The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-03-16 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

eOURT OF CHANCERY.
DffrODß TIM LORD CRA LILLOR, TO.NORROW AVE. 71711.011750 DAYS.

Garrick v. Lord Cam-
den, part beard
Mime v. name, ditto
Cowell v. Sikes, appear
petition
Tomer v. 'Wilkins

AT TKN.
Came Petition,
.In re Manchetter Mar-
ket Act
Sbefford v. Sheffert,
finnan v. Timby
Avhby-dc-la-Zuuch
Nthool

Sower v. Lord Strath.

more
Knowles v. Gllplu
Deacon V. Deacon
Lon.dale v. Semi
Webbv.l4l.Bhaftesbury

In re Stephenson
In re Willett. :4 petit.
In re 'Corner, 2 petit.
In re llrother4, 3 petit.
In re Bowie
In re Braithwaite
In re Owen
In re Starlde, 3 petit.
In re lick
In re Heywirrid
In re Clements
In re Tarbuck

Lunatic Pelltiont.
In re Smyth, 4 petit.
In re Norntway. 2 pet.
In re Woviley, 3 petit.
In re Southby
Imre Barlow, 2 petit.
In.re Hitch
In re Phillips
In re lirtut
lit re *welt
In re Sliettweil
In re Tom ain
In re Jana.'

In re Evans
tare I.lrd Portsmouth,
2 petition.
In re Lord Csdogan
In re We.'
In re Miro Attest
In re Raw•ling
In re Wharton
In re Mould
In re Hide
In re Mansfield
In re Prarse

In re Alder
In re Orchard
In re Taber
In re Potter
In re Webb, 2 petit.
In re Blades
In re flair
In re Lewis
In re Lacy
In re Le Bay
In re Frank, 3 petit.
Esparto 1111.74anaton Y.
Carter, per order
Rimber v. Rimber
Parkes v. Penfold
Rarnsbottom v. ditto
Atevooder v. 1111 a
Rhode v. Andrade
Bourne v. Bourne
Collin+on v. Kruse
Sutton v. Arnold
Exp. lbeekhandt Reify,
2 former petitions
Terry v. linens
Gibßon v. litinehln
Dulmaine v. Dalmalne
Eirkpntrleb v. Bennett
Ford v. Ford
Leyland v. !lin&

New Petition*.
In re LIMO% ;Mary)
In re Clarke
In re Eddrive
In re Smith, 2 petit.
In re Machin
In re Randuw
In re Poke
In re Ad.llng
In re Bowman, 2 petit.
In re Cremell
In re White
Banknipt Petitlonn.
Rolland v. Mar.h k
Holden v. Fhtb:y
Hnyne v. Mandl and
Co.

In re Fowler
In re Jo ett
In re %Vaal
In re Pennon
In re Hard.
In re Carthitk
In re Stayer
In re aleack
In re Vl'arre
In reTurney

Om v. Coles
Sikes v. Oath
Collins v. Hartsinec
I Grezwv V. lirevory
Mans ♦. Richard.
Bakker i. Harris
Brow° ♦. Welby
Hare r. Marsh and Co.
Gordon y. Mures tk Co.
Raw Y. ha..
Terrell V. Ilipperman
Raker ♦. Marti,
Gate; v. Turner
?lords V. ditto •
Pritchard V. Skaltol, 2
petitions
Walker v. Raye
Truick v. Caddlck

Tomlin... Tomlin*
Collier ►. Sheppard
Cowley ►. HerSert
Same ►. same
Hall ►. Byter
Collier ►. Sheppard
Pierce.. Down
hllwriton ►. Ford
Marshall ►. Bell
Sails ►. I.e Cousto
Roos ►. Collo
Birchley ►. Blrcbley
Anthony ►. Richards
Hagelhurst ►. Wren

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
ASTONS Till ♦ICR-CRANCRLLOR TNIA DAT, AT MALT-PAST TIN.
Hayne T. Mien, nuttier directions and petition.
Cause Petitions.
Allan T. Backhon.e
Feriinbawsh T. blunt-
man

Spode v. Smith
Bradley v. truilleum
Tribble v. Raghurst
Wilson v. Mouut
In re Burkett

Benne tr. Campbell
11. a Tenfere v. Bolmer
Tunstill V. Truppes
Fidler v. Colman, two
petitions
Thomas v. Willett
Hulks v. Barron;
Plower v. Walker
Manning v. Jackson
ir v. Oldham
Jo. *rya v. Jueselyn
letriter T. Pearson
Waters v. l'aylor
In re A. R. Gale
M'ool v. Batchelor
In re Gowpertt
Jennlett v. Virrin
In re Walker
R. the v. Templer
Gardiner v. Fell
Portal v. Cobham
klulthwalte y. Jenkln-

llMentor v.Weightman
In re Sclater
Wailer v. Hitch:nson
In re Cowley'. Charity
Richarthon v. Waters
Attorney-Den. v.Dyson
Smith v. Young
Reynolds v. Nelson
111 re John Orsley's
Charity
In re Nccton Charities
Newbee v. Briggs
Price v. Price

Attorney-Oen.v.ltenny
Taggart v. Hopkins
Grainger v. Berkeley
Bernison v. Sergison
Nicholson v. Webster
Croasdale v. Philips
Newton v. Reid
Fraser Y. Brig
Hietrinson v. earneley
Whitfield v. Whitfield
Lord Gosford v. Pole
Winchester v. Gamely
Potte v. Cooke
Wright v. Wright
Gilbert v. Wetherill
Attorney-General v.
likinbers' Company
Minlove v. Rowland
Witham v. taishanan
Jerningham v. Herbert
Vanneek v. Lord Hunt-
ingiield
Goias v. Cowell

Theliti.on Y. Wood-
ford, 3 petitions
Frisby v. Worrell

Bowes v. Strintimore
In re Sir John Juiter'v

Charity
Needham v. Smith
Rudtioch v. Nolan

son
In re Boutger
Beaumont v. Paine
Faith v. Dunbar

LAW INTELLIGE.

COURT OF CIIANCERI7--, WEDNE:

!CE.

V. BOXWI&.

IDAT, \l♦=ca 15.

Mr. SUGIYEN brought on this ictotiotTto-day. It was an old
motion, and partly gone into yesterday ; it related to the winding
up of the cause ; and after Mr. Sugden on the one side, and Mr.
Heald on the other, had been heard,
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that this was a ease in Which
the testator, being extreinly apprehensive that Mr. Bonner should go
to America, and, unwilling tlmt he should marry an American lady,
gave his property to Mr. B. if he did not; but if he went out of the
country, not however going to reside or to marry in America, the
property was to go to his sisters, It happened that Mr. B. had an
extremely pressing reason to go to America, which he did. A bill
was then tiled, praying for a Receiver, and alleging that Mr. B.
was colluding wiih his sisters with a view to detest the payment of
an annuity. A Receiver was appointed, a reference made to the
Master, and the Master reported that Mr. B. was not in the com-
mon sense of the words, resident in America, nor that he went
there to marry an American lady, nor that he was colluding with
his sisters. An ejectment was also tried at law, which this Court
thought was all wrong. A supplemental suit was likewise insti.
tilted. And wpm, the whole of the circumstances, the opinion of
the Court now was, that both parties being wrong in the proceed-
ings respecting the ejectment, neither party should have coats;
that the Master should take an accounts of the rent and
profits due to Mr. Bonner before he went to America; that
those rents and profits should be declared due to Mr. Bonner
(or rather to the annuitant, he being Mr. B.'s annuitant) that
the rents, &c. due since Mr. B. went to America, should belong to
Mr. Sugden's clients, the Misses B.; that the receiver should be
discharged, and that his costs and the costs of the supplementary
bill should be paid out of the annuitant's portion of the rents, &c.
if sufficient; and if not sufficient, by hitn personally ; and that the
injunction granted against Mr. Sugden's chews to prevent their re-
ceiving the rents, &c. should now be discharged.

DORTON v. TIPTOP AND OTNERA.

This was a to discharge
attachments taken out against the defendants for not answering,
alleging what is called sharp practice.
his I,cianstft P declared, in the course of to-day, his opinion to
be, that the attachments ought not to be discharged, nothing having
been done by the solicitor who issued them but what was in strict
conformity with the rules and orders of the Coutt ; and unless what
gentlemen did under those rules and orders was to be considered
valid, the door of the Court had better be shut at once. The re-
sult was, that the order of to-day was fur dismissing that motion
with coats.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, MAacti

APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR CONTE3IPT

OF COURT.
IX THE MATTER OT EDWARD DAVIES.

Mr. Cootie applied to the Court for a rule to shew cause why a
warrant should not issue against Mr. John Griffiths, for a con-
tempt, and why he should not be committed to his Majesty's gaol
of Newgate, or such other prison as the Court might think M.
The ciretunsianees of the case the Court was already aware of, as
the Learned Commissioner made some observations upon it on Mon-
day hilt, when the insolvent was examined, and at which time Mr.
Griffith was called on hii subrana, and did not appear, having ob-
jected unless the sum of two guineas were tendered for his evi-
dence.

Mr. Commissioner IIARRI9.—I suppose, Sir, you mean to move
for an attachment instead of a warrant; that is the regular course
at Westminster Hall, and we have equal power with those Courts
to compel the attendance of witnesses. Take a rule to she,/ cause
why an attachment should not issue against his person for not at-
tending the Court to give evidence, pursuant to the subptrna which
had been served upon him.
Mr. Cooke took the rule nisi in the terms suggested by the Court.
APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE UNDER THE 19-ru

SECTION OF THE ACT.
IN THE MATTER 07 WILLIAM YOUNG.
In this case the Insolvent, who had been remanded by the Court,
obtained a rule for his detaining creditors (Mr. Tapley and another),
why they should notallow him a nom not exceeding 4s. a week, the
insolvent declaring on affidavit that he had no means nt sunport.
Mr. Cooke chewed cause against the rule, and called the atten-
tion of the Court to the facts connected with the insolvent's case.
He was heard before the Court on the Ist of February, when it ap-
peared that he hadibeen a coach proprietor at llchester, and that he
had fraudulently made over his property, and thereby given an un-
due preference to Robert Stainer, his brother-in-law and for which
offence, coupled with the fraudulent contract with Mr. Tapley, the
Court remanded the insolvent for ten calendar months from the date
of his petition. The Learned Gentleman submitted that the affi-
davit upon which the application was founded was too vague, inas-
much as it ought to contain a special allegation.
Upon reference to the notes of examination, and the affidavit al-
luded to,

31r. Commissioner flaunts said that there appeared to have been
a considerable quantity of property made over to the insolvent's
brother.in-law (Stainer), and another person t therefore, the Court,
concurring, ss it diti, in the observations of the Learned Gentleman,
would discharge the rule.
Insolvent—Then I must starve.
COURT—lnsolvent, when you next apply, take care that you
produce the affidavits of those persons to whom you assigned your
property, in order to show that they have not been contributing to
your support, in consequence of the preference you gave them.
Rule discharged.
James /fray, formerly one of the turnkeys of the Fleet prison,
was brought up to receive the judgment of the Court.
It appeared on a former eNatnination, that the inroleent had dip.
posed of his business ass baker for 401.; afterwards he went to prison,
and during the time he remained there spent the money, instead of
dividing it among his creditors.
The COURT Observed that, notwithstanding the insolvent was
not opposed, it was determined to mark its sense of such conduct
as that of which the insolvent had been guilty, by the judgment it
should pass, and which was, that be be remanded and confined
within the walls of the prison fur the term of four months, under
the 16th section of the Act.

CAUTION.—Two persons are travelling about the coun-
try, uttering counterfeit shillings dated 1819. Their mode
of proceeding is to ask for some trifling article, in payment
for which they present the counterfeit coin and receive
change. .