The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Drc.22.
COMMISSION OF REVIEW.-POWELL V. MOTJCHAT.

The proceedings in this cause terminated this morning.
The Lotto CHAXCELLOR, after a long and laborious corn-
ment upon the evidence, said that if he were now called upon to
advise the Crown whether this commission of review should be
allowed or not, his opinion would be that it ought not to be al-
lowed. However, he prided himself upon the power of altering
his opinion upon reflection, and if any circumstance should
occur to him to induce him to alter it in this case (though
that was highly improbable), he would have no scruple in
admitting it, when the Court met again on the 7th or 9th of
January.

LADY ANSON V. BRITISH MINING COMPANY.
Mr. BicKEnsTETH resumed his argument against the mo-
tion for injunction and account, prayed against the defendants
in working certain Cornish mines. The So LICITOR.GENERAL
replied.—Judgment to-morrow morning.
The SoLicuroit-GENERAL. prayed the Lord Chancellor on
behalf of the bar, to refrain from sitting on Saturday.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he could refuse nothing
which was asked by the bar.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 22.
PETTY b. PETTY.

Mr. RoUFELL appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in this
suit, who is the wife of the defendant. In consequence of dis-
putes which had arisen between these parties, a separation had
been mutually agreed upon, and a deed executed, by which,
amongst other things, it was stipulated that the husband
should allow his wife a certain yearly sum for her main-
tenance. The husband having failed to perform his engage-
ment in this respect, the wife tiled a bill against him in this
Court, to compel payment of the annuity. The husband, re-
solved to defeat her claims if possible, left England,
and thus placed himself beyond the jurisdiction of the
Court. The cause was however proceeded in, and ultimately
an order was pronounced for the sequestration of his real pro-
perty, to answer the claims due to his wife for her annuity.
That order was pronounced in 1822, and it required the se-
questrators to whom it was directed to enter upon the defen-
dant's lands, and to receive the profits until 270/., then due to
the plaintiff, should be paid, and all the costs incurred, by her
and by them up to that time; and further, to keep possession
until the defendant should clear his contempt. The sequestra-
tors, acting in pursuance of that order, had already received a
sum sufficient to discharge the plaintiff's claim up to 1822, and
all the costs, with the exception of 40/., and as the time was
now fast approaching when the order would have expired, the
plaintiff presented her petition to have it enlarged. The peti-
tion prayed, that the sequestrators might continue to keep pos-
session of the property, and to pay all the arrears which had
subsequently accrued, as well as the subsequent costs incurred
about the suit, and a reference to the Master to ascertain the
sum now due in both respects.
Mr. WAKEFIED appeared for the sequestrators, who were
tired of their office, and would willingly be discharged on pay-
ment of their costs.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought he could not pronounce
the order prayed for. The order as it stood would be sufficient
so far as the costs were concerned, because it was not neces-
sary to make any more explicit mention of them ; but the fUr-
ther sequestration of the property could not be ordered in the
shape required.
Mr. ROUPELL represented the annuity to be the plaintiff's
only means of subsistence, and the sequestration of the de-
fendant's property as alone able to secure the payment.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR promised to look further at the
order ; but at the same time expressed his opinion that the ap-
plication must be renewed in some other shape.