The National Register.
London, England, 1819-07-05 00:00:00

110111R11% V. lIONT.

Mr. Scarlett thened cause againot a rule obtained by Mr.
Hunt an a former day, for the Mager to review hi., taxation
It appeared to the Claw, under all the riroan.
statireb, 'hot the Ma, tor had alloned an ovrteharge of a fro
shiliino with re.pect to the numbn r of f-lio4 iii the de• lit.
ration, and upon that item alone 'bey allowed Mr. Hugel
rte to be lade alwolute.

COURT OF ( HANIERY.
TUESDAY. JUVE 29.
The Primers: of Wales v. I.9rd Limerpoml, Could Memler,

and another.
The Solicitor General in this caw moved, that the Bill filed by
her Royal flightless again, t the defendants should be itsnuissal.
with rusts to be taxed by the Mater. The late Duke of Bruns-
wick had signed wend documents, giving the Printers 13,01u0i.
and the same day he also„ ..s alleged in the bill. gave her by
another document 15.(ssu French loins. Lord Liverpool and
Count Munster were appointed executors, and tie present suit
was instituted to compel them to make payment of the above
claim. On seeing the document, Count Munster had some
doubts as to the heed-writing' it being different from that which
his Serene fliithinss usetl. The other document had not been
produced, tint could the defendants put in their answer till that
was clone. and the finds in the mean time amid not 1w adminis-
tered. Four terms having now elapsed since the Court oultnxi
the doeunient to lw tunsluced, they felt it their duty to mote for
the lull being disn issed.

Sir A. Piairott, a great length, foilowe l on the same side ; as
did Mr. Ilcud.

Mr. Marini, fer the royal plaintiff, said that the present case
certainly lay in a very narrow compasc The stun was not of the
slightest importance. IVhen the order was made. thedefendants
wire told Cm' thiy should have a fortnight ti) put in their answer
later the docum. Id had been produced, and he contended that the

.TULY B.

defendants could not ask for the bill being dismissed till they had
put in their answer. Their best plan would have been to obtain
a.l order for the production of that deed in a givcn time, and if.
th it was not done, then they might apply Fir dismissing the bid
lc regretted that the motion hail been made at a time when the
Princess could lime no opportunity of instructing her legal
a terser& Ile emeludel by expressing a hope that his Lord-
s:tip *mild not agree to the motion.
Mr. SIM lwen followed on the wine side, and contended that
if any delay had taken place the defendants alone were to blame ;
for if they thought tit to complain, they ought to have put in their
answer, and then no delay could hate taken place. It would
certainly Ibr a new feature in the practice of the Court to make
the order as prayed for.
The Solicitur.General, in reply, contended the defendants
could not 1.1:1•Welt till they had the document, **Count Munster
had declared by affidavits his doubts of its being genuine. The
Learned Corm then entered into a long detail of the particulars.
The Lord Chancellor was clear that when a defendant pledged
himself by oath to put in his answer on a certaln paper or docu-
ment being produced, and that till that was produced he could
not answer without real injury to those for whom he acted; the
Court would not make any degree till that was done. The pre.
bent caw must be decided on principle rather than precedent.
and the question was, whether the defendants, placed in their
present situation, had a right to claim the dismissal of the bill, as
though they had been differently situated? Ile hoped in God
nothing on earth would induce hint to have his judgment
biassed either way, and his order, thereibre, was, that the paper
be produced by the third seal, with liberty to her Ito) al ll ighness
to make any motion on the first or second seal. If he said
nothing on this subject tomorrow, then this order would be
considered as final ; but should he sec cause to alter his opinion,
he would state what he thought. His nut saying any thing
meth' be a proof that his order was final.
Time case occupied several hours.
WEDNESDAY, /USE 30.
_ _ _

The Lord Chancellor. at the sitting of the Court this day.
observed to Sir .rtlfur that on further consideration of
this case. he wds confirmed in his opinion that the order he had
sr ,fed ye►terday was the proper one to be made under all the pc.
oulisr circurnstancts of the case. Therefore he pronounced it to
be his order.