The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-08 00:00:00

COUkT OF CHANCERY, Dm 6.

DAVIS V. COLLINS.
this was a demurrer to a bill of discovery. It
appeared, that the Sheriffs of Middlesex were the

i'eal Plaintiffs. i'l4yttad seised, iinaer 'an 'ecr.
tion against the Duke of Sussex; at the suit Of Davis;
a quantity of looking7glasses, in the shop of the.'
Defendant, packed Up in boxes, with his Royal
l
Highness's name and arms on them. Titer°
been in his aparthiants, but were .sent to the
fen:lanes shop to be taken care of. The Sherio
sold them tinder the execution, and the Defendant
brought an action of trocer, to recover the goods,
on which the present Plaintitl's filed—their bill for
an injun6,tion to stapthe proceedings in the. Court 01
Law, which injunaion was granted.
Mr. HAV.T, Counsel for the Defendant, con.,
tended,- that the Court could - not, in any instancei.
oblige a Plaintiff' in an action of Jaw to discl9se.:ti4.
the Defendant what his case was. If this was al7'
lowed, it would be the means of
.introducing a
system that would make' it dangerous to ever?' ,
Plaintiff to attempt to go into a Court, of . Lase`
for justice. If theDefenchmit, in this case, did oak,
piove, in a Courts of Law, that the goods in goes-'
tion were' his property, he would haVe a verdi',:
against him. He could not conceive how that"
Court could giv:3 him redress by allowing a bill a
discovery ; and, under every circumstance of thc,'
case, he was convinced the Court would allo‘V
demurrer.
; Ca!
Sir SAMUEL RoMILLY, Counsel for the Pla.mi
contended, that the demurrer should not a
be
lowed, and that the Defendant should be oblige-
to answer the -bill of discovery. The Defentn
had acknowledged that part of the goods s‘izcoi
under the execution were the property of his 'Tara
Highness. the Duke of Sussex, and the bill fir,;.
him what part was his Royal Highness's propet?,,,
Surely he could answer that without comtuitt"."
himself. He was of opinion that the whole Of t-rs ;•
property was his; for although it might have beeo
originally bought from the Defendant, yet if theire-
was no regular transfer of it back, it belonged to 1,11.4.
original purchaser. Under these circumstances, r.
had not a doubt his Lordship would dismiss the oe
murrer.
Lord anox observed,.he was of opinion that die)
demurrer should not be granted, for it could not i!l`!
jure the Defendant, as Plaintiff' at law, if be at
swered what part of the property did belong to 117
Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, and it was 1,..3113
justice to the Plaintiff that he should, when ll° 114

•
no other mode of ascertaining it.
ria
The demurrer was accordingly not allowed,
the Defendant will be obliged to answer the bill°
diScovery.

On Tuesday evening a Gentleman alightecl
his horse, near the end of Bond-street, in os.-t.,Prof
street, and a. decently-dressed youth, 14 yearsio
age, of-the' name of Towers, the son of a tratiesiLtd
in Hanway-yard, took charge of the .nnimal,
was cautioned not to mount. The yowl], hovs`S.
disregarded the caution, and rode the horse of
vendish-square, where the animal got the bette,
jer
him. The boy had got his feet in the stirroraa
tilers, and on being thrown he was dragged Oti,io
hundred yards by the horse, going at speed, anu
head was literally dashed in pieces. On his, 1/6"01
taken up in Oxford-street, there were no 5101 to
life. The youth had been sent on an lerraa'
Mary-le-bone-lane.
g •."
DISCOUNT ALLOWED ON LOTTERY
Every Purchaser,of Shares of Tickets, arnountiOg
Five Pounds and upwards,tv ill, be allowed a Discoliii
at J. WARNER'S Fortunate Office, 10, Cornhill,tivs;
Capital Prizes to a large amount have been rcc.ll3,iv
Shares.—The Lottery begins drawincil. •
Tuesday, with superior advantages to any I'loo4
Scheme, viz. Two new Prizes of SOO Tickets
‘c°
*l'
besides Four of 20,0001. Two of 10,0001. (r
50001. &c. Scc.