The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-19 00:00:00

RICHARDSON V. WAGGONER.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that the defendant
might be discharge.? from the custody of the Warden of the
Fleet, where he had been detained for some time in this
cause also, at the instance of the plaintiff, on the ground
that the plaintiff had been twice a bankrupt, had gone to
Mexico to reside, that his solicitor, Mr. Chippendale, had
also left the country to reside in France, and that, there-
fore, there was neither plaintiff, solicitor, nor clerk in
Court to be found in the cause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the discharge to be
immediately made out, observing, that a case of this sort
ought to he in some way or other provided for.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL perfectly agreed with his
Lordship, and said that he had taken so much trouble
respecting it, that there would not be much difficulty in
having the grievance remedied.

EMDEN V. COVENTRY.
This was an appeal from a decision of Sir William
Grant, while Master of the Rolls. The case has been
before the Court in different shapes, at many different
periods, (and the question simply was, whether the late
Colonel Thornton had been twice payed a sum of 225/. ?)
Tlie Master of the Rolls decided that he had. Exceptions
Were taken to the Master's Report, which was heard and
overruled. An appeal was presented to Lord Eldon, and
fro memorandums made on the backs of some of the papers
in Lordship's hand-writing, it appeared that Lord Eldon's
opinion was the money had been twice paid, but he pro-
nounced no judgment before quitting office. The appeal
Was accordingly reheard before the present Lord Chan-
cellor, and he delivered judgment, confirming the original
order of Sir William drent and immediately afterwards
was told that the cause bad t'tbated, therefore all th it had
Passed before him would have to go for nothing. The suit
Was revived, the whole of the case again re-argued, and
now in final judgment. The Court entertained the same
opinion that had formerly been expressed, and which was
the concurrent judgment of all the Judges before whom the
case had been.—Appeal dismissed with costs.

TICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
JUDGMENT.-FOSTER V. HARGREAVE.
This was the petition of Lord Crewe, who is residing
abroad, praying for the removal of his daughter, Miss
Crewe, from the guardianship of her aunt, and also for a
reference to the Master for the appointment 'of a pro-
Per guardian. The petition was heard at considerable
length on a former day, when his Honour expressed
it as his clear opinion that there was no ground
whatever for his interference, but he would make
no positive order till he had seen Miss Crewe her-
self, and heard from her own mouth what her wishes
were. On coming into Court this morning his Honour
observed that singe the case was last before hiss, he had
had an opportunity of seeing Miss Crewe, and
upon conversation with her, he was satisfied that
the evil which the Solicitor-General had alluded to
as likely to result from the young lady's continuance with
her aunt, Mrs. Foster Cunliffe, was not likely to take
Place. The circumstances stated in the petition of Lord
Crewe himself afforded strong evidsnce that it would not.
The who first offered to take charge of Miss Crewe
had declined to do so, and the petition now rested upon a
mere reference to the Master, for the purpose of inquiring
whether it would not be better for the young lady to have
a new guardian appointed than for her to remain under the
guardianship of her aunt. His Honour must say that it
was his clear opinion there was no ground whatever for
disturbing the residence of the young lady with
her aunt. It appeared, as far as the father
was concerned, there was no ground whatever for the in-
terference of the Court. Ilis Honour mentioned this, be-
cause, upon conversation with the young lady, whose age
was 15' years and a half, he understood Miss Crewe had
never seen her father during her life, nor had she re-
ceived any letters from him except one, which had been
within the last fortnight, in which Lord Crewe expressly
desired her not to write to him in answer, but to her
sister. Under touch circumstances, the Court did not
think the facts stated in the petition of such a nature as to
furnish any reason why Miss Crewe should be removed from
the care and attention which had been exercised towards her
by Mrs. Foster Cunliffe. The Court was strengthened
in this opinion on adverting to the conduct of the aunt
towards Mi,a Crewe, which had bun every thing that
could be wished. His Honour concluded by observing
that things must remain as they were, and the costs be
costs in the cause.

The Court took exceptions, further directions, and
pleas and demurrers to-day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
HILL AND ANOTHER V. HARRIS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, with whom was the Com-
mon Serjeant, stated, that this was an action of trover,
brought by the plaintiffs as assignees of a bankrupt named
Murdoch, who formerly carried on the profession of an
attorney in the country, and it was brought for the pur-
pose of obtaining a quantity of household goods, and other
property, which the defendant shortly before his bank-
ruptcy assigned over by a bill of sale to the defendants.
The value of the goods was not disputed. The only ques-
tion therefore for consideration was, whether the commis-
sion that had been issued was or was not a valid com-
mission;

The commission issued against Mr. Murdoch Laving
been put in and read, and Lord Tenterden decided that the
Petitioning creditor's debt was good in law, a great
2.lumher of witnesses wets called, for the purpose of proy.
ing the trading. They were chiefly auctioneers, and de-
Poled to the fact of Mr. Murdoch frequently attending
sales' and making purchases which lie used subsequently
t ..d:Vote of again.
f GURNEY was heard at length for the defence,
ter which the Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.