The Sun.
London, England, 1822-08-10 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Av G. 9.

EX-PARTE CHELSEA HOSPITAL IN RE ABBOTT.
Mr. Eml, on behalf of the petitioner, Sir Charles Leong,
treasurer of Chelsea Hospital; applied to-the Court to allow. the
sub-treasurer of the..hospital to prove a debt, under the bank-
rupt commission of Abbott, to set. aside the assignees chosen
under that commission. The Learned Counsel stated that the
Commissioners, as he conceived, had unjustifiably iejected the
proof of the Sub-treasurer, and tiled the Act 34 Geo. 111., com-
monly called the Prize Act, to show, the power of the Sub-
treasurer to prove-under the commission. The act distinctly
authorized persons appointed by the Treasurer to do all matters
and things contained m that Act.
Mr. BELL, who was on the other side, contended that the
clause in the act cited, related to persons specially appointed by
the act. The sub-treasurer was an officer performinghis duties
long previous to this act. • ,
The COURT concurred in this suggestion.. As to the choice
of assignees, the Court never interfered excepting in extreme
,cases, where Commissioners had acted with a disnanest inten-
tion, or where such an error had been't ommittcd by-themes to
exclude nine-tenths of the bone fide creditors. - In this peculiar
instance, the Commissioners had acted properly in rejecting the
proof of the sub-treasurer.-
Mr. HEALD proceeded to argue the case in support of the
petitioner. Ile thought he could show the Court the necessity
of ordering fresh assignees to be appointed. The assignees, it
would be found, were not competent to undertake the duties
imposed upon them.
The COURT would be happy to hear any case. cited in which
that principle had been acted upon. At present, it seemed that
the Court could go no further,
Mr. HEALD apprehended, that in this peculiar case, the
Court would consider the public interest, and act, even' if no
precise precedent could be found. This, the Court Would re-
collect, was an application on behalf of a great body, and both
Greenwich Hospital and Chelsea Ildspital had consented.- The
assignees now appointed had no knowledge whatever of prize
business, and this was absolutely requisite in conducting such
important concerns. One of. them was an auctioneer, a very
good sort of man no doubt, and knew well enough how to
knock down an estate by the hammer. but was wholly ignorant
of prize business. 116 thought, therefore, the Court would here
deviate from its usual course.
The COURT said it-would not deviate one inch from its usual
course.
Mr. HEALD would.not trouble his Honour any further with
the petition.
Mr. BELL observed, thatin fact there was no prize business
for the assignees to decide upon, excepting the mutter now be-
fore the Court.
The Court said, that even if there were prize business, that
did not form apart of the prayer of the: petitioners. It was not
averred that the assignees - were incompetent to discharge the
duties.. In none but. extreme cases hid the Court acted, in ap-
pointing fresh assignees. •
Mr. HEALD thought the Court might order the Treasurer to
prove under the Commission.
Mr. BELL said that Such an order would be unnecessary, as
the Act before cited gave the Treasurer a power to prove in the
same manner as individuals.
The COITUT thought that.in case it could be shown that the
assignees were so grossly ignorant as to be\ wholly incompetent
to undertake the task imposed upon them, it would he the duty
of the Treasurer of Chelsea Hospital
,to present a petition- to
the Court, stating the fact. In that case, the Court might be
induced to act. As the matternow stood, the petition must be
dismissed without costs. , '

Proceedings against the Bishop of C
The tWo watchmen, Clegg. and Clarke, who gave
evidence.against the Bishop or Clogher, attended
at Marlborough-street "I::fice yesterday morning,
when one of them was immediitely dispatched to
Ireland, in order to go through some usual form
In the .Ecclesiastical, Court, prior to the other
witnesses being sent over to give their evidence.,
The whole of them will shortly, be forwarded to
that country'
in.
th e awhen the proceedings will take
place
above Court to deprive the Bishop
tof Clogher of his dignitits and office,

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCLTIT.-DURHAM, Atm 6,
LTHEL. • '

THE. KING J. WILLIAMS.

This was an indictment by Lord Stewart, for a paragraph
copied from the Irishman into the Durham Chronicle; reflect-
ing on the late Marquis of Londonderry. Mr. ,BROUGHAM
stated, that Lord Stewart having assured Mr. Williams that it
was totally untrue;- he authorized him to say he believed it to
be so upon his Lordship's authority. Mr. Serjeant ihri.Locw.
expressed his Lordship's satisfaction' with this apology, and
consented to a verdict of Not Guilty.