The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-30 00:00:00

LAW NOricE.y.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
ntroac vics-cw•Ncat.t.Ok•
CO.l'llth:9 bE HEARD 'NO-MORROW.
To Lt woke to—Anstrucher v
Y tie •41 pito:tick—hi Re Somerville.
Bankrupt Pet 0.01.3 per order—tx-parte Wyatt, ditto Ashton,
ditto Morris,
Jemingham Yeo • Yee Attmney.fleneral •
ben flanks v Hanks Sedgwiek
Jackiinn • !lackey Fowler v Richards Orinstonv Staniforth,
Niarguis of Ssli%Lury At.-Geri. • hlorland In show cum
• Jatk.ors Same v Corporation Plant v Repo
Marshall V INTMCT of Totnes Blow v Johns

ROLLS COURT.
CAIISES TO nr. BEAM) TO•MORBOW rvevvra.

for Judgment—Hornhy v Hunter, Law v Ditto.
Fantle:. Directions—Hallett v 31...Pdleton, Ditto r Green, Ditto
v Beecher.
Sewell v Hele I Smith v Wilcox I flockley v Bantodt
Maurice v Hiatt %Vynne v Callender Parsons • bawrenew
Burke v Bradbury Smith • Attersole Be.nrl •Da Costa
part heard Thompson • Coign- I
BLandy v Alexander noun •

COURT OF KING'S BE
lITDDLESEE C•ESES TO BE yam° IT
WEDXVIDAT ifIEBT.
One. re the demise Beaman • Mott
of Long, v Robson Harrison v Granger
I/m.Bn the denke of Butterworth vltothe,
Chandlers,vßobsoo ram
Ms v Thomas Greenwell v Wilson
Dawson • Whittaker Same v Sarre
Wildey v Squires Cowell v Yallowley
Flemingettmonitield Graham v Splatt
Hare sr -Fillusgham I Same v Bean
W hiteland v Beet Doe v Rowe
Godson v Hamer . Jarmain v Algar
The London Sitting will be on Si

EMI.
CO) NOX .It7lllll ON

Williams v Payne
Creswell v Bromley
Turner v Jarvis
Turner v A mis
Hamilton n Radford
civiall v Bedford
Morris v Brnadtoot
Walker v Wood
lid' v Burgess
Millet v Osborne
Nilson Riellings
unlay next.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
sttrintorsex CAUSES TO RETRIED TO-MORROW.
Eames v I"
"borne Cooke and another Humbert and another
Pibel v Meredith • Selby v Pritchard. clerk
Doe v Nest Setter and another WiUiams Garrod
Towne gent.eTrotter • Waite Gay r Alarey
IteveU v Revell Jones v Shenton
wing in London will be on Wednesday.

The second fiii

URT OF EXCHEQUER.
:S TO RE "maul) TO-MORROW.

C. vst
Bats t Flower, peti-
.,

tion
a•iWenn Durant,

deem nisi
lUiller r Jackson,
put heard
Colebrook v Need
Norton r Hammond

Ilarnturd v Archer
Davies v Evans
Watkins v Smith
liipley v Stockley
Rawlry v Caner
Mayor v Nixon

ditto
flolwell Blae,

pontes
Brazier v Myna'', to
produce evidence

I>ean and Chapter of
York Aliddle.
burgh.

1.-krdey;
Ward V lloviil

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE•CHANCELLOR'S COURT, ia —ATURDAY, JAN. 23.

WHITTON t. THE OAS LIOHT AND COEt COMPANY.

Mr. iiART applied for leave to renew a motion on Tuesday In
this cause which lie made yesterday ; and to do that without
amending the bill, and making the trustees parties, agreeably to
his Honour's intimation yesterday. Time plaintiff would have had
nu difficulty in amending the bill, and making the trustees parties
as suggested, had it been practicable ; but the fact was, there were
no such trustees in the pansh of Camberwell as it was stated there
were, in the sense in which the Court was in the habit of construing
the word. An Act of Parliament was paned in the year 1778,
afterwards amended in 1783, appointing seventy persons to be
trustees for the purpose of raising certain sums of money, and
doing certain different acts. Those trustees were to act as long
only as they continued to reside in the parish, and therefore it was
quite impracticable for any plaintiff to make such a number of
persons defendants under such circumstances.

The VICE.CHANCELLOIt said that Mr. Suplen was instructed
to state there was a contract in this case made between his client
and the trustees, and lithe plaintiff were to make the parties to the
contract parties to the suit, that would answer the purpose.
Mr. HART observed that that was a mere statement at the bar,
unsupported by affidavit. The objection Mr. Sugden had taken
had no other view than to evade the just interference of the Court.