The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-19 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHAFF CRY
lORIORR TOR I ORD CHANCILLOR. IN LINCOLTVI

INN II ALI, Trill PAY,

AT TOX.
n v. Ur Tbitr t. Lord Crewe v. Frond,
per joder.le,d part heard
Eaverte Koch re Gil. Atty.-lien. •. Mayor of
Ors, baultr,opt pert- Fader. eveep-
riot), per jed/rnent Dom:, farther direr:-
Leave hay v. Collin', thorn, part beset
Panther dtrectiona Met-hens V. GAFFS,.
htel..liten. v. 31... gin. appeal
4=4 to be epus.e to Same T. Serie. dill.
11 T. Elllson.dr. per order

Bradatitk v. Mattock,
at,peal
loatebbull r. Mar•ey,
ditto
Toole v. Same, per
order
Baron v. Procter, np-
re"/.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COI
TAX ',ICC-611415C KLLOR. I•I LINCOLN
HALF-PAST TIN.

VAT.
es Itf. TIM DATA ♦T

Exeeltint;.and further Direr
button a. Deere, cscep. partition of Hunting-
farti.er direr- dos, exception. and
titrostpart heard petition
Grant v. Lind-ay, fur. N4pier v. Napier, en-
thin direr tit ns and ceptlons
costs, pee order spray v. Burkett, far
Grant v. Abbott, do. tber dlr. and costa
grant v. Gorden. do. James v. 'sharp, ex.
Avery v. Russell, for- Milder v. Smith, do.
Ober direction+, per Hawley v. Rodbard,
order cause., eaceptions,
Attorney-Oen. v. Cor- and costs

loos.
Maguey.Geo. •.I..ecti-
were, farther arc.-
flora and coats
Watlittetr T. Barlow.
excerdon., further
dircedoos, sod 2 pe-
titions
Dann •. Cateraft, far-
ther directions, sod
colds.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, TUESDAY, Amy' 18.
WROTIIADI V. PRICE.
Mr. HEALO wished to mention to his Lordship a ease in which
a decree had been made, directing a gentleman, who was a solicitor
oC thi.l'ourt, to pay in a very consider:Al, sum of money. This
decree had been appealed against, but the hearing of the appeal
could not for some trine take place. lie had also a motion to make
on tne subject, for an order to restrain the proceedings in the Mawr
ices office, pending the appeal ; but he had not been able to bring
it on, such was the difficulty of making a motion in this Court.
He apprehended that his client would be ordered to pay the money
Into Court ; but he was only anxious that, while the appeal was
proceeding, it should not get into the pocket of the plaintiff. His
I.ordship knew the extreme difficulty tint existed in bringing for-
ward a motion. Ile understood it was his Lordship's intention to
hear the whole of them that were in smear upon the last Seal.
This would have =Dated his client, bat that the other side had pro.
sided against such a circumstance, by preparing to take out sic-
eutiol for the amount of the money in question.
Mr. Hoag E wished to be informed what was the name of the
case to which his Learned Friend was alluding.
Mr. HEAI.D stated that it was Vt'rotham r. Price.
Mr. HORNE objected to its being mentioned without notice to
his client.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said notice ought to have been given
that the matter was intended to be brought on to.day, for were he
now to make any order, some one would upbraid him to-morrow
with having heard a case in the absence of the adverse party I and
the consequence would be, that he should be obliged to bear the
case three or four times over. Let it be mentioned to the respective
Solicitors.

lIENDIZADEL v. SACITADO•
His Lownsttre informed the Counsel engaged in this cause that
the Registrar had furnirind him with acreraf cases applicable to
the question before him, and which they might peruse if they
thought proper.