The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-22 00:00:00

.
bad. ?he court .tiCk.inStanee would Order; money
to be paid into Court to tie up the lidnds Of 'a De-
fendant, and induce him to enter Into a 64!pro-
wise, It was not preteuded to •be said that the.
money was not as safe ,in the handsof the Defend-
ant as in tbose of the Accmibiant-deneral. The
Plaintiff never could get relief by his bill in that
Court.,, for the minute the ticket was drawn, the
amount of the prize became money, had and .re-
ceived, and, as such, it was only, yecoverable in a
Court of Conimon Law. If the Court refused
this !notion, he miTht bring his anion to-morrow.
It was the first time they had ever heard of money
being asked to be paid into Court, because the De-
fendant must be a trustee to some peiSon: Under
every c4currlstance, they felt confident his- Lordship.
would refuse the motion.

, Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY replied-in a speech replete
wit h argument.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR observed, that he con-
sidered the case as perfettly cognizable by a Court
of Equity ; even in a Court of Law cdgnizance
might be taken of it ; for so far back as the reign
of William the Third, negociable securities came
under the jurisdittion of Courts of Law ; and if it
were proved that Skelton never bad a. share of the
ticket, number 26,880, and had that of 26,280,
with the circumstance of the. Defendant having de-
stroyed all evidence, by the destruCtion of the share
which .lie paid on the tali of May, he did not be-
lieve there was a Jury in the world that would not
give a verdict for the Plaintiff. Ifthis was the case
in a Court of Law, what could prevent a Court of
Equity from having juriAiaion, whet it was never
disputed that they had ? But, according to the.
rules of the Court, whatever might be its opinion
on the hearing, and in giving a decree, yet when-
the Defendant did not admit sufficient in his "an-

saver to warrant the order for the payment of the
money into Court, the Court could not comply with
the application, whatever it night do on the hearing
of the cause. • .
The motion was of course dismissed.

DECEMBER "2 I.

NE LAND V. CLARK.

This was• a motion for leave to make exceptions
to the report of a Master, and originated in the f01..'
lowing circumstances :—A person of the name of
Robert Robinson had conic to London in a low
station of life, and by dint of indhstry had atcumu-
kited a property to the amount of 10,0001. stock in
the funds. Having no relatives, as far'as he knew,.
he lelt.his funded property, as a kind of patriotic_
gift, to Government, to be employed.for the liqui-
dation of the national debt, and appointed the
Bank of England his executors. At the same-time
he left his household furniture, and certain other
personal property, to a - Mrs.' Clarke. It so hap-
pened, however, that the dividends upon his stock
had been suffered to accumulate for three years, and
amounted to the sum of 12001. to which also, under
the will of the deceased, Mrs. Clark laid claim.—
This, however, was tesisted on the-part of the Bank •
by the late Mr. Abraham Newland, who was ap-
pdinted acting executor, and it was decided by the
Court that Mrs. Clark bad no claims under the will
tb this sum of 13,0001. Matters being in this
situation, and no relatives of the deceased appearing,
the Attorney-General laid claim to this property,
on. the part of the Crown, as ultimus haeres ; but,
in the mean while, some persons in Cumberland
had claimed as being the nearest relatives of the
deceased, and the Attorney-General had taken se-
veral steps for establishing the rights of the Crown,
such as procuring copies of the proceedings of Court,
&e. in the Mihtet's Office, the expellee attending
which had amounted to 401. These persons in Cum-
berland having established their relationship, and
this sum of 401. incurred as the expellee of the
proceedings, on the part of the Crown;was claimed
to be paid out of the original' sum of 1:001. which
now tell to these distant relatives in Cumberland.
This claim, however,, was refused by the Master;
and Mr. ALEXANDER, for the
.Attorney General,
now prayed for leave to make exceptions to. the
Master's report, on the ground thit the Attorney
General had only taken those steps which were pro-
per and necessary in virtue of his office, and that it
was only reasonable that the expellees should be paid
out of the fund which was claimed.

Mr. BELL resisted this, on the ground of the
hardship of depriving these poor people in Cumber-
land of any of the property which had thus fallen to
them.

Mr. ALEXANDER contended, that there was no
hardship at all in defraying, out of the fund itself,
those expences which the Crown had incurred be-
fore the rightful heirs had established their claim.
He believed his Learned Ft fiend's ideas or riches and
poverty had greatly altered since he left Cumber-
land, it those were to be called poor people or pau-
pers in that part .of the country, who had ►hus become
the unexpected heirs of a property which to them
twist be so considerable.

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought, that in this case
there was no occasion for incurring add►tional ex-
pellee, by bringing forward exceptions to thereport.
He himself would look into the report, and, after
conferring with the Master, would give his decision
ou the subject.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 20.

PF:KK.rf V. 'I it lIIIIF.Y.

This was an action ut trover respecting a consider-
able quantity of hops, which though it lasted froth
ten in the morning till five in the evening, may be
substantially stated in a few lines.
Hep{elm), a bankrupt, had, previous to his insol-
vency, employed one Coombe, a money raiser, to
whom lie was led by an advertisement, under the
name of Humphries, to procure money for him by
discounting. hills. For this purpose Coombe resort-
ed to a linen-draper of the name of Barber ; to
Messrs. Fournier, Gore, and Co. Cheapside ; and to
Pekket, the Plaintiff, a warehouseman. Bills were
discounted by them to the amount of more than a
thousand pounds; and in the three transalions,
goods were furnished by the discounters, irr part,
instead of money, which goods Coombe disposed
of.as he best could. A a collateral security for the
money thus raised on Hepleton's bills, hops, to a
large, amount, were consigned by Hepleton to
Cootn►be, and by Coombe to the discounters. These
hops were lodged in the warehouse of the Plaintiff