The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-08 00:00:00

LAIV NOTICES.

COURT Or CHANCERY.
Strollll TIM LOAD CII•NCYLLOR, AT MISTIIIINIMR, 71116 DAT, 417 10.
Motions.

VICE.CHANCF.LLOR'S COURT.
•atoll Till TICS-CHANCILLOR, TAIS DATA At ITALY-PAST TIN.
(Mnea.
Fletcher v. Northeatz Rolland v. Mandl
Callus T. Osn In Barney v. Luckett,
Junes v. fieloOl pauper
Parker v. Fear')ley blct v. Reerhey
Att.-Gen. v. Lechmere Uc Tastet s. Chapman

Ptevor v. Mootlsle7, to
be spoke to
Weft v. Hamlett, &Ito
Wittl,lnsoo v. Hudson
P.mtler v. tiootlo per
Howard v. Putittud

ROLLS
Freemsn v. Fa!die,
Judgment '
Guarneri: v. Brasier,
ditto
'ebster v. The:fall,

rWRT.—THIS El'lllg ISO, AT SIT.
('.III v. Gorringe Maitland v. Carpenter,
Sharron v. Fletcher advanced
Lent. v. Young Carpenter T. Maitland,
Mayes v. Turner ditto
Peake •. Nightield Walker v. Woodward
Colley t
r
further v. Gt '

_ -
petition Colley v. Giddings V. Giddings
tbrams T. Winship I Vates v. liucknell I Griffith v. Alcock
The Master of the Rolls will hear causes, .atber directions, and peti-
dons by consent, on Saturday next, at nine in the morning.
Causes, further directions, and petitions, must be Int down by two
o'clock to-morrow afternoon.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—Tnts DA/, AT HALT-PACT 12.
Special Juries.
Seogood v. Farmer, by order I Seagood v.
London Common Juries.
Taylor v. O'shaugh-
nessay
Davies v. Fiestall
hongbottum V. Bush-
man
Amory v. Farmer
Hentlg v. Hodgson
Backwortit v. Edwards
Glover v. Thompson
Cooke v. George
Bantle v. Anderson
Hawes v. Irvin
Jones v. Watson
Green v. Saward

Farmer, by order

Eyton ♦. AVillts, by

order
Pugh v. He)lin
Branscomb v. Southall
Bennet v. Johnson
Hunt v. Barry
nutter v. Chatsvin
Sherprold v. Cutten
Solomon* v. Osborne
Hulls v. Williams
Smith v. Stanton
Felgate v. Lancaster
Bradley v. Richardson
Rayner v. Lam:Meld
COURT OF CO3fIIIC

Crewdson v. Horner
Hopkins v. Duncan
Hellyer v. Co.Jd
Horton v. Marsh
Williams v. Hodgson
Rennison v. Beck
Barber v. Ybilllps
Butcher v. Marsh
Holt v Cross
• ..

Marhall v. Hayes
Statclit v. Mitchell
Ilow.e v. Verlander
11-INon v. Jeffery 4
Langley v. Furnival

PLEAS.—Tvis DAT,
nl Common Juries.—Ken

AT HALF-VAST NUM.

Hnwkee r. Levy
Littler v. t/eorge

Beckwith tr. Waring
Dobree v. Du Boyce
sinith v. Woodruff.
New Causes.
Bell v. Hutchinson
Smith and others v.
Hayes and others
Tennant and others v.
Gorse

Ellis and anor.v.l3 tohop
Naryon v. ktudy

Alder v. Chandler
Buu•beld v. A p+ey
Tlmm v. Hutton and

Ilarchard • . Lawson
Barton and smother v.

another
Rooth v. same
Renny an 1 another v.
}linens and another

Parmar
Whitmore and others
v. Phillip., Knt.
Flinn v. Read

Vere---aad another v.
Pima

COI'RT OF
Thud Session '

DELEGATES.—Ten
realty Term. 1:16.—84

lAlr. AT TZSr.
re the burros:Um

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, WEDNESDAY, JVNE 7•

IN RE HOWARD AND GIRDS, EX PARTE GRIMSTEAD.

The Loan CHANCELLOR having-to-cloy resumed his judgment
in this cause, commented on the petition and affidavits of Grim-
stead. He said that on Friday next he hoped to be able to go
through the evidence of the case, when it would not be difficult to
decide upon it. He thought the question for consideration was.
whether the transactions between Grimstead and Howard and
Gibbs were usurious or not; and in that view two points would
arise forconsideration ; whether or not Grimstead knew the nature
of the transactions, and if not, whether it would be consistent
with the ufety of human affairs, and with the principles on which
evidence was received, that the representations of a party concerned
should alter the nature of the transactions when they came to be
decided OD in a Court of Justice ?