The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUG►. 8.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. THE MAYOR AND CORPORA-

TION OF WARWICK.
Mr. SISADWELL appeared in support of this petition, which
prayed that the Corporation might be ordered to pay to the pe-
titioner his salary for the performance of his clerical duties.
Mr. HART opposed the petition.
His LORDSHIP asked whether there was any objection to a
refererce to a Master.
_ _

Mr. HART did not object to a reference, and therefore
His LORDSHIP referred it to the Master of the vacation, to
inquire by whom, as far as the same could be made to appear,
the assistant Vicar was appointed from time to time, with liberty
to state special circumstances, and any part oldie evidence which
either party might require to be stated for the subsequent infor-
mation of the Court. It was extremely hard that this gentle-
man should not be paid.

IN THE MATTER OF AIIDDLETON., A LUNATIC.
Messrs. Smith, Lambert, and Co. of Lincoln's Inn, were em-
ployed to present two petitions in this matter against Mr. Gar-
land, with respect to his costs. It appeared that he was the So-
licitor of all parties in the matter for a considerable time, and
that he had taken a private bond from the committee of the lu-
natic's person and estate, to indemnify him against any costs he
should not be allowed in the Master's office, upon his general
bill of costs against the lunatic's estate.
Mr. lInaNE appeared for the petitioner, and Mr.: LOVATT
in opposition. _ _ _

The Lotto CHANCELLOR expressed himself in warm terms
against this practice. Much had been said by his predecessors
against solicitors acting in a cause for all parties, and it was to
be hoped that such a practice was now very near an end. No-
thing could require more anxious jealousy on the part of the
Court than to see that a solicitor conducted himself properly in
a case where he appeared as the solicitor for the committee of
the person of the lunatic, for the committee of the estate, for the
next of kin, and for the heir-at-law, when in fact it was almost
absolutely necessary that different solicitors should be employed
for the different parties, the interest of one being to charge the
lunatic's estate with as much as possible, and the interest of an-
other to charge it with as little as possible. It had been said, a
soliCitor had been known to state to his client that be would
not be concerned in a matter unless upon an ender -sanding
that he was not to have his bill of costs taxed; now, if ever
such a case occurred again, this Court would certainly consi-
der it the duty of every Court of Justice to say, that that solici-
tor should never be allowed to have another client to be con-
cerned for. And what was the effect of the bond (before men-
tioned) here, having been given and taken, but that the solicitor
said to the committee of the estate, `• You shan't tax my bill of
costs, because it is a matter of indifference to me whether I am
paid out of the estate or out of your pocket.. Out of one or the
other I must be paid." This understanding having affected,
and run through the whole of this case, it had visited the whole;
and, therefore, upon general principles and public policy, the
Court felt imperatively called upon to make in this matter a
very special order; and lest that order should in any way be
mistaken, his Lordship would pen it with his own hand. A
very important circumstance more arose here, which was, that
there appeared to have been balances due to the estate upon the
accounts, at different times, hut that not a shilling had been
paid into Court.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, AUG. 4.
BADDErtsLEY AND OTHERS V. POZrIEROY.

This case was heard on Friday at great length before his
HONOUR. It was an application to supersede.a commission
of bankrupt, alleged to have been concerned between the de-
fendant, his father, and brother-inAaW. A vast number of
affidavits were filed by both parties, each directly swearing
against the other. His fl ONO it, after expressing his dissatis-
faction at the trial by affidavit, took time to consider. He that
morning delivered judgment, and recapitulated the facts ; but as
they will be again before the public in another'shape we forbear
to give them. He expressed his decided opinion, that there
was perjury on one side or the other, if not both, and after some
few remarks, directed an issue to try the question, of whether
it was a concerted bankruptcy.
No other case of importance occurred.