The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 27.
CHARLTON AND CHARLTON.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the case was thus :—A bill
had been filed ; a plea had then been pleaded ; a replication
had next been filed. A motion was then made for leave to
withdraw the application and to amend the bill. The motion
was of course—that was, no notice of motion had been given.
The difficulty here was occasioned by the plea. If it had been
an answer to the bill, the answer would stand on the file as an
answer to the amended bill ; but the plea being, as must be
supposed in such a case, good, what was to be done with it ?
It would remain on the file, but it would not be a plea to the
amended bill. The order must therefore be refused, and he
did not see how the bill now amended must not be taken off the
file. The plaintiff or plaintiffs were led into a mistake by the
practice of the Court. He would not, however, allow the prac-
tice of the Court to be altered without his consent ; and when-
ever he should find it altered without his consent, he would
restore it.

QUESTION OF COSTS.
Mr. AGAR, on the one side, and Mr. HEALD on the other,
argued for a long time upon exceptions taken to the costs taxed
by the Master.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he felt it to be necessary to
inquire very deliberately into this subject. Every care should
be taken that 191. or 201., which in that Court was a small sum,
should not occasion an expense of 1001. in contending whether
it ought to be charged or not. He remembered to have received
a brief when a young man, from a solicitor who was now dead,
and whom he would not therefore name, and it was so large
that he was afraid to look at it. The solicitor said that in that
Court nothing was better than to fire a great cannon in the be-
ginning of a cause. He (the Lord Chancellor), however, re-
fused to have any thing to do with the great cannon. Lord
Thurlow used to say that the greatest difficulty in such cases
arose from the want of affidavits from Counsel that they read
their briefs.

Mr. AOAR.—We have read them.
The Low:. CHANCELLOR.—I don't think you have read
your brief, Mr. Agar.
His Lordship took the papers, and said he would examine
them.

BEAUMONT V. BRAMLEY.
Two junior Counsel whose names we could not learn, took
nearly an hour in reading the pleadings on both sides in this
cause.

•
Mr. WET HE RE Li. said this subject presented 'great difficul-
ties in law, but on the facts there could be no difficulty. The
plaintiff,•John Beaumont, was heir at laW and nephew of a
gentleman of the same, name, who sold certain lands. The de-
fendant was heir at law and nephew of Mr, 'Norman, who had,
purchased those lands. They on the plainiirsside of the ques-
tion, had sold a certain farm, and the tithes of that farm.—
Their dealings and contracts had been for the farm and the
tithei of the farm, and the conveyance. Ought to have conveyed
nothing more. But the conveyance had actually, and
as they contended, ,against the evidente, . the dealings,
and the probability .of the ease, conveyed the rectory of
Sheepshead, and )Bade the plaintiff part with the tithes of
Charnley-forest or Charnley-chase, in the parish of Sheepshead,
and county of Leicester. The forest had then been of less
value. It had since been enclosed, and had become very
valuable.

The Learned Gentleman went on with this statement till the
rising of the Court, soon after two o'clock.
Mr. CULLEN applied, for an order to have affidavits in that
Court produced as evidence before the Grand Jury in a prose.
cution for perjury.,
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if they were filed ?
Mr. CuLLEN could not answer the question.
The Loan CHANCELLOR.-1 do not know whether that is
necessary ; but look into it, and see how that is.
Mr. CULLEN.—WiII your Lordship allow me to mention it
to-morrow ?

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—No; to-morrow is the last mo.
tion-day, and the last day of term.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 27.
THE RING V. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVER

SITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

In this case, which stood over till to-day, to enable the party
applying for the iiiandoinus to obtain the affidavit of Mr.
Jephson,
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated, that in consequence of
what was now taking place at Cambridge, it had not been pos-,
sible to obtain the'affidavit of Mr. Jephson ; and that Mr. Ser-
geant Lens had accordingly consented that the case should
stand over till to-morrow.
The, COURT intimated their acquiescence in this arrange-
ment, and the argument was accordingly deferred.