The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(THIS DAY).

COURT OF CHANCERY.

MORRIS V. DAVIS.
This case stood at the bend of the paper to be heard ae
further directions and on the subject of costs.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared on behalf of tio
defendant to go into the questions to be discussed.
Mr. Honsz, contra, stated that the defendant had filed
a mass of affidaviw of the utmost importance both as W
the matters in the cause, and as regarded the conduct of
the parties ; it was necessary for his clients to hear those
affidavits, and consequently be had to ask that the ease
might stand over.
The SometTort-GENERAL had no intention whatever
of reading the affidavits alluded to, and conceived himself
entitled to go on. He appeared fur the party in whose
favour the material question had been decided.

Mr. Hoax,: denied the Solicitor-Cenerai's posidint•
The affidavits were on the file. They contained charges
of subornation, perjury, and of the grossest conduct on
the part of those who had carried on this case. It was
necessary for those whose character had been thus attacked
to answer those affidavits, nor could the defendant who
had put them on the file now withdraw them, sinless with
the consent of those affected by them, and that consent
could only be given on condition that the defendant took
them off the files of the Court, paying all the costs.
The SOLICITOL-GKNENAL woeld not accede to this pro.,
pose'.

- Mr. Hours then contended his right to have the ease
to stand over, so as to give his clients an opportunity of
answering the affidavits, or of giving a notice of motion,
(which by the new riles required two clear days) to have
the affidavits taken off the file with costs.

The Soucrrou- GENERAL was heard against this.
The Loup CHANCELLOR ultimately ordered the case ti
come on ou Saturday for further directions, observing that
if it then appeared, Mr. Horne's ciients would be preju-
diced by the disposal of the case on further directions
before the motion Mr. Horne wished to make could be
heard, the further directions should not be disposed of till
the motion was heard.

The SOLICITOIG-GENERAL then agreed provided notice
was forthwith given to accept of the notice for the mo-
tion, also to be made on Saturday, and on condition that
the case was filet heard on the further directions. .

THY STATE raisoNin. AND PILOPIIIT.-..-111 TYE ILATTgIi

OF ILICIIAAD ZSLOTMERII, MICXMIED, ♦ LUXATIC.

Sir C. Warn Itaxu. recalled to the recollection of the
Court, that ►he deceased lunatic, a great many years ages
had been engaged in such a way and to such an extent is
publishing pamphlets, principally of a religious character,
and of so extraordinary a nature, as to attract the atten-
tion of Government. The consequence was, that those
whose duty it they was to advise the Government 0.1
subjects of such a kind, recommendel a commission •f la-
nacy to be taken out against him. It was sued out, he was
found t lunatic in 1790, and the necessary committee wens?'
pointed. In 1806, Mr. Finlayson took the lunatic into his
house and kept in board and lodgings till he died in 1824.
During that time Mr. F. had made no demand for the
payment due to him for that period. There was a sum
of between 3,000/. and 4,0001. now due to him on that
ground. There was also a small fragment of the deceased's
property, amounting to 497/. still remaining in Court, and
which he, (Sir C. Wetherell,) on behalf of the widow for
whom he appeared, now prayed might be ordered to Le
paid out to her, leaving Mr. Finlayson to go to the Trea-
sury for his claim.

Mr. PARKES. appeared for Mr. Finlayson. Mr. F.
had applied repeatedly to the Treasury for payment sinve
the death took place, and the answer he had invariably re-
ceived was, that he must go to this Court, as the Treasury
could do nothing far him under such circumstances. Mr.
F. could not consent to the payment out of this money►
however small, to the widow. There was a small sum
due to the committee of the person of the deceased, and
also some trifling expense would be incu►red by die-
charging the recognizance. of the committee and so our
which would have to be defrayed in the first instance out
of the 4971.

The LORD Cri.s)tcxr,Loa regretted that he could not
order the payment to be made to the widow. After
paying the expenses which firmed a prior claim on the
fund, it would have to go to Mr. Finlepton on condition
that he undertook to return to the widow, should the
Treasury heareafter be persuaded to pay his demand.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
rcyrost MINING COMPANY.-TEMTLE V. WALTOLE, i6Q•

31. r., ♦Nn OTIIIRS.

Mr. CAMPBELL said that this was an action brought
by the plaintiff to rover 526/., the amount of one year's
salary as Secretary of the late Potosi Mining Company, of
which Company the defendants were four Directors The
plaintiff was engaged in the year 1525 to go out to South
America, at a salary of 5001. per annum. When he had
been there one year he was recalled, and the present action
was brought to recover the balance due to him.
There was no defence to the action ; but
Mr. RIC/LARDS said he appeared for Sir Francis De'
ganger, one of the defendants, who had been induced to
put in a plea, in the hope that *Le other defendants would
contribute towards the plaintiff's demand. He did not
wish, however, to dispute the bill.
The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, returned a
♦erdict for the plaintiff--Damages, 1431.