The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-16 00:00:00

His Lordship also gave judgment on this appeal from a
decree of the Vice-Chancellor, directing the estate of Mr.
Fairlie, of the house of Fairlie and Co., to be held liable
for a sum of 10,0001., received by the firm on account of
Mr. Fairlie, and which he held under the trusts of the
marriage settlements of Mr. Baron. His Lordship was of
opinion that the trust had been clearly made out, and that
the transactions relied on by the representatives of Mr.
Fairlie did not protect his estate. The order of the Court
below was therefore affirrped.

SKEELES V. SIIEARLEY.

nis was also an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor. The
plaintiff claimed to be an incumbrance on an estate of which
the defendant had purchased the equity of redemption.
The question turned on the nature of the first mortgage,
and his Lordship, in giving judgment, was of opinion that
there was nothing in the transactions to give the plaintiff a
lien on the estate, and he therefore affirmed the decree of
the Vice-Chancellor, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, N0r.15.

THE QUEEN V. WALKER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to the Court for per-
mission to enlarge the rule obtained in this case for filing
a criminal information against the defendant for having
published in the Morning Chronicle a letter reflecting upon
the character of Mr. Urquhart. It was for the benefit of
Mr. Urquhart that this application should be granted, as
that gentleman's object in obtaining the rule was only to
procure a vindication of his character. It must be admit-
ted that the imputations cast upon Mr. Urquhart were at
present satisfactorily answered by the affidavits he had
filed in support of this rule. The defendant, who was an
exceedingly respectable gentleman, now stated that he
was the particular friend of Lord Ponsonby ; that the let-
ter in question, now charged to be libellous, had first ap-
peared in the Times, and with its insertion the defendant
had nothing to do ; but he admitted that he bad afterwards
caused it 'to be inserted in the Morning Chronicle as an
advertisement, because he believed that its publication
then was necessary to clear the reputation of Lord Pon-
sonby from certain libels which had appeared in that paper
against him. The letter in question was in fact written
by a Captain du Platt, now in Constantinople, and at the
time Mr. Walker caused it to be published in the Morning
Chronicle lie believed it to be true. His wish now was to
be allowed to send to Constantinople to inquire into the
circumstances of the matter. If any affidavits should be
sent from abroad, they should at once be handed over. to
his Learned Friend. He (the Attorney-General) bad men-
tioned the matter to his Learned Friend Sir W. Follett,
and he now prayed that the rule might be enlarged, with-
out the usual condition of the defendant being obliged to
file his affidavits within four days before the Term.
Sir W. FOLLETT was not instructed to oppose the
mo-
tion.—Application granted.

CONSISTORY COURT, DOCTORS'
COMMONS, Nor. 15.
THE BRAINTREE CHURCH-RATE CASE.
JUDGMENT.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said he should have been willing to
take time for the consideration of his decision on this case
—important as it was—but for the case which had been
cited in support of the libel, and which, having been de-
cided in a superior Court, precluded him from entertaining
the merits of this case. In that case, of Garnaden v. Selby,
decided in 1799 by Sir Win. Wynn in the Arches', the
Court held a rate to be valid Which was made (the
parishioners having met and refused one) by the Church-
warden himself, on his own authority. Had this been a
decision by a co-ordinate authority, he should have had
much to say-upon it, presenting, as it did, many most sin-
gular and unaccountable circumstances, and an incompre-
hensible confusion •of dates. Yet, so deep was his con-
viction of the necessity of obedience to the precedents
of a superior Court, that he considered himself bound to
act in accordance with them, even though in opposition to bis
own judgment. Therefore, without station- his opinion on
the'case now before him—seeing that the precedent re-
ferred to was strictly in point—notwithstanding its eccen-
tricity and the various facts attendant on it—although at
the time of its decision it excited the greatest surprise
among the entire profession, and that during the last thirty
years he (Dr. Lushingto) had never heard it-adverted to,
he felt bound. to submit to it, and to admit the libel. Atli
he did so with the less reluctance, because he understood it
was quite certain that the case would be appealed, and it
was better it should go to a higher jurisdiction without any
judgment of his, one iv ay or the other.