The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-02-07 00:00:00

LAW INTPLI.IGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY. SAT U RDAY , FEB. 6.
iw It lIMILTE.
Counsel were folly beard in the lunatic petition, and the up!. '
mines am:Tied the whole of the day.
The 1.0 II CUANEELLoa observed, thili this was a petition of
• singular ;lamer. It was that of the husband against the wife,
and it prayed for a commission to inquire whether or not she was a
Ittratic. Although it might be said that these commissions ought
to be grunted, rx deLifo justicia, yet the sound discretion of the
Chancellor should be previously exercised. and the Court ought to
be extremely can loos how it granted commissions of this nature,
where the husband was petitioner. In the whole course of his long
practise, he never recollected but one case of the same kind, and
there the commission was refused. This lady conceived herself to
hare been iii-used by her littebanit This might be true or false,
but this he kit quite sure, that he (bind Eldon) should be the
most mischievous of all human pests. If he was to issue a commis-
sion upon the facts as they had been stated to him upon affidavit.
The female sex, supposed to be inferior to the male in point of res.
son (whether Justly or not he could nut pretend to determine), very
often felt strongly when they conceived themselves to be ill used.
Was he then to issue a commission because this lady had gone be-
yond the strict line of reason with iespect to her alleged ill-treat.
anent ? After some further observations relative to the judgment
he had given in Lord Pnitanimith's case. and the doubts he then
entertained, he concluded by dismissing the petition.
The question of costs was reserved.

COURT OF KING'S lIENCH, SATURDAY, Pas..
The business in this Court affurde4 no use of any interest to the
public.
COURT OF COMMON PICAS, SATURDAY, FEB. 5.

in Ilunen.
ix Till MATTER OF AxlA HAala AND MART HAIIIIIOII, V.
STONE, CENT.
During the course of hat Term, 51r Sergeant VACCIIIAH ob-
tained a rule to show cause why the defendant, an attorney, mid.
ing near Gloucester, !thou's' not refund a certain sum of money.,
which it was alleged he had received from the complainants, and
why he should not give them an account of some property stated to
have been sold Le itim on their behalf.
Ale Sergeant PLbt, and Mr. Sergeant Must now appeared to
show cause against the rule. The defendant had been charged,
first, with having improperly received a soot of money, in order to
procure bail for the complainants in an action which they expected
would be brought against then' at the suit of a third person, named
Dring ; ens!, secondly, with having persuaded the complainants to
execute an assignment of all their property for the benefit of their
creditors, which assignment he procured to be made to two persons,
one of whom was described to be a mere man of straw, and the
other was stated to be his own clerk. And that he had aleta refused
to render any accounts to the complainants concerning the money
which had been deposited with him as security for his undertaking
to procure bail, and that which he had received as the produce of
their goods, sold under the deed of assignment. To these charges
the defendant could afford the most satisfactory answers.
The COI*IIT suggested that as there were matters of account, die
whole care had better be referred to the Prothonotary, and the
question as to the defendaet's conduct would be more satisfactorily
stiscuued, when that officer made his report.
Mr. Sergeant PF.LL replied to this suggestion by observing, that
if this case involved merely matter of accounts, he should not have
the slightest objection to refer it to the officer, but as the defend-
ant's character was concerned in it, and as he telt convinced that he
could now give a most complete and satisfacaory answer to the
charges that had been brought against him, he wished to have the
case decided without further delay.
The County seeming to acquiesce in the propriety of this obser-
vation, the Learned Sergeant proceeded.
The facts of the ease, with reference to the first charge, were sim-
ply these :—The complainants had carried on the grocery business
in Gloucestershire, and becoming somewhat embarrassed in their
circumstances, had applied to the defendant for his professional
assistance, as they were in daily expectation of being arrested by a
person named Driog, to whom they were indebted in a considerable
sum of money. They requested the defendant to-put in bail for
them, and he consented to give his undertaking, provided they
would indemnify him to nearly the amount of the debt. This they
did, by depositing in his hands a spin of 100/., the debt being abore
Da Shortly after this, no arrest taking place, he advised them to
execute a deed of assignment of all their property, for the benefit of
their creditors, and he procured the consent of those creditors to ac-
cept a small composition in lieu of their debts. The deed of assign-
ment lowing been drawn up, the two persons to whom he proposed
it should be directed, were a Mr. Smith, an auctioneer, and a Mr.
White, who was employed by Mr. Stone as a tithe collector, and
to whom 1/41 that capacity very large sums of money were constantly
entrusted. The nomination of these persons met with the appro-
bation of the complainants, and Mr. White subsequently executed
the deed. When Mr. Smith was requested to do so, he declined to
undertake the office of assignee, but subsequently, as an auctioneer,
sold the goods transferred by the assignment, by which sale a aunt
of 1151. was produced. A commission of bankruptcy having been
subsequently issued against the complainant, the defendant did not
at once pay over to them the money then in his hands, because, had
lie done so, he might have been liable to repay it to the assignees
chosen under the commission, should any such have been appoint-
ed. Finding, hoverer, that the commission was not proceeded in,
lie concluded the arrangements made under the deed of assignment,
land having paid the composition and satisfied some other debts,
he had only remaining in his possession a sum of 21., which he was
ready to allow in account for the benefit of the complainants. The
rums he had received were 100!. deposited with him, and 115!. the
produce of the sale of the goods. Out of these two sums he had
already paid 3131. and there were still unsatisfied demands upon
these complainants. The defendant most positively denied that lie
had ever refused to render an account of these sums to the corn.
plainants, which he was always ready to do.
The CHIEF JUSTICE called on Mr. Sergeant Vaughan to sup-
port his rule, which he attempted • but the whole Court expressed
their most decided opinion that the charges had been completely
and satisfactorily answered, and accordingly they discharged the
rule with costs.

Mr. Sergeant PELt., in the course of showing cause, having al-
luded to a statement in a newspaper, respecting this transaction,
by which the character of the defendant was affected,
The Cnizr JUSTICE took occasion to observe, that with such
statements the Court but nothing to do—they could not prevent the
publication of tx-parfe statements : but he must, for one, declare.
that he canidereci them u extremely improper c he thought it cruel
that in this country, and in this country alone, a man WAS doomed
to pass many sleepless nights on account of his feelings being
wounded by the publication of en e.r-pur:e statement, which might
prove, as in the preseut instance, completely unfounded.

SIIERIFF'S COURT, COLEILAN.STErE, FEB. L.

BONAPARTE'S WILL.

CWARLES TRISTAN COUNT DE wox,norow, giro:row OF
THR LAST WILL CF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, PLAINTIFF',
JAOPES LAFITTE, DEPENDANT.
Sir. F. Potiocx, Counsel for the plaintiff; stated that the
plaintiff' was the executor of the last will of Napoleon Bonaparte;
and the defendant had been Bonaparte's banker in Paris, with
a hom he wag in the habit of lodging considerable sums of money,
previous to his quitting France in the year 1815. %When Pons-
pane left France in that year. lie took with him documents from
the defendant, which showed the amount of the money then in de-
fendant's hands belonging to Bonaparte. 'These documents it
would not be necessary now to produce ; but an account, the result
of them, and a declaration of the defendant's, admitting its cor-
rectnesa, and that the balance, equal to 129.4'22/. 6a. 2d. remained
in his hands, would be proved, which would entitle the plaintiff* to
a verdict fur that sum. It would be unnecessary to prove the will
of Bonaparte. as the defendant, by allowing judgment to go by
default, admitted that the plaintiff was the executor.
The Hon. Douglas Kinnaird stated that he was acquainted
with the defendant's hand. writing ; he had seen Min write, and
was in the habit of seeing his wr'ting every week ; the signature to
the R.:count and declaration predated were in the defendant's hand-
writing.
Mr. John Allan Powell produced translated copies of the ac-
count and declaration proved by Mr. Kinnaird. The balance due
to Bonaparte on the account was 3,218,500 francs. The declara-
tion stated, that the defendant held that sum on account of Napo-
leon Bonaparte, and was dated Jan. IS. 1825.
Major Miller stated, that be knew the defendant, and had lately
seen him in Paris, at which time lie (the defendant) mad the de-
claration nate produced, and said the contents were true.
Mr. 11. illiam Criqueler stated, that be was clerk to a French
merchant in London. and was acquainted with the rate of exchange
with France. At the rate of exchange yesterday, 3,210,51/0 francs
was equal to 129.1221. 6s. 21.
This was the cave for the plaintiff; to which there was nn
The :SECONDARY charged the Jury that the evidence was cam-
he Jury immediately aesesee.l the damages at 129,4221. 6*. 2d.

,•••• I,IP. •••4; -• r.•••• •••• •
THE BRITISH PRESS.

drying bacon, and were the sole invention of Mr. Perkins's father.
The defendant had offered the plaintiff 601. which was rejected, as
' a compensation.
Mr. ADOLPHUS. for the defendant, addressed the Jury in a
humorous and concise speech. This was a cue in which his client
happened, in the circle of his acquaintance, to know one of those
" Jacks of all trades," who knew a little of every thing, and who,
because among al: the nonsense Le had talked, had given a useful
suggestion, now claimed an enormous compensation for it, in the
character of a civil engineer. With respect to drawings and de-
signs, the Learned Counsel had expected to have sten something of
the kind exhibited in the case ; but, in fact, all the drawing he
could perceive was the drawing of the declaration, unless the chalk
mark on the door, given in evidence, could be considered as such.
If so, the moat exquisite touch from the pencil of a Claude or a
Raphael must sink in value before the very ingenious etchings of
the plaintiff, who could as well have described his object by the
bend of his elbow as by any other means. It appeared, moreover.
that this gentleman, instead of being a civil enginuer, was nothing
but a chyntist. Ile hoped that the Jury would not suffer them-
selves to be furred into his apparatus on the present occasion, fur
it was evident he had turned alchymist now, and wanted, by this
action, to turn all his dross into gold. The Learned Counsel con.
eluded by expressing his opinion, that one shilling would be ample
cotnpensation in the present case, and would afford the plaintifra
useful lesson how he again tried experiments with his friends, by
bringing actions against them.
The Jury, after an hour's consultation, found a verdict—
Damage, 40s.

FROM SATURDAY :NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
--.NI--

Carlton House, February 2.
Duchy of Lancaster—The King has been graciously pleased to
appoint John Hargreaves, of Ormerod House, Esq. Sheriff of the
county palatine of Lancaster for the year ensuing.

Whitehall, Feb. 111211,
The King has been pleased to present the Rev. Norman M'Lead
to the church and perish of Catupsie, in the presbytery of Glasgow
anti comity of Stirling, vacant by the death of the Rev. James
Lap,lie.
The King has also been pleased to present the Rev. Dr. Law.
rune Adamson to be First Minister of the church and pariah of
Cupar, in the presbytery of Cupat and county of Fife, vacant by the
death of Dr. George Campbell.
At the Court at Canton House, the 2d of February, 1825.
Present,
The King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
SHERIFFS appointed by his Majesty in Council, for the
year lik2s.
Bedfordshire—Samuel Bedford Edwards, of A rlsey, Esq.
Berkshire—Ebenezer Fuller Maitland, of Sl:infield, Erg.
Buckinghamshire—James Dupre, of Wilton Park, Erg.
Cambridge and Huntingdonshire—Sir Charles I,lllcl/tone Nightin-
gale, of Kneesworth, Hart.
Cheshire_—John Smith I)aintry, of Sutton, Esq.
Cumberland—Matthew Atkinson, of Stain Gills, Esq.
Cornwall—William Baron, of Tregear, Esq.
Derbyshire—Sir Charles Abney Hastings. of Willesley Hall, Bart.
Devenshire—George Strode, of Newnham Park, Esq.
Dorsetshire—Christopher Spurrier, of Upton, Esq.
Enez—Peter Du Cane, of Bras:stead Lodge, Esq.
Gloucestershire—Sir James Alusgrave, of Barnsley Park, Bart.
Herefordshire—Thomas Andrew Knight. of Downton Castle, Esq.
Hertfordshire—Thomas Nash Kemble, of nubbin Park, Esq.
Kent—William George Daniel Tyrant, of Foley Home, Esq.
heicesten,hire—Charlea Match Phillips, of Garendcn,
Lincolnshire-4;k John Trollope, of Cassia, Bari.
51onmmitherire, James Proctor, of Chepstow, Esq.
Norfolk—John Harvey, of Thorpe Lodge, Esq.
Northamptonshire—Sir Robert Henry Gunning, of Horton, Bart.
Northumberland—Anthony °region, of Bowiden, Esq.
Nottinghamshire—Gregory Gregory, of Renipstone, Esq.
Oxfordshire—Sir Francis Deranges, of Aston Rowant, Knt.
Rutlandshire—John Neal, of Belton, Esq.
Shropshire--John Dod, of Cloverley, Eaq.
Somerretshire—John Quantock, of Nnrtonnub Herndon sq.
Staffordshire--Sir George Pigot, of Patshull, Bart.
County of Southampton—Henry Peter Heinle, oft am, Hall, Esq.
Suffitlk—Sir Henry Edward Bunbury, of Great Barton, Bart.
Surrey—John Barnard Hankcy, of Fetcham Park, Esq.
Sussex—James Henry Slater, of Newick Park, Esq.
Warwickshire—Chandos Leigh, of Stnneleigh Abbey, Esq.
Wiltshire—Ernie Warriner, of Gonoirk, Erq.
IVorcestenthire—Thomaa Shrawley Vernon, of Shrawley, Esq.
Yorkshire—John Hutton, of 51arske, Esq.
SOUI'II WA LES.
Catmarthenshirc—David Jones, of Pantglas, Esq.
Pembrokeshire—George Bowen, of Liwyn_.y-gwair, Esq.
Cardiganshire—Edward Price Lloyd, of Wernewydd, Esq.
Glamorganshire—John Bennet, of Lalestone, Eaq.
Breconrhirt—Henry Allen, of ()airfield, Esq.
Radnorshire—Peter Rickards 3lyttora, of Evenjob, Esq.
NORTH VALES.
Anglesey—Thomas 31eyrick, of Cefniasek, Esq.
Cartiarvonshire--H ugh Davie* Griffith, of Caerhan, Esq.
31erionethshire—Peetponed.
Montgomeryshire—Philip Morris, of Trebelig, Esq.
Denbighshire—William Egerton, of (iresford Lodge, Esq.
Ilintshire—John Lloyd n ynne, of Plasnewydd, Esq.