The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-15 00:00:00

The plaintiff claims a share in the Morrripg Herald, which
claim has frequently been before the courts of equity. lie ap-
peared in person this morning and read x statement of the cir-
cumstances in which the cause now stands. It charged the
defendant and another proprietor with the avowed design of
undoing both the plaintiff and his claim by ruinous litigation.
Moreover, clearly absolving the Court of any participation in
the sufferings of the plaintiff, it alleged gross neglect and op.
pression against the solicitors in preventisg the plaintiff's last
bill from being answered; and lastly, entreated the interference
of the Court to expedite that object and bring the cause to a
hearing.
The IroaD CHANCELLOR directed the plaintiff to give
notice to. the other side, and come before him again on Thurs-
day morning. . . . _

DEVAYNES r. NOBLE

This was an appeal of a niost complicated nature, arising out
of partnership and bankruptcy. Sir. "f. Baring and .Sir F.
Standish were creditors in a considerable amount to the same
estate, the firm of which had
,been I..),;vayties, Noble,.and Co.,
Devay.nes of the firm died, and the estate becaxot subsequently
Jaatikrupt.. The materialifk'ef -the. present question, strilweli
from all its technical appendages of motions for orders to impoud
. money, to disburse assets, and so forth, is this—whether the_
separate estate of a predeceased partner should or should not
be made simultaneously responsible with the joint estate in
bankruptcy, or the creditors be' required to make the most of
the joint estate before proceeding against the separate effects of
the partner Predeceased. The argument took up the greater
portion of the day, and is to be resumed to-morrow morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 14.
HILL v. REARDON AND OTHERS.
This was the only causeof interest which came on to be heard
to-day ; the subject of the suit grows out of claims to very large
sums of money, made under the treaty of 1814 between England
and France, in respect of losses incurred by English subjects
during the French war.
The pleadings,were opened, and the further hearing of the
cause postponed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 14.

HALL V. HOLLANDER.

This was an action on the case against the defendant for ne-
gligently driving a gig over John Frederick Hal], the child and
servant of the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff lost the services of
the boy, was obliged to expend money in taking care of him,
and, being himself in a mechanical occupation, lost his time in
attending him during his sickness. At the trial before the Lord
Chief Justice at. Westminster, it appeared that the child was
little more than two years old, and was in the first instance taken
to a hospital, but the father chose to have him rernov-,... home,
where he paid a nurse for attending him. The Lord C;arefJus-
tice was of opinion that the action could not be supported, as
both grounds failed ; the service, because the child was too
young to render it, and the expences, because they were need-
lessly incurred ; and the plaintiff' was nonsuited.
Mr. LawEs now moved for a rule to show cause why the non-
suit should not be set aside, and a new trial had. It had been
held that, in case.t,f father and child, there was no.necessity to
show actual services, but the relation would lead the Court to
presume them ; and, at all events, the father was entitled to re-
cover the money which he had expended, as the child was
wholly unable to provide for himself.
The COURT held the nonsuit right. With respect to the
service, it was true that where the relationship of parent and
child subsisted, it was not necessary to prove actual services,
because the parent might, at any time, require the child to
perform them; but the child must be of capacity to perform
them, or the presumption could not arise- On the other ground,
if the father had alleged that the child was incapable of provid-
ing medical attendance, and that he had accordingly provided
it, and had proved that he did necessarily and unavoidably pay
for such attendance, perhaps he might have sustained his ac-
tion ; but here he had done neither; he placed his claim on
the loss of service, and the evidence was that the child would
have been properly attended at the hospital, if he had not
chosen to take him home. They therefore refused the rule.

THE KING D. GODrREY ANT) OTHERS.

This was an indictment against a woman named Saunders,
and two persons named Pack and Godfrey, for a conspiracy
to obtain goods from tradesmen, by representing Mrs. Saun-
ders as a woman of substance. At the trial before the Lord
Chief Justice at Westminster, these parties were convicted.
111 r. CHITTY now proposed to move, on behalf of Pack, for
a new trial, on affidavits tending to impeach the verdict, but
which he admitted were not sworn till this day, whereas by the
late rule of Court they should have been sworn within the four
first days of term.
The COURT intimated that they must abide by their rule;
but if on reading the report, when judgment should be prayed,
any reason should appear for thinking further inquiry proper,
they might then allow the defendants the benefit of such
suggestion.

MACQUIA V. MACXADO.

Mr. GURNEY moved for a rule to shew cause whys person
who had been Secretary to the Spanish Legation in this coun-
try should not be discharged out of custody on filing common
bail. The party on whose behalf the application was made
had been arrested for two sums of 100,0001. and 25,0001., al-
leged to be due to the plaintiff, of which he swore that he did
not owe one farthing. He was aware that the Court could not
try this on affidavit; but: he relied on two grounds in support
of his motion ; first—that the affidavit of debt was sworn be-
fore the British Consul at Madrid, whose authority to admini-
ster an oath was doubtful ; and second, that the sums were
merely described as "sterling," which might not import Eng-
lish money.—The Court granted a rule to shew cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 14.

IN THE MATTER OF COPE AN ATTORNEY OF THE COURT.

In the last term a motion was made to strike a person, named
Cope, an attorney, off the rolls of the Court, in consequence of
his having been struck off the rolls of the Court of King's Bench
for improper conduct.
In the course of the present term, Mr. Cope applied person-
ally to the Court, praying that their Lordships might suspend
any proceedings in his case, until the result of his petition to
the Judges of the Court of King's Bench should be known.—
He had, he said, a short time before, applied to the Lord Chief
Justice Abbott, to knew whether his petition had been consider-
ed, when his Lordship told him that the Court had yet done
.nothing in the matter.
Lord Chief Justice BEST consented that the case should
stand over for the present, and that he would take an opportu-
nity of seeing the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench on the
bject.
This morning his Lordship, seeing Mr. Cope in Court, said,
that he had seen Lord Chief Justicz.. Abbott, and mentioned Mr.
Cope's case,
,but from his Lordship's statement, it appeared
that he (Cope) had quite mistaken the observation made with
respect to his petition. What his Lordship had said was, that
nothing more could be done in it, and that the order for striking
him off the rolls of the Court must stand. Under those circum.
stances. Mr. Cope must also be struck off the rolls of the Court
of Common l'has.

Mr.Serjearit ADA/0 (Mt. Cope's counsel) here observed, that
there was a pree,dent for a Judge refusing to strike an attorney
off' the, rolls of one Court merely because he had been struck off
those of another. and he mentioned an instance in which the
present 'liord•Chancellor refused to strike the name of a solicitor
off the rolls of Chancery in consequence of what had been done
by the Judges of another Ccurt.
Mr. Sergeant PE Ax that it was a constant and per-
emptory rule of that Court (Common Pleas) to strike from its
rolls attornies whom the Court of King's Bench had struck off
for improper conduct.
The CounT acquiesced in this, and the order for striking
Mr. Cope's name from the list of attornies of the Court was
made absolute.

BEYNELL TEE BISHOP OF LINCOLN.

111 r. Serjrant V'At,6IIA.N., adverting to what fed from the
Lord Chief Justice on Friday last, with respect to this case,
stated, that he had consulted with the other counsel engaged in
it. and it Wa4 agreed not to argue the new points to which the
Court had <N:lled their attention. The case, therefore, .stands
over for jiAmeni.
Their turdships rose at an early hour, in order to meet the
other Judges in the Exchequer Chamber.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 14.
TH PR tic 1.! tt AT OIt.GENE AL V. JOHNSON.
Anindivicioal.of the name of Johnson, the illegitimate son
or an I,:relish 17,:t.,.trett by a Hintloo woman; retirctlfrom In.
t4a to iht: Sra:t i:t Amersc4, where. after residing