The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAr 18.
TYLER V. DRAYTON.
(Continued from our Paper of yesterday.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL commenced his observations
by declaring, that when upon a former occasion he had
opened the facts of this case to his Honour, he had opened
it in as mild and temperate a manner as was consistent with
his duty to his client. He was therefore surprised at
hearing the accusation that had just been preferred against
him by the Learned Serjeant, that he had dealt in slanders
and libels upon his character, and that after professing that
he had no intention to wound his feelings, he (the Soli-
citor-General) had delivered such an opening speech against
him (Mr. Serjeant Wilde) as had never before been made
by man. He regretted that the Learned Serjeant had had
recourse to such a statement, because no advocate who had
to deal with a cause in which another advocate was per-
sonally and not professionally engaged, c uld hope to have
justice fairly dispensed to his client, if he paid any atten-
tion to the subject matter of such a complaint. The
Court had seen what his conduct had been to the Learned
Serjeant, and would judge whether he had not performed
the painful task allotted to him with zeal to his client, and
with the most perfect good feeling to Mr. Serjeant
Wilde. He could assure the Court, that if in any respect
he had departed from that line, it had been his misfor-
tune rather than his fault. He had no intention to wound
the feelings of the Learned Serjeant ; but at the same time
there were remarks which it was only due to his client
that he should make, and which, if he had not made,
would have drawn upon his head not only the disappro-
bation of the Lea.rned Serjeant, but of every Member of
the Bar who then heard him. With these observations
he should leave the personal parts of this case, and should
apply himself forthwith to its real merits. The Solicitor-
General then proceeded to detail the circumstances of this
case, as reported in our Journal of May 13, contending,
in the first place, that the conveyance to Drayton of Jen-
kins's reversion in 1807 was wholly inoperative, as he
was then in possession of the property in fee, and not in
reversion ; in the second place, that the conveyance in
1816 was not a confismation of the title granted in
1807, but a totally new contract; and, in the last
place, that this contract should be set aside on the
ground of Jenkins's incarepetency, and the inadequate
consideration paid for it. He stated it to be solemnly
and sincerely his belief that Mr. Serjeant Wilde had him-
self behaved most disinterestedly towards Griffith Jenkins,
though them were unfortunately some circumstances
in his conduct which must, beyond all question, vitiate
these conveyances. For instance, the Learned Serjeant,
who was a joint purchaser of Jenkins's interest, had acted
as Jenkins's attorney, and had subscribed his name as a
witness to the conveyance which consigned Jenkins's
interest to Drayton. It appeared also, that at the time
when Jenkins wrote the letter expressive of the gratitude
which he felt towards Mr. Serjeant Wilde, he did not
know that that gentleman was a purchaser of his property.
In conclusion, the Solicitor-General protested that he had
not intended to say any thing that could wound Mr. Ser-
jeant Wilde's feelings, and that if he had used any exprrs
sion which had produced that effect, it must have escaped
him unknowingly in his zeal to protect his client's interests.
At the conclusion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL'S speech,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked him what specific relief
he proposed to ask for as Against Mr. Serjeant
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that what he asked for
was the conveyance of Jenkins's estate to his client, costa
against all peak.., as well against Mr. Serjeant Wilde as
the rest, with the exception of one party, whose costs
must be paid by the plaintiff, as she had made him a party
to the suit, and an account of all the tents and profits re-
ceived since the first conveyance.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked whether it was proved
that Mr. Serjeant Wilde had received any part of the rents
and profits.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he did not know
that it was so proved. That was, however, nothing to the
matter. It had been proved that Mr. gerjeant Wilde had
been in possession of the estate, and therefore the plaintiff
must have an account of the rents and profits from him.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that he would give judg-
ment on Monday; he had already looked over many of the
papers, hut he should like to look over them again before
he gave his decision.
The Court, which had been crowded to suffocation dur-
ing the day, rose at half-past five o'clock. We were in-
formed that, at the termination of the discussion, tl,e
Solicitor-General and Mr. Serjeant Wilde shook each
other by the hand.