The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-29 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
There will be no sitting this day in Chancery.
On Thursday and Friday next the Loan CRENCELLOR leg
give judgments.
SEAL', RE.RLAIINGS, APPEALS., ♦ND PETITIONS. skrosx
Tilt LORD CHANCELLOR, AFTER MICUAZLXAS TERN.
1825.

Saturday, December 3, First Seal; Monday, Tamday, Wec-
nesday. and Thursday following, Re-bearings and Appeals; F::-
day, December 9, *mod •Seal; Saturday, Monday, and Tuts-
thy fol.lowing, Re-hearings and Appeals; Wednesday, Decetaber
14, Third Seal ; Thuraday, Friday, and Saturday following, Re-
hearings and Appeals; Monday, December 19, Fourth lesi;
Tuesday, Petitions.
SEALS, CAUSES, Exdurrross, FURTHER DIRECTIONS, AN.O
PETITIONS, BEFORE TUE VICE-LMANCLLLOR, AFTEat
MICHAELMAS TERM, ~4125.
Saturday, December 3, First Seal; Monday, Tuesday, Wed..
ncaday, and Thursday following, Causes; ririday, December V,
Second Seal ; Saturday, Monday.. and Tuesday following, Excep-
tions and further Directions ; Wednesday, December 14, Third
Seal Thursday. Friday, and Saturday following. remainder of
the C.etiore to Copeland v. Stride, inclusive, and Exceptions and
further Directions; Monday, December 19, Fourth Seal; Tues-
day, Petitions.

ROLLS COURT.

➢TI'OBT TAT MAIITTACW";iIf-iialS Tian AMIXTIM ♦T

—,... ...
NINE O'CLOCK. ........
OEKER•L PETITIONS.
Goodere v. Nicholas Harvey v. Harvey Jervoise v. Clarke
Maeleenv.Longlands In re Hovey% School Curie v. Cleric
Carter v. Carter Satterthwaite v. Sat. Webb v. Webb
Fynmore v. Morland terthwalte Thompson v. Towr..
Watkins v. Maisie Redman v. Berridge ley
Samuel v. Samuel In re Blenkerne Pope v. Whiteofhb
In to Southwark- Daniell v. Gvrillim IVatkins v. Maul.
bridge Company Bayne v. Higgin Dennys v. 14. Ppm,
Sylvester v. Delinsen Morgan v. Brigstoke fret
In re Hp. of London Gillespie v. Alex. Hunts: v. Boyd
Thullussen v.Wood- ander In .....t. Bendel]
ford Giddy v. Beddoes C'rossthwaitev.Wood
Tn reNeetonCharities Harvey v. Harvey Andrew v. Andrew
In re Church Cqtp- Bros)) v. Zempeilsg Richartle v. Richards
missioners Chatteris v. Young Hughes,. Wynne
Jones v. Hutehelon Powell v. Powell I Stonehouse v. Rent
Cranston v. Green Higginson v. Bar- Agar v. George
Devaynes v. Smith neley Bacon v. Whaley
In re Burroughs Ex.parte Powell Godmond v. Hirst
13owker v. Nieloon Goble v. Baddeley I Keysall e. Heysall
cam Elliot v. Vlnibe Marriott v. White Collier v. Were
Bayne v. Higgin I Lefroy v. Let roy lln re National Debt
Hardy v. Hole . In re London Deck Commissionere
Pope v. Whitcomb Company . Samuel v. Ball
Delleauvoirv.Whish Morgan v.Brlgatocke Robinson T. Smith
Gill v. Hayton I Hayes v. Collins lln re Giblert
Crook v. Hinny Bowes v. Strathmore Wbltridge v. Whit.
Bealy v. Nickson Parry v. Twining - ridge
Fisher v. Davis. I Baldwin v. Rowley 1 Bell v. Be wick
Gamell v. Davis Att.-Gen. v. Christ. Sylvester v. Ds/isstm
Sante v. Same church

COURT OF KING'S BENCH..
CAUSES TO BE TRIED BY MIDDLESEX COMMON /VW*
THIS DAY, AT HALI•PAST NINE.
Wilmot v.Wilkinson Drinan v. Salt Gunn v. Divan
Kelly v. Wood The King v. Itevett Churchill v. Gude
Prentice v. Benham Kent v. Curtis Williams v. Levy
Ambridge v. James Philips v. Ireland Soewio v, Brown
Doe, &c. v. Jacobs Perry v. Codd Tidmarsh v. Erma
Calvert v. Bocock Devereux v. Crouch Cook v. Brown
Berry v. Randolph Aston v. Al idys Holditcli v. Brown
The King v. Spencer Spooner v. Ni harton Ayton v. Reid .•
Bryant v. Leaks Wrentmore v.Whar. Buiches v. Mayog
Same V. Amstt ton Savery v. Walt*
Elates v. Hornor trooluiv.Nightingsle Wade v. Aielby
The king v. Penott Noak v. Marshall

COURT OF COMMON P
CAUSES TO BE TRIED AT THE MIDDLII
MICH•ELM•3 TERM, THIS DILY,_AT I
3lacklew v. Squibb Sarquison v. Mat-
and another thewson
Child v. Grace • Shettle v. A cott
Thorndike v. Hervey Large and another v.
Williams v. Dewar Cleaver
Harfbrd v. Cane. Drew and another v.
Hillandothersv.Me- Darnborough
redith
LONDON CAIISES

'LEAS.
TZ stveteto AVM*
IA LT.PAST NINE.
Doe v. Towne
Same y. Same
Carter r. Adams and
another
Robertson v. Camp:
bell
Poplett v. Steadsl4l

DITCRAELMAII T'
Wheeler v. Stephens
Mickason and another
v. Goom and anor.
Collins v. Maydwell
G. M. v. Kersey
Cave ♦. Francis

'0 BE TRIED AT TI
EBMI, TIIIS DAY, AT }
Hutchinson v. Saun.
den
Smith v. Cooper
Skipton and others v.
Hopkins

SlTtlrlfoTit%
ALT-PAST tche.
Tayler •. Poiret
She'Oda v. Wilson
Marshall v. Chappea
Ahem v. Crunch
Jones V. Maud

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
CAUSES TO DV SHIED AT THE urstNITE etiviTiamt AP r
micHAsLltAs TERN, THIS MORNING, AT TEX.
- CUSTOM!.
The Attorney-General v. Bazanac and others,
ExctsE •
Att.-Oen.v. Cobbold Att.-Gen. v. Miller Att.-Gn.t.Robertsott
I Do. v. Steele Do. v. Thos. Stevens Do. v. Sarjcant
Do. v. Ash Do. v. IVm. Stevens Do. v. Tucker
Do.r.Sadlerandanor. I Do. v. Martleat Do. v. Borrow
Do. v. Newman Do. v. Suring Do.v. John steptittbt
Solicitor of the Treasury-1 he King v. !mon and others
Solicitor of the Admiralty—The King v. Nathan.
Sclicitor of Taxes—The Attorney-General tr. Nelson and others.
Ditto Ditto v. Orchard and other:
Ditto Ditto v. Drown
_