The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-06 00:00:00

STRICTURES CURED

(,_a new .Method the above troublesome
"*"„ roPlaint is. entirely eradicated (without the use of
ttithnlbir Caustic), if not constitutional, whether of long
t,tl',,Phr,;lauding, 'as- well as all weaknesses generally ae-
-41,71i10,F it, and in a short time the whole system is re-
,,CUlte‘r.; being one of
Duke reatest discoveries ever made.
vp,,,.1-YNCH, 44, street, St. James's.
to Wible references will be given, if required.—All Let-
„lit,f Post-paid.
4tiwtist Cure for Bilious Affections and Obstructions in
.
A t price of the Medicine is Fotir Pound.s..
11,(1 Ilisi"!slietl, price ss. gd. Bvo., the Second Edition of
CrICAL TREATISE on NERVOUS, BILIOUS,
(('%11(11,!)1 et',.4I‘.IMATORY AFFECTIONS; with a new Me=
`'",g strictures without the use of Bthigie or
tittn. n'lnt an Appendix on the Diseases. of Women and
Sold byJohn Lync, 44, Duke-treet, .St. mes's. Wm. Crawford, 124,s CheapsideJa,'

The LORD CHANCELLOR—What would that issue con-
clude ? Supposing the trial was to go on, and a verdict given
against the executor, the estate would be ordered by this Court
immediately to be given over to the plaintiff ; but would not
Foster be at liberty to file a bill the very next day ?
Mr. SUGDEN—Foster has already filed a bill.
His Lonnsiiir—Then, I should certainly consider, that if
it was necessary to try an issue at all, it ought to be tried be.
tween the two persons, both contending to be next of kin.
Mr. SUDDEN—His Honour has given Mr. Foster liberty to
attend the trial ; we have been put to very great expence, and
it will be of most serious consequence to us if the trial at this
late hour should be put off.
His LORDSHIP—What use will it be giving a man liberty
to attend a trial who is not a party to the suit ? I should con-
sider that the best thing to be done here will be to stay the
trial, and reserve the consideration of costs until further orders.
Mr. SUGDEN—Then I hope your Lordship will name some
early day for it to come on, as delay will cause us very great
expence, we having a great number of witnesses in town,
brought up from distant parts of the country..
His LORDSHIP—If you mean me to appoint an early day
for the trial, I certainly cannot do that ; but I will come
down any morning at nine o'clock to hear the appeal, which,
I think, from the view I take of it, will not last five minutes.
Let me know on Monday on what morning you wish me to
come down.

BEERE V. WARD.

Mr. SIIADWELL said the Attorney-General was now in
Court for the purpose of answering the question respecting the
new trial in this case. He trusted, in the event of Mr. Attor-
ney not wishing for a new trial, that his Lordship would now
proceed with the further hearing.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERA/.--Wheß this case was last be-
fore the Court, he understood that his Lordship intimated that
he (the Attorney-General) ought to have been served with no.
tice of that motion. He felt satisfied that such a course ought
to have been pursued. As the matter stood, he was perfectly
ignorant on what ground the new trial was moved for, not hay-
' nig been furnished with the arguments in support of it. But if
the ground was that the weight of evidence was against the vet.
diet, he must confess that it did appear to him that the verdict
was fully warranted by the evidence adduced. He would not
say any thing upon any other grounds, because be was entirely
ignorant of them, nor would he say any thing on the conduct
of the persons who were parties to this suit ; but it did op-
pear to him that the Court had certainly been very improperly
dealt with.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It did not appear that the At.
torney-General, or any person on his behalf, had attended the
trial on the part of the Crown, at the same time he felt convinc-
ed, that if the person representing the interest of the Crown
thought the verdict of illegitimacy was unsatisfactory, though
it was favourable to the interest he represented, still such was
the honourable course which was in these cases usually held,
that no advantage would be taken of that circumstance.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The Crown was certainly
materially interested, as the savings were considerable, but such
was the manner in which it was in the habit of acting in like
cases, that it did not suffer such considerations to influence its
judgment.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—If the Attorney-General thought
the weight of evidence in favour of the verdict of illegitimacy,
although in opposition to the interests of the Crown, still he
would do that Gentleman the justice to say, that he did not
doubt but he would act in the same manner as all former At.
torneys-General had done. His Lordship thought he ought to
have been made a party in the issue, with liberty to have at-
tended the trial as Attorney-General. lf, however, he was sa-
tisfied with the verdict, the Court would consider the case as if
the Attorney-General had been actually present.
Mr. HART thought it right to inform his Lordship, that in
the absence of Mr. Solicitor-General, the reply would be
thrown upon himself ; and, therefore, with all due deference
to the opinion of Mr. Attorney, he felt quite convinced that
evidence on many material points had not been laid before
the Jury.
Mr. HORNE was with Mr. Scarlett, and the other Gentlemen
who had been heard against the allowance of the new trial, and he
should have considered himself quite unwarranted, after the full
investigation which this case had undergone, in trespassing long
upon the time and patience of the Court. There was no dispute
that a marriage had taken place in 1742, and he did nut mean
to say that the proof of that marriage went to establish that a
prior marriage had not been solemnized, or to bastardise the
issue born previously. It was open to the Con-ft to receive proof
of a former marriage, which would establish the legitimacy of
these children. No such evidence, however, had been ten-
dered, but it was sought to be applied on the evidence of repu-
tation of the former marriage. Now unless it were admitted
that this Gentleman went about marrying himself first at one
place, then at another ; in fact, that he was also a lunatic ; it
was difficult to suppose that such prior marriage had taken
place. The qutAion for his Lordship's consideration was this,
considering the distance of time ; the evidence gone into (do-
cument Airy and parole) ; the admission, that it was a case that
was only fit to be tried before a Jury ; considering it had gone
down to a Jury (all the parties being prepared); it would be
for his Lordship to say, not whether the verdict was right to
demonstration, but whether he really thought, upon the ver-
dict, that such palpable injustice would be done to the parties
as ought to induce the Court to order a new trial ? He appre-
hended that it was incumbent on the persons who pressed for
a new trial, to shew that some evidence had been improperly
received ; or, on the other hand, that some important testimony
had been rejected on the former occasion.
Mrs SHADwELL followed.

The Lone CHANCELITOR said, that one question which
distressed his mind was, whether he ought not, after the repre-
sentation made in the Master's Office, to have , handed the
estate over to the persons representing themselves to be the co-
heiresses, leaving Ward to eject them if he should have
thought proper? Whether he ought not to have required
Ward, as officer of the Court, to have delivered possession in-
stead of directing the issue ?
Mr. WETHERELL—The other party did not ask for pos-
session' but for the appointment of a receiver only.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—In this case there were three
parties, the plaintiff and defendant, and the Crown.
Mr. HART would not confine himself to the simply praying
for a new tris.l,'ls'ut would ask that it might be a trial at bar (a
trial before a Jury, the four Judges of the King's Bench pre-
siding). If ever a case demanded a close investigation of here-
ditary descent, it was the one before the Court.
Mr. PEPYS, on the same side, argued against the case
being again sent before a Jury upon the mere objections
which had been started, unless his Lordship thought these
objections were likely to lead to a different conclusion
from the one already arrived at ;—and; again, whether
that result would be more consonant with justice to
all parties ? If there had been a former marriage, would
not evidence to that effect have been produced ? Would
the mother and father have concealed it, and thus have enclea.

VICE-CHANCELLOR's COURT, DEC. 5.
This day being the first seal day, his Honour sat to hear
motions.

BARNES AND OTHERS v. RHODES AND BRIDGER.
Mr. HEALD, in this case, moved that a Receiver should be
appointed to the estate of Thomas Barnes, of Hoxton, deceased.
The testator, Thomos Barnes, was a man of a peculiar charac-
ter; he had been no more than a working bricklayer, who, by
industry and application, accumulated property to the amount
of 10,0001. per annum, which had the peculiarity that it was
let out by the week ; it consisted of about 1,400 houses in the
neighbourhood of Hoxton and Bethnal green. The property
he left equally divided between his two sons, Robert and John
Barnes, chargeable with a ground rent and an annuity of 1,2001.
per ann. to his widow, 2001. a-year to eachof his two daughters,
and 50/. to a niece. The eldest son, Robert Barnes, died leav-
ing one share of his moiety to his brother, and divising the
remainder away. One of the sisters also died, and the charge
upon the estate to which the plaintiff, John Barnes, became
chiefly entitled, were now no more than 1,4001. The de-
fendants, Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Bridger, were the execu-
tors of the will, and, in 1321, in consequence of some
disputes about it, they filed a bill in Chancery, the effect
of which .was to continue the management of the estate in
themselves; and now at the end of four years, after the estate
had been left, the plaintiff found himself in the same condition
as if no estate at all had been left to him. There was no dis-
pute amongst the family, all were satisfied that the executors
shoul' relieve themselves from the burthen of taking care of
-the estate: The plaintiff was an elderly man, the competency of
whom to take care of his estate was not impeached by any of
.the family; and there was some difficulty in conceiving under
what pretence the executors could continue to retain possession,
particularly as all the debts were paid. It appeared too, that
some time since the deceased, Robert Barnes, was continually
threatened with bills in that Court, if he did not give up the
title deeds to the executors. This was a strange proceeding,
which had, however, been resisted. An enormous number of
tenants had been placed in an awkward situation, by notices
served upon them not topay the rent to any but a receiver ap-
pointed by the executors, and the plaintiff was compelled in his
own defence to adopt the expensive proceeding of putting the
estate under the management of that Court, by praying it to
appoint a receiver.
Mr. BELL said the reason why the defendants retained the
estate was, that many covenants had been entered into, which it
Would be necessary to fulfil, and they wished to be free from all
liability before they quitted possession. They had made ar-
rangement with persons to put the property in repair, and had
received security for the performance of the business, which
they had put into a train, and wished to see executed. There
was also some doubt on their minds whether the plaintiff was
in a proper state of mind, and whether the application was
not in reality made at the instance of another person. The
deeds had been wanted to satisfy some claims of duty, and
inquiries on that account made by Government upon the estate.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after hearing the Counsel thr
the devisee, who agreed to the application, said he consi-
dered that the executors were struggling uselessly. against the
interests of the estate, to which he ordered that a receiver
should be appointed.