The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, SATuaDar, MAY I.
[Storied Seal before Ttrm.]

The LORD CHANCELLOR, immediately on taking his seat this
morning, uwationed the cape of a gentleman who had, on a former
day, applied to sue in forma pattjace is. He had read the papers
ninth had been handed in, and he found that it was sought that a
sum of money should be paid on a very old order of the Court.
This ordfr had Leen followed by others of a more recent date, and
he did not at pr.:sent see how any step could be taken, unless a pe-
tition Lad been previously filed. list Lordship bad no douht but
that some Icamvii Hentlemaii would kindly advise this gentleman
how to proceed, so as legally to obtain the object he had in view.

EX-PARTE RAU HUME, A LUNATIC.
MT. HEALD mentioned this case to his Lordship, and wished to
know what order it would be most fit to make under the peculiar
circumstances of the case. His Lordship would recollect that this
was a question where a party had married somewhat below his rank
in life, and where bigamy had been charged, and a trial had en-
sued. His Lordship had intimated, when this case was argued on
a former day, that the Netter course would be to refer the matter to
the Master, to ascertain whether it would be proper to institute any,
and what proceedings, in the Ecclesiastical Court.
The Loan CHANCELLOR agreed that a reference to the 31aster
for that purpose would be the host course to pursue.

LLOYD v. AT. PAUL.

Mr. 'ltal.]) slid thaifhiscr;e had been many times before his
Lordship, and an attempt had been made to impute delay to the
defendant (Sir Horace St. Paul), for whom he now appeared. His
Learned Friend Mr. Hart had continually brought forward this
worn-out and defeated case, a:.d, a. often as it had appeared, his
Learned Friend had totally tailed in his object. He hoped, there-
fore, his Lerdship would put an end to this fame, which had been
so frequently exhibited before the Crain. It was an injunction
sought for by the plaintiff to restrain Sir H. St. Paul from working
certain mines on an estate in which some valuable minerals had
been found. It appeared that a year before this bill was filed, •
lease of this property had been granted to certain lessees, and
17-48th parts were possessed by .31e. Lloyd. These lessees had
Rot been made a party it. the suit, although as early as November
last the objection had been taken. No supplemental bill had been
filed, and not a single step had been taken to remedy the objmtion
raised. An affirmation had now teen filed by Mr. Forster, a
quaker, and the question now came again under tbe. consideration
of his Lordship.
31r. HART thought he had just reason to complain of delay on
Ithe psrt of the defendant, as this bill had been filed two years apn,
land no decision had yet been pronounced. The object of the bill
filed was to obtain a de.covery of certain title-deeds in the
.posses-
. non of Sir H. St. Paul, and to restrain the latter from working the
minerals until the title was properly ascertained.
The Loan CHANCELLOR understood that there were here two
objections; first, *Media these lessees were or were not necessary
Parties ; and, second, whether these lessees were not all the lessees.
rhe latter was a matter of fact which could only be decided by
evidence to be brought before the Court. His Lordship then eh-
rested Mr. Hart to proceed in his motion.
Mr. Haar then entered at considerable length into a detail of
the facts of the case, most of which have already been stated, and
concluded by praying for a discovery of the deeds, and for an in-
junction to restrain the working of the mine.
He was followed on the saute side by Mr. SUODEN and Mr.
LOVETT.

111 r. HEALD was heatd against the motion, and diefartia argu-
ments were than postponed. _

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, nivel.

FIELD v. FIELD.

MT.WILDRABAIIappIied to the e.;;;t;rt to cnlarge the time in an
order issued by his Honour in this cause.
The Vic E-CIIANCELLOR observed, that the necessity of such
an application was attributable to the negligence of the solicitors
employed in the cause. It seemed to him that the solicitors in that
Court were of opinion. that because delay was in some cases nixes-
!write attendant on its proceedings, that they were not bound to
watch over the interests of their clients, and that they relied on im-
puting any delay that might occur to the rules of practice which
governed the proceedings of that Court. He would now make
public, that lie had drawn tip a rule by which solicitors would be
compelled to pay the costs of any delay that might emanoie tron)
their negligence; and he trusted that that rule would be fully en-
forced.

BOWYER V. HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORE .ND