The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-20 00:00:00

COURT OP COMATOI

bold Sydney and an•
other v, Homan

Hancock v. Parker
Williams. v. Bray
Doe v. Pannell and
another
ReiIVVA V. WO%

Junesand another v.
Cottle and another
Gray •-. 11111

coma. OF

COULIT OF

Attorney-Goaeral

COURT OF CHANCERY, 3lonuj, Jvxs 19.

The Lord Chancellor sat co.day for the purpose of hearing lu.
natic petitions.

1N THE MATTE* QT SIR G. P. TURNER.
Mr. SUDDEN appeared on behalf of Captain Turner, the brother
of Sir Gregory, who was the person at whose instance the commis.
sion had been issued, and requested that be might be allowed to
attend the trial of the traverse.

The Loan CHANCELLOR said. he did not know how the par.
tics would proceed to the trill of this traverse. The gentleman
who had petitioned to have it tried, also petitioned for a aunt of
1,500/. to be advanced, to enable hint to go to trial ; and he (the
Lord Chancellor) would he glad to know where that sum was to
come from ? The ground on which Sir Gregory asked for that
sum was, that he lied above one hundred witnesses to pr..tlitee.
He took it fur granted that air Gregory Page Turner's solicitor
would inform him what those witnesses were to prove; because he
never could admit an expense for one hundred witnesses, without
knowing whether they bad anything to depose to in his favour.
particularly when he (the Lord Chancellor) was informed that some
of the wit.tesses had deposed against Sir Gregory.
Mr. IlaaLn expressed himself wholly at a loss to know why Capt.
Turner should apply for liberty to attend the trial, because the
Committees were the persons who would defend the inquisition,
and of course they would not allow any interference with their
mode of defending it.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR observed that there wits another pe-
tition in this matter which quarrelled with the gentlemen who are
the present Committees of the personal estate, and asked far the
appointment of new ones. Ile could not put these parties to the
expense of appointing new Committees till he knew whether the
the traverse was to be tried or not, es that would determine
the whole question. It was obvious that the further prosecution
of those petitions till the traverse was tried would be useless mat-
ter of expense. His Lordship said he wished to know where the
money was to be got for which Sir Gregory asked, namely, the
1,5e01., and upon what calculation that sum was made ? He could
not do Mr. Corbett the injustice to suppose that he would tell him
(the Lord Chancellor) that he had 100 witnesses to call, without in.
forming him what they were to depose to
Mr. 11RaLD said his Lordship had directed the traverse to be
brought into the office that day, but it had not as yet been brought
in. If it was not brought in in the course of the dry his client
would have no time to submits his witnesses.
The Loan CHANCELLOR wished it to be understood that it was
his direction that the traverse should be brought in in the course of
the morning.
Mr. TIIESLOVE said, the object of the Committees was to de-
feat the trial of the traverse, by preventing Sir G. P. Timer fkom
obtaining funds to carry it on.
Mr. f-larten observed, that there was not one farthing owing
from the Committees to Sir Gregory; but if there had been
30.000/. owing, there were outstanding debts to a much greater
amount.

The LORD CHANCELLOR directed that the petition should
stand veer until Wednesday morning.
During the sitting of the Court, Lord Forester attended the Lord
Chancellor, for the purpose of taking the usual oaths, to enable
him to vote for the Representative Peers of Scotland.

ROLLS COURT, MONDAY, JuNE 19.

GUIFFITH V. ♦LCOCZ.

Mr. AGAR, who appeared for th7tPiainTiff in this cause, stated
the cue. He said the plaintiff was entitled to a bequest, devised to
him by the will of the Rev. Jo,eph Collier, whose executors were
Messrs. Joseph and James Collier, the former of whom became
bankrupt and died ; and Alcoek, the defendant' is executor to Jas.
Collier, likewise deceased. Messrs. Joseph and James Collier, in
capacisy of executory; to the testator, the Rev. Joseph Collier,
deposited UAW. in the hands of Mr. Samuel Davies, a banker, at
Drayton, with whom the testator had held an account. Several
sums of money were drawn out of the bank by the executors, to
pay the testator's debts and funeral expenses ; alter which there re-
mained in the banker's hands the sum of 600/. The executors not
thinking the banker's accountable receipt sufficient security for the
balance, accepted two separate bonds of 301/. each from the banker
to each of the executors, by that means dividing the responsi-
bility of the transaction between them. Air. Davies, time
banker, subsequently became bankrupt, and the only ques-
tion was, whether, under such circumstances, the executors,
having accepted the private security or the banker, Instead
of resting the money in the public funds, were liable fur the loss
sustained by the failure of the banker in question, amid whether
Mr. James Collier, who had only accepted Mr. Davies's bond tor
half the sum. could be made responsible for the whole. With
respect to the latter point, it was clear that the division of the risk
was made by an arrangement between the parties themseir s. and
could not exonerate them from time joint responsibility which they
incurred as executors to the estate or the testator.

Mr. HILL, on the part of the defendant, who is executor of .111 r.
James Collier, said that the Griffiths had received their legacies,
and hail given a receipt in full for the amount; and that the de-
fendant could not be liable Ear the entire sum, in as far as Mr.
Js.i.es Collier had only accepted the banker's bend for 300/.
His Honour the AiASTER of the flout said, that Mr. James
Collier being responsible for the entire sum of 6001., under the
circumstances laid before the Court, he would grant a decree for
an account of the personal estate.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, JUNE 19.
CAMOURY V. bHEI.I.I.
This was an action of tropism, for cutting down 32 trees, which
the plaintiff alleged to be standing on his estate at relthatn
in the pariah of Ashford. in the county of 3liddiesex. The quet..
tion at issue was. whether the trees cut down were by the award of
51r. Cooke, the barrister, adjudged to be the property of the plain-
tiff: It appeared that a fonner action of to spas% had been brought
by the plaimifr, and the same being referred to the arbitration of
51r. Cooke, the trees in question were awarded to be the property!
of the plaintiff; that the ticea cut down were not the property or'
Ste. Cadbury.
Several witnesses proved that Count de
,Puys, who some
adjoittiv raver. "
ditO•

,e year.'
ego petet,„„el the. _Jill mate, ordered the trees to be planted
by the side of the ditch and hedge which separated the plaintifi's
ground.
The Jury, under sll the cireumstances, foui.d a verdict fir the
do"cr.dant.