The Sun.
London, England, 1837-08-09 00:00:00

IN RE DE SAUMAREZ, A LUNATIC.
There were twu petitions with this title, having for their
object the removal of Captain de Saurnarez as one of the
Committees of the persons of the lunatics, his brothers.,
His Lordship, having heard counsel at some length, and
having alsa seen Dr. Southey on the subject, said he was
of opinion there was no reason to displaCe Captain de Sau-
marez, and that, if the petition had not been in lunacy, in
which the Court always looked with tenderness on applica-
tions respecting the treatment of those placed under its
protection, be would have dismissed the petitions with costs.
His Lordship thought, however, and so did. Dr. Southey,
that it would be better if Captain de Saumarez did not in-
terfere with the treatment prescribed by his brothers' me- I
clieal advisers.

ROLLS' COURT—Aucusr 8.
RICIIARDS V. DADLEY. .
In this case a motion was made to discharge an appear-
ance, entered under the following circumstanees :—Tlie tes-
tator in the cause, a person of the name of Richards, made
his will, by which he gave certain interests in his property'to
his son, the plaintiff, and four classes of infant defendants. Some
time after a gentleman of the name of Husband who had
acted as the testator's solicitor, suggested to the plaintiff
the propriety of filing a bill for the administration of the
estate, and this was eventually done, some other solicitor,
however, being entrusted with the conduct of the suit.
Hereupon Mr. Husband himself filed a bill, and through
his agent, Mr. G. Smith, put in an appearance for the infant
parties, which appearance it was now sought to set aside on
the following grounds ;—ln the first place the bill was filed
on the 9th of May, with the full knowledge that Mr.
Richards himself intended to file a bill for the administra-
tion of the testator's estate, and, in fact, with such haste
that it was: found necessary to amend it on two subse-
quent occasions. On the 24th of June, the plaintiff
having given notice of a motion, the bill was further
amended, by the introduction of charges of collusion
and adverse, interests between the parties. This bill,
it was contended, was filed without the slightest au-
thority, an 1 without the consent of any of the parties
interested. In the suit commenced by Mr. Richards an ap-
pearance was entered for the infant defendants and a com-
mission appointed to assign guardians ; but at a period sub-
sequent to the day on which the appearance was entered in
the other suit. Under those circumstances it was contended
that the appearance entered by Mr. Smith was irregular, and
ought to be discharged with costs. On the other side, it was
alleged that Mr. Husband had declined to file a Bill on Mr.
Richards's behalf; because he considered that person too
illiterate to form a correct judgment as to the rights of the
parties, and that Mr. Husband, in filing his bill, had only
been actuated by his feelings of respect to the testator, and
from a desire to prevent- collusion between the parties. It
was further contended, on the general principle, that any
person had a right without authority to enter an appear-
ance for an infant, and that therefore tho appearance of the
subject of the present motion was regular.
Mr. PEMBERTON appeared in support of the motion, and
Mr. STEWART opposed it.
His Lordship the MASTER of the ROLLS should, for
the present, without going into the evil. nee, assume that
the Bill filed on the 9th of May ties properly filed. The
other Bill was filed on the 13th of May, and he also had as
good reason to assume that that Bill was properly filed,
but he would treat that matter, however as doubtful. The
Bill being filed, and there being no legal authority to enter
an appearance for the infant parties, he had vet to learn that
any person might betake himself to the Six Clerks' Office,
and, without ascertaining whether there was any.relative or
friend willing or fit to act as.guardian ad Nem, get the Six
Clerks to enter an appearance on his own discretion. Some
previous inquiry ought to take place, or a commission ought
to have been appointed to assign a guardian, or the matter
ought to have been brought before the Court. - He had no
doubt of the propriety of discharging Mr. G. Smith's ap-
pearance ; but, nevertheless, he thought he could not dis-
pense nth hearing the reply, as it would sffeet the ques•
tion of costs.

Mr. PEMBERTON thea briefly replied, contending. that
Mr. Husband had filed the bill entirely with a view to
costs, and that all pretext of collusion ani adverse inte-
rests were mere inventions of that, gentleman's brain.
.His Lonnsuip said that the point which he now had
before him was simply this, that Mr. G. Smith, without
authority, without instructions, and without knowing whe-
ther any person was willing to assume the office of guar-
dian ad film procure an appearance to be entered for these
infants, •and had thereby put it upon the other party to get
rid of that appearance as they best could. He should dis-
charge the appearance, and order Mr. Smith himself to pay
the costs.—Motion granted, with costs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT—Aua. 8.
Joseph Painter, described as a bookszller, applied on his
petition to be discharged under the Act, and was un-
opposed. The insolvent had been a private watchman, and
had latterly assumed the more dignified appellation of a
" bookseller." In that capacity he had been both for-
tunate and unfortunate, arising out of a sinnlar circum-
stance. In March last he purchased at Hodson's Auction-
rooms, in Fleet-street, three play books and poems for
sixpence. In these books were three 201. notes ; his good
fortune came to the knowledge of Sir John Richardson, the
heir at law of -Thomas Richardson, Esq. deceased, to whom
the books had belonged. The insolvent was pursued by
Sir John for 601., the three 201. notes ; he defended the
action, but a verdi tt passed against him, and the debt with
the costs amounted to 119/. I Is. 9d. Sir John Richard-
son not only, lost the amount of the notes, but had incurred
considerable expellee in obtaining a verdict.
The insolvent hid been arrested at the suit of a person
named Wiggins for money borrowed. Ito was questioned
as to the validity of the alleged debt and the circumstances
that led to the arrest.

Mr. Commissioner-BUWEN held that the detaining cro•
ditnr must attend, to. he examined on the subject.
The case was accordingly adjourned for that purpose.