The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-19 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.
COURT OF CHANCERY.

Pitch l TIM LOAD CIIANCELLOS TIIIII MOIIIIING, AT TIM
O'CLOCI.
ll AAAAA PT PZTITIOWS.
Part-heard, ex parts, Kiog and Alexander
Dino - - per order Parker and ILiniabottoin
tirhnetead.
LI/WATIC
Lon Franks

I In is Wood.

ATPCALI.
Markin% College v.tibtborpe I Brows v. Beevis.
thud Eska
CAOSIS DEVOUR TUE •
DRAMA •. Minato Attorney-General v. Ditto v. Vanslttart
IFraed Hale Noel I Babe: v. Banner
Dose,. ditto Ditto v. Marquis of Ditto v. Stock
Brougham v. Idle liosdonderry I Codrington v. Bal.
Brevet v. Prestos Ditto v. Pembroke- font
May v. Brinley Owen v. Flack.
BEVOILI ?lit MASTER or THE ROLLI Tars NOAXIXO, AT

TBIll KOZNING,

AT TEN.

NIXE 0'

'cLocc.

CAUSES, TVITHEII DII
Ilsacoca v. aowe—cause
Fat:clones v. Okaave—Ditto
"NOM v. Prover—Ditto
Hay v. Fairlte—Petition
Raekhan v. Sewell—Caune
Chandler v.Armetrong—Petition
Sylvester v. Delisatm -Ditto
I_ sisal v. Cotaford—Dstm
Auoney-General v. ILVst-.--Ditto
Hottett v. Deady—Ditto
Lan low—Ditto
sebbllgton v. Bebbington—Do.
essilliarnilfon—Ditto
w v. Bradshaw—Ditto
v. Matterson—
• (Vase
Many v. Crundall—.Petition
Banalsrich v. Cornwallis—Ditto
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
LONDON common' JUNIES ON MONDAY )(NIT AT MALT.
reor 12 o'c LOCI.
Flight v. Hallett Gardiner v. Durant
Bell w. Graham Bradford v. Gibson
Chinnoek v. Fraser Moss y. Elkinton
Ford v. Hughes Taylor v. Channon
Palmer v. Passenger Robson v. Bulkeley
Pope • -

:TIONS, AND PITITIONN.
Broundier y.Begot —Petition
Same v. Same—Ditto
Goodhall v. Newberry—Further
directions
In re Hayman—Petition
Eaparte Elwell Hospital—Ditto
F:orttoo y. Ellames—Ditto
Terre v. Lockwood—Ditto
Sapte v. Haguenin—Further di-
rections
Rose T. Thorpe—Petition
Brooks v. Greatled—Ditto
Cann Y. Cann—Ditto
Brown T. Geddes—Ditto
Bowker v. Skeels—Ditto
Harding v. Harding—Cause
Dawson v. Trevis--Petition

v. t..
y. Monk
Saunders v. Brian
Lawson v. Fiddeman
acolelield s. NVnght
Knightley v. Mnore
uggona v. Forbes
'human V. Allorott
Davis V. Brown

Fenner v. Ropey
Chatty v. Williams
Weston v. Plillpott
Colguhoun v. Hutchinson
Wright v. King
Clements v. King
Wright v. Rood

COURT OF COM3ION PLEAS.
There will be a sitting am Wednesday next, the 23d inst. in
M:ddleser, tWr undefended causes.

COURT Or EXCHEQUER.
THIS MORNING. AT 10 0 CLOCK.
Demurrer—Scott v. Losh

IN TUE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER ON MONDAY NEXT'
Fur Judgment—Capper v. Pagden
Postea—Wing v. Murrell,
Part heard—h, order—Petry v. Wells.

Part heard—Miller v. Jackson.
On Sequestration—Hamilton v. Earl of Strathmore.
C•USES.
Price v. Spencer Fielder v. Meynell
*logo v. Job Evans v. Williams
Dean and Chapter of York v. Bimford v. Archer
Mtddieburgh Bossingham v. Boar
Atlunton v. Hutton Ulbson v. Butler

LAW IN7'ELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FRIDAY, Noy. 18.

DECATNES A.,r13 °TITERS NOBLY.

The hearing; of ti;t;;;PealiOas;..
Mr. SHRDWELL. for the creditors claiming on the separate estate
of Devaynes, contended that the trading Act of Sir Samuel Hominy,
47 Geo. 111. esp. 74, would not bear the confined construction con.
tended for by hie learned friend, Mr. Hort, who argued that it
only extended to the lands of persons who were traders at the
time of their deaths. He admitud that there was a decision to that
effect by the Vice•Chancelkw, in 4 Maddock, ISO, Hitchdon and
another v. Bennett and others, wherein it was decided that the
freehold property mould net be affeeted by simple contract debts,',
unless the debtor were a •rader at the time of his death. Now, he
t Mr. Shadwell) contended, that the Vice-Chancellor ought to have
ca-vital on Ids eye to the tubseqnent words in the statute, " within
toe true intent and mearing of the bankrupt laws," by which a
greater latitude of construction was given.
The Loan CHANCELLOR gave an historical account of this
statute. He stated that the object Sir Samuel Romilly aimed at
wilt, to make freehold properties liable to simple contract debts;
hut he could only obtain it so far as to charge lands belonging to
persons who were traders; he thus lost part of his object.
Mr. SHADWWLL then went on to combat a point taken oo the
other side, that this statute only made freehold property legal assets,
and that the debt of his client was only AR equitable one ; but he
was sure that that would rot be his Lordship's construction ; and he
submitted that there was quite sufficient to establish the claim of
the creditors upon the separate estate.
Tlte LORD CHANCT:LLOR /Mal, that the practice of Sir Tho-
mas Sewell was to make Counsel state what they specifically prayed
tor ; that this case had proceeded at Nome length of discussion be-
fore be knew how the creditors had acted in regard to the estate of
the four surviving partners. He added, that it was a rale of this
Court that he who sought ermity must do equity, and therefore Mr.
Shad well must show Mt. hit clients have done no act which will
preclude the persons entitled to the separate estate of Desaynes
to recover front the other partners, as far as they could, any sums
ins: may he decreed against them in the cause now before the
iNaurt. His Lordship then referred to the practice of Sir William
Shane, and ultimately gave Mr. Shadwell until next Wednesday to
tr.ske up his mind, how, in his view, the decree already made could
be altered so as to answer the purposes of justice.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FRIDAY, Nov.lB.