The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-12 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 12, 1825.

the Skinners' Company," in which the judgment of the Court
has been expected. In the former, it appeared that the parties
had not yet agreed as to the points upon which his Lordship's
judgment was to be given.
The LORD CHANCELLOR desired it to be understood that
he was prepared to give his judgment now. If the parties
were not ready, he hoped the delay would not be attributed to
the wrong quarter.
With respect to the last-mentioned cause, upon some obser-
vations being thrown out as to delay,:
Mr. HEALD insisted that as little delay bad occurred as
was consistent with the magnitude and moment of the interests
concerned. He believed that all parties were agreed as to this
point.

Hereupon Dr. Knox, the master orthe school at Tunbridge,
stood up, and in allusion to this observation of lilr. Heald,
challenged any lawyer or other person to assign a satisfactory
reason why this case, instead of lasting seven years, might not
have been decided in seven months ; and why the sum of
5001. should not have sufficed for the costs, instead of 5,000/.
Ile imputed no delay to his Lordship, or to the other Judges
of this Court ; they had decided, or bad been ready to decide,
promptly.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (jocularl —You must surely be
in error, Sir; all delays here proceed from the fault of the
Court itself.

Mr. HEALD observed, that it was natural for his friend Dr.
Knox to wish to get the profits arising from his employment;
but business could not be whipped on in this Court as at
school.

DE BEAUVOIR V. RHODES.
Mr. SHADWELL appeared for Mr. Thomas Tebbutt, jan.,
and Mr. John Tebbutt, who disclaimed all concern in the
transaction. The bond which had been proposed to them by
Rhodes had been given up.
Mr. TENNANT followed on the same side.
Mr. PEPYs supported Mr. HEALD in a speech of consider.
able length, on behalf of Mr. Rhodes, and was followed by Mr.
CHING.

Mr. HORNE, for the plaintiff, began by remarking that he
should not reply to the pathetic part of Mr. Heald's speech.--
He complained of the abuse heaped upon Mr. Ashbittle, which
was doubtless done with the design of diverting the Court's
attention. He read the correspondence which passed between
Mr. Rhodes and Mr. de Beauvoir' in 1818, from whence he
thought it was to be inferred that the former was desirous of
prevailing upon his infirm landlord to let the farm at a low
rent, and that the latter felt himself not a match for his tenant,
by what he said to Mr. Tebbutt. At a critical time, Mr. R.
was found employing Mr. Tebbutt as a solicitor, and he would
ask whether this was not a ground for suspicion ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It has been stated on the other
side that Mr. Tebbutt had been the solicitor of Mr. Rhodes for
20 years. _

Mr. BORNE admitted he had been employed once or twice,
but lie was not the confidential solicitor of Mr. Rhodes. With
respect to the letter of Mr. Ashbittle to Mr. de Beauvoir, for
writing which he had been abused in unmeasured terms as
a man not to be believed, and as privately giving information
prejudicial to the interests of his patron's (Mr. Tebbutt's)
client, he (Mr. Horne) would read a letter from Mr. Tebbutt,
which directed him to make his report to Mr. de Beauvoir,
and not to Mr. Rhodes. Had he not been thus authorized,
he would have been justified in the act, if he thought Mr. de
Beauvoir was in the hands of persons from whom he could not
be extricated in any other manner. As to the charge that
Mr. Ashbittle had endeavoured to get the land himself at a
less rate than his own valuation, it would have been a foolish
as well as a corrupt act. But the fact was otherwise : not a
word was said about 990/. or 1,2001. a year; but the words
were "'a reasonable rent ;" and the offer related not to the
whole of the land, but to a part only. He would leave Mr.
Ashbittle in the hands of his Lordship, with the hope that the
character of those who had instructed Counsel to abuse him in
this Court would come out of it as clear as his. Mr. Horne
then went into the correspondence, to- show the duplicity of
Mr. Tebbutt, and that Mr. Rhodes had acted as Mr. Tebbutt
advised him ; and was proceeding t 9 what he said was the most
important part of his case, when the Court rdse.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 11.
The Court was occupied to-day in hearing exceptions and
cases for further directions.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH'. JULY
There was no case of the slightest interest whatever before
the Court this day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 11.
Most of the Special Jury causes entered for this morning
having been withdrawn or deferred, the Court, after hearing
some cases of no interest, rose at a little after eleven o'clock.

LORD MA YOR'S COURT.
TFIE CITY OF LONDON v. POTTER.
In this case a Special Jury sat to estimate the damages that
might be sustained by Mr. Henry Potter, an herbalist, resid-
ing- at No. 4, Stonecutter-street, by the removal of his trade
from those premises, whio:i are required for the building of the
new Fleet-market.

Mr. Serjeant WeLnE had been retained to conduct the case
on behalf of the plaintiff; but had not made his appearance
when the cause was called on. The junior Counsel retained
were Messrs. Law and Mirehouse, who requested that the Court
would wait until Mr. Wilde could attend. The Recorder said,
that neither the Court, nor the gentlemen of the Jury, nor the
v,itnesses and parties on the other side, could be thus detained
for the accommodation of any gentleman of the bar, and his
Lordship directed that the cause should proceed.
Mr. Law rose, and took an objection to the form of the pro-
ceeding, as it was opened by the city. This objection had been
overruled a short time ago, but Mr. Law, whose object mani-
festly was to detain the Court until Mr. Sergeant Wilde should
arrive, proceeded to re-argue the matter. He repeated the for-
mer arguments in so slow and measured a manner as to make
every one in Court yawn. Mr. Mirehouse followed, and endea-
voured to render the delay less intolerable by starting a wild
hypothesis, and arguing upon it. He at length was stopped by
the Recorder, who said that if such a practice was repeated, or
if the Court were in future delayed by the non-attendance of
Counsel who belonged to other Courts, reluctant as he was to
deprive suitors of the talents of those gentlemen in whom they
were most confident, he must certainly confine the practice to
the Barristers of the Mayor's Court.

The CoMMON SERGEANT, for the city of London, stated
that Mr. Potter, besides his shop in Fleet-market, had a house
Or warehouse in Stonecutter-street. It had been agreed to give
him 740/. for the lease, and 35/. for the fixtures, but the city
differed with hint as to the value of thegood-will. The Learned
COmmon Sergeant then described the business'of an herbalist,
and contended that Mr. Potter could not suffer materially by
the removal of his warehouse to a place at a reasonable distance.
The Counsel on the other side described with great minute-
ness the nature of the articles kept by the claimant, and repro-
sented that his losses might be dreadful. In the first place. his
collection of plants must necessarily suffer by the removal.—
Ile had vegetable poison, enough to destroy the whole city, and
they could not be .removed without great injury. His chief
article of trade was leeches, which required a peculiar spot in
which their life could be sustained wholesomely. Mr. Alire-
house represented teat the claimant's parlour, and some of his
other rooms, were incomparably adapted to the nourishment,
vivacity, and propagation of leeches, and that they could not be.
removed without infinite hazard to their health. •
A number of medical gentlepicn and dealers deposed, that
in their opinion the. claimant might suffer greatly by the re-
moval. His herbs might be injured by carriage, his leeches
might be killed; or might die a pining death in a cellar not
adapted to their constitutions. His trade also might suffer.
The CommoN StaGEANt•rridiculed the idea of giving large
,r consdrtiu amic;" the parlour.
compensation for the risk of removine the leeches, and depriv-
i n
eere3cmouonr
Jury
ft
assessed the damages at 2001.
ll
had
d offered just one half.
•
Me, .‘;ergearit WILDE had nut made his appearance when
the trial concluded.

The RECORDER then asked the Jury whether the Cautt
would not have been wild indeed to have waited fur hint.
The Jury immediateiy assented.

NV I NCHESTEII.--Mucti business i,.expveted at
our assizes, which commence on Monday. Mr. Justice LiT-
TLEDALE will preside in the Nisi Prius Court, and Mr.
justice tiASELEE in the Crown Court. Three special itirk.,
are already entered for trial, and several tnore are expected.
There are forty -five rrisoners for trial, six or whom are for
rnurder.—The quarter tensions are, in consto:aence, po:itr.4ned
to 'Tuesday, the 11;+:11 inst.