The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 13.
IN THE MATTER OF LYNN, AN\ALLEGED LUNATIC.

In this case a petition was preserkted for a commission of
lunacy on the last day of the sittingo before the holidays.;
but in consequence of its being stated that the. petitioner,
Mr. Lynn's sister, had not permitted the legal advisers of
Mr. Lynn to have free access to him, for the purpose of,
preparing a defence, the matter was ordered to stand over,
ith an intimation that both Counsel and., solicitors were to
have an opportunity to see the lunatic ae any time they
thought proper.
Mr. WroaAAr now moved that the commisiion should
issue.
The Loan CHANCELLOR was at all times most unwilling
to make orders that might have the effect of discouraging
any person from coming forward to resist the issuing of a
commission of lunacy. In the present case there seemed
to be no doubt that the solicitor in filing the affidavits bad
been influenced by a desire to protect the interest of the
lunatic, but as these affidavits were filed after the 31st of
December, when it was admitted that a commission must
issue, and when the affidavits could not be of any service,
it would not be right that the expense of such affidavits
should be cast on the lunatic's estate.

BAIL CUURT, al AN. 13.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

Mr. ANDREWS moved for a rule to show cause why an
order of. Court should not be made, commanding two jus-
tices of Cambridge to hear and adjudicate upon the com-
plaint of a member of a friendly society there—one Lips-
comb—who had been refused participation in the benefits
of the society. The society was established in 1794, when
certain rules were agreed to and enrolled ; and in 1824
.certain new rules were agreed to, the enrolment of which
was ordered, the necessary funds for the purpose being
awarded by the society. In the case of the present ap-
plicant some disagreement or misunderstanding had arisen,
the consequence of which was that he was deprived of his
rights as a member of the society in question. Thc prc-
sent motion was accordingly made.
Mr. Justice PATTISON granted a rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, th Ar. 13.
THE DANK OF ENGLAND V. ANDERSON AND OTHERS.

Immediately upon the sitting of the Court the Lorin
CHIEF JUSTICE, in giving his decision in this case, said that
this was a case of a nature so important to the public, that
the Court would not content themselves with merely certi-
fying to the Master of the Rolls, who had sent it to them
for their opinion, in the ordinary manner,' but had deter-
mined to deliver publicly the reasons which had guided
their judgment. The question submitted to their conside-
ration was, in effect, this—whether a partnership, consisting
of more than six persons, within the limit of sixty-five miles
from London, could lawfully accept bills of exchange at a
less date than six months in the course of their business as
bankers ? They bad purposely added the last words, "in
the course of their business as bankers," which were not in-
serted in the Act of Parliament, because they were anxious
to avoid embarrassing the present question with any consi-
derations as to what might be the effect of the statutes with
respect to the acceptance of bills of exchange under similar
circumstances by commercial companies, or even by bankers
themselves, in payment of a debt. Now, upon the case
submitted to them, they are of opinion that such a com-
pany within sixty-five miles of London could not accept
bills of exchange at a less date than six months without in-
fringing the privileges of the Bank of England. The
Learned Judge proceeded to take an elaborate review of all
the Acts of Parliament upon which the Bank privileges
were founded, and which were detailed in our columns
during the arguments in this case. Now three principal
objections had been raised 'by the Learned Counsel on be-
half of the London and Westminster Bank-a-1 st. That the
word " bills" in the Act of Parliament did not include bills
of exchange, but referred only to bills obligatory under seal
or sealed bills. 2d. That the.statute only prohibited the
borrowing, owing, or taking up money upon their bills or
notes ; and that the present case did not come within that
prohibition, because the mere acceptance of the bills did
not render them " their bills." The third objection was,
that, in order to bring a case within the operation of the
statute, there must be some transaction of borrowing ; but
that in the present case there was no borrowing at all.
Now,
.with respect to the first of those objections, that
the word " bills " did not comprehend bills of ex-
change, but only signified sealed bills, the opinion of
the Court was, that the manifest object of the Legis-
lature, in the various provisions which it had made on
the subject, was to prevent the issue of negotiable paper
which might come into competition with the negotiable
paper of the Bank of England, whether in the form of bills
of exchange or in any other form. The second objection,
that this case did not come within the operation of the pro-
hibitory clause, because the words employed were " their
bills," appeared also to the Court to be made without good
foundation. Thirdly, it had been argued on behalf of the
defendants that the acceptance of such a bill could not be
held to be a borrowing, as there was no loan to the banker ;
but the Court , held that where money was pla.eed in the
hands of the banker to provide for a bill when due, it was in
so far a loan as the party had no power to withdraw it.
His Lordship then remarked that a country copartnership
could not legally draw bills to be accepted by a London
banker, payable on demand, under the conditions before
named, and instanced this as a case in point, the bill in ques»
tion being for twenty-five pounds, at twenty-one days' sight_
Upon the whole, therefore, the Court intended to certify to
the Master of the Rolls that the acceptance of the bill in
question was not a lawful acceptance.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose, and said, that on behalf
of his clients, be felt bound humbly to thank their Lord-
ships for stating publicly the reasons of their decision.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN. 13.
John Thomas Young, a tailor, late of Nelson-street,
Greenwich, was opposed by Mr. CooKE, on the part of
Messrs. Howctt and Everest, linen and woollen-drapers,
High Holborn ; and Messrs. Bassett and King, woollen-
drapers, Basinghall-treet.
The COURT adjudged the insolvent, at the suit of Messrs.
Hewett and Everest, to an imprisonment of eight calendar
months.

INFLUENZA IN TIIE AIETROPOLIS,—thiripg this
epidemic, which seems to prevail through almost every fa-
mily in the metropolis, we would advise persons to be parti-
cularly guarded against getting wet feet, and would strongly
recommend every individual to wear one of the aromatic
spice plasters to the chest, prepared by Mr. Wray, of Hol-
born-hill, as the best mode of prevention. To persons Ja-
bouring under this complaint, or suffering from coughs,
asthmas, affections of the chest, &c., we cannot recommend
any medicines so decidedly efficacious as Wray's Cough
Pills and Pectoral Lozenges, in addition to the application
Of his plaster to the chest.