Penton v. Williams, do.
In re Seel. do.
Donn v. Watson, do.
Hayes v. Collins, do.
Grant tr. Grant, de.
Same v. Same, do.
Garvey v. Sheol, do.
Town v.Slater,petition
Faulkner v. Powell,
further directions
Baker v. Balvy, pet.
Andrew v. Andrew. do.
le,hall v. ilughe%, do.
Atty.-Gen. v. Beaufort,
du.,

NlNg.._

, by Consent.
WIWA v. Itoutledge,
petition
Booth v. Booth, do.
In IT Jones, do.
idar.l:all v. Tomlinson,
do.
Fxperte loner.. do.
In r lthoun. do.
Oldman v. Weifot, do.
In re Harris, do.
In re Brown', do.
Hancock v. Edgard',
Crofts v. Harding, fur,
they directions
Bone Ban v. Johnston,
petition.

SeMev. Same, do.
In re Howes do.

ughv. . v. Wynne, dn.
ittaxvrell V. Gr •gg, do.
1116.4ers V. ata•ters, do.
Latty v. Breashur,

MIS!
Pintold V. Savage, pet.
Loofa V. Rase, ditto
Same v. Same, do.

Ainsworth, •. Ruby,

1114 t
Some v. SWIM. ditto
Idayton v. Puke, pet.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 14.
BUTE V. CUNYI/OHAME.
The I.OID CBANCELLon. on entering the Court this miming
said he was quite ready with his judgment in this case, and would
deliver it to-morrow murning.

JOHNSTON r. ASTON.
Mr. AGAR applied for his Lordship's judgment in this case.
The LoRD 0110(mA-on said he would bring down the pa-
pers relating to this cause to-morrow. or on Monday. at the latest.
THE ATTORNET•OENERAL V. THE SKINNERS' COMPANY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. observing several gentlemen in
Court, waiting for the judgment in this appeal, said, as it was Seal.
day, he could not give it this morning, but he would dispose of it
on Monday.
THE itTTORXEY-OENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF
LIVERPOOL.
The SOLICITOR-OENERAL said he had a motion in this case
for an injunction to prevent the carrying on of certain works which
had been commenced, and which projected into the river Mersey,
and obstructed the navigation of it. lie, however, understood that
Mr. Hart, who was on the other side, wished it to stand over, in or-
der that his client might have the opportunity of answering certain
affidavits which had been filed. He (the Solicitor-General) had no
objection; but he hoped his Lordship would appoint it specially for
some early day.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would not name any day for
the hearing of this motion, because he had made it a rule not to in.
troduce anything between the Seal-days. except the appeals.
Mr. HART wished the motion to stand over, for the reason stated
by his Learned Friend, namely, that his client had not had an op.
portunfty of answering some affidavits filed on the other side.
The Soaleiroa-Ciewittat. said it was quite necessary that this
motion should be heard before the long vacation.
The Loan CHANCELLOR stated it to be his intention, on the
last Seal, to hear all the remaining motions, and then to take the
petitions.
TheSoucyron-ORN VAAL hoped that if the motion stood over,
his Lordship would require an undertaking from the parties, not to
proceed with the works in the mean time.
Mr. SHADR ELL said his clients would undertake .0 undo any.
thing they might do in the mean time, if the motion should be
granted.
The mottos accordingly stands over till a future day.
IN ar: NOLLEKENS DECEASED.
Mr. HEALD applied on behalf of certain parties, who claimed to
be entitled, under the will of the late Mr. Nollekens, the sculptor,
for an allowance of money from the fund in Court, to defray the
expeneee of a Commission to examine witnesses. It appeared that
one of the residuary legatees mentioned in Mr. Nolleken's will died
in the life-time of the testator, and that the bequest therefore be-
came lapsed. The Court accordingly directed as inquiry to be
made in the Master's office, as to Nho were the next of kin of the
testator, who would be entitled to have the tepee(' legacy distri-
buted among them, acco-ding to the Statute. A claim hind been
accordingly carried into the Master's Office, acccompanied by a
pedigree, esprit mato-a°, which authenticated the claim. Subse-
quently, however, another claim, expa, te patent°, was preferred.
The evidence in support of the claim consisted of depositions made
by parties resident in, the bow Countries; and they were all re-
gularly sworn in the form usual there, that is to say, in the pre-
Bence of a notary public and other Government officers appointed
for such purposes. This evidence clearly supported the claim,
rte paterna ; but the Master doubted whether he ought to re..
it, and a Commission was directed to examine the eersons by
!beau. the depositionsdiad been made. The parties who had made
out I,lns claim came to the Court to pray that they 'nigh-Abe allowed
money enough to defray the expenses of the Commission ; and to
this he apprehended there could be no objection.
Mr. SuunEx, on the part of the executors, claimed the right to
attend the Commission, for the purpose of watchdog the evidence.
Mr, SNADWELL, on behalf of the cliimants, e.yarte materna,
made &similar application.
The LORD CHANCELLOR allowed both, but directed also that
security should be given by all parties for the money to be ad-
vanced to them, subject to the future order of the Court as to the
return of such SLIMS or part of them.