The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-27 00:00:00

COPPER-PLATES, PRINTS; and DRAWINGS
TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION

Ily Mr. SOTHEBY, at his House, WELLINGTON-STREET,
WATERLOO BRIDGE, STRAND, on FRIDAY, No-
vember 29, and following at Twelve o'Cloch,

THE Valuable Stock of COPPER-PLATES,
with IMPRESSIONS, the Property of Mr. HORACE
RODD, retired into the Country; consisting of Numerous
British Portraits, most of them very useful for the purpose
of illustrating Clarendon, Burnett, Lord Orford's Works,
&c.' Including his publication of Copies of Rare Granger
Portraits,- Plates to the Works of Thomas Hearne, the An-
tiquarian. To which are added, Mezzotint° Plates, by. Mr.
Walker, Engraver to the Emperor Alexander; together with
the remaining Impressions of the Copper-plates which were
lost. Also, a Collection of Original Drawings of British To-
pography, by Captain Grose; a Variety of Portraits, Histo-
rical Prints, &c. &c.
May be viewed, and Catalogues had, at the place of Sale.

THE MONTHLY CENSOR, No. VII.'
which completes the FIRST VOLUME, will be pub-
lished December 2, containing, amongst other Articlet, the
folloOng:
THEOLof,T—Whately'sßamptonLectures—BishopMant's
Charge—Archdeacon Wranghain s Charge—Chapman'S Visi..
tation Sermon at Rochester-Bassett's Sermons on Genesis—
Miss Rundall's Symbolical History'of England. •
POLITY—Utius Populi to Scarlett=l3laquiere's Spanish
It e,i olutiOn-4)ella Travels-7 Mao by's Voyage—Wood's
Illinois.'

PHYSlCS—Gergonne, Annales des Matbematiques—Hor-
tu4 Anglicus—Barclay on Life—Publications, English and
Foreign, 'nit the Tic Doroureux.
PHI LOLOGY—Lyndsay's Dramas of the Ancient World—
Hopes of Matrimony—Steam-hoat—Frederich Dornton—
}Tulin, Vol. 2.—Essays of Father Fitz-Eustnee.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CITAITCERY, NpvE3rßEn 26.

GORDON V. GORDON.
The LoRD CHANCELLOR.—I have looked at the papers
now. -WWI order do you apply for, Mr. Knight ?
Mr. KNIGHT.—The case was supposed to hare been finally,
heard here ;_ but Mr. James Gordon had put a reclaiming'petition, and the applicatidn now made was to prevent the other
side from pressing for a heating in the Court of Session in Scot-
land until the reclaiming petition Should be heard here.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—What I*iSli is this—to pro-
vide that whenever the ease shall be finished here, it will not be
to begin in Scotland.
Mr. Wirral-mils said the fate of the case in Scotland might
be decided by the fate of the case here on the re-hearing.
—Mi. James Gordon begged to state to his Lordship that it
was supposed in Scotland that all the papers had been before his
Lordship, here,
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—NO; that cannot be supposed
when it is Contradicted by affidavit.
Mr. KNIGHT asked his Lordship to allow Mr. Gordon time
to consider of the state of the Case. •
The Lotto CHANCELLOR.--You should look together over
the papers.
Mr. WINGFIELD stid, they ought to have come prepared
with their own apPlieation.
Mr. Gordon.—llia Lordship would see the unfair advantage
that was taken of every step in the proceeding. Not only so, but
it had been said that his Lordship had refused the reclaiming
petition.
The Lo RD CHANCEL.LOR.---I don't believe one word of that.
LORD CHOLTID".7DELEY v. LORD CLINTON.
to delay the farther hearing
Mr. PEPYs asked his Lordship
•of this denittrrer, as..Mr.,lloaid was absent at the election.-
Mr. SUDDEN said, he had but very few words to add to what
he had said, and he might as well saythern now, as his Learn-,
ed Friends who were with Mr. Heald were present. Mr. Heald's
reply might be pojspined. The Learned Gentleman proceeded
with his argument. There had been no possession on the other
side, for the leases had not expired till 1796.
'the Lout CuAxdELLOR.—It appeared doubtful whether
the leases not expiring till 179 G makes any difference, for if the
rents were withheld, proceedings- might have been instituted
long before.
• Mr. SEGDtN.—They were finder great difficulty in arguing
this queation from the line ofargument adopted on the other side,'
which was 'calculated to throw a cloildevt4 the merits. The
case of Doe and d'Ativers, in which the CoUrt of King's Bench
was unanimous, completely decided the question of payment of
rents to the 'wrongful claithant• not constituting an adverse pos-
session. If the rightful proprietor did not Choose to evict them,
they were still his tenants, No than could by w,rOngrget posses-
sion of my right. They kneW'on'the other side that the plain-
tiff's had a perfect right, if this Court gave theni the iheanS, to
get the deeds which constituted their title.
The LORD CHANCELLOIL—Can you by this bill get deedS
to support your action at la* ?- Can you, according to the Prac-
tice of the- Court; get such deeds, Without a bill of • discovery,
and relief?
•
Mr. SUDDEN.—No bill had ever received more considera-;
tion than that which was now before the Court. - The prayer df
the bill was, that the defendant Should set forth the deeds, leases,
and other documents which were in his possesgon. Why not
have gone to a hearing upon this bill, and grant its prayer,
mhich was all the relief they wanted'?' The bill was not to ex-
tract evidence from their consciences, but for the production of
specific deeds.
The LORD CHANCELIOR.—If you can make it a bill of
'relief, there is an end of the deinurrer altogether.
Mr. SHADIYELL stated what he conceived the practice of the
Court to be.
Mr. SudriEst adverted to the agreement, `
The Loitri CHANCEL L o opinions of the individuals
in the Houae of Lords was, ilia the agreement hetween the
plaintiffs ought to have been proved, and they would know how
to christen it—whether champerty, maintenance, or savouring
or smelling of champertY or maintenance.
Mr. SUGDEN.—There had been no agreement but what was
stated -in the bill. It was an agreement to divide the estate.
Was there any objection to that ? Chanjperty was when one,
having a claim, agreed with another' who had no claim and no
title to the estate. Maintenance the other Side had never ven-
tured to charge. If the plaintiff agreed to consolidate their
interests, no objection could be made to that. The statute
was directed against practices to suppress justice and create
delay, which showed that this case could not come within its

provisions. • _
The LORD CITANCELLon.—Suppose—I don't allude to the
present case—suppose one party give all the money and receive
half the estate, which half may be worth 'lO times the money,
would not that savour This is consistent with yOur bill ; it
may be se; but no Court can say it is so.
Mr. SUGDEN.—They would satisfy the Court that one o(
the Plaintiff's was entitled; but it was very:difficult' tcrsay who
it was. If there was adverse possession previously to the mak-
ing of the 'will and codicil, then the-heir at law, Lord Chol
mondely, was entitled., If there had been no possession pre-
viously, then the devisee, Mrs. Darner, was entitled. In ar-
guing upon a demurter, they must, assume that one of the
parties. had a.good title;. and if they could not tell which of
the parties, what objection, could-there be to a compromise?
The L.oltD CHANCELLOR.—LOrd Iledesdale gave his opi-
nion that it was an unlawful, agreeinent.
Mr. SuGDE.—That was an' extra-judicial opinion, for it
was -given without hearing the ar'iurnent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.,I:agree with! you that there is
nothing in the world worse than giving an opinion without hear-
ing argument. I am very far from saying, what opinion I would
have given if the point had been. before the Lords. You have
a right on the face,of the bill to saylt was an igreement to pre-
-vent litigation. But the bill does not say that, there-would have
been litigation.
The AvronNEY,GE.WERAL.—Preat doubts had arisen,
and the opinions of eminent lawyers had been `taken, respecting
the question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—But there might be much be-
that,.,Mr..Attorney. Don't undetitand me to' say that
there is; If the agreement were seen, it Might have turned you
out of Court without difficulty.
Mr. S'i.TGDEN.—It would be time enough for them to produce
it wlien it could be shewn to exist., But the plaintiff's had conie
to an agreement to avoid litigation. Isis Lordship would con-
sider the consequence of a refuSal. It would be giVing to the
wrong dOer—to.one who was art entire stranger, without any
title or pretension, a considerable estate, which uriqueStionably
belonged to one of the plaintiffs. lie hoped, therefore, the ,

demurrer would be dismissed, and the judgment of the Court
below confirmed.,

PARKHURST V. LOIVTEN".

This case Was an argument on a demurrer to certain interro.
gatories.Put to Mr. Godfrey. The original question had been
the obligation of the 'defendant to account to the laintiff; and
the objection set up was, that accounting for the slim of 6,0001.
expended in the purchase of a church livilig,would involve the
defendant in shnoniaial charges. Mr.- Godfreyhad been the
solicitor in the transaction, and to interrogatories put to- him
the demurrer was pmt in. The argument was partly heard before.
Mr. SPENCE and Mr. ATTORIVEY-GNEItAL were now
heard on opposite sides, and that was admitted to be the eon.
clusion of the argument.
The Lowy CIIANCELLOR.—The question is, whether Mr.
Godfrey has given reasons-to justify his refusal to answer. His
great objection is, that the interrogatories tend tit criminate
Godfrey himself. Unless that can he proved, that the answers
would disclose Simoniacai transactions is no objection whatever,
if the plaintiff has a raglan to an account . I shall look whether•
it would criminate himself, this evening or tomorrow evening.
I cannot say,. but all, the information required front Mr. God-
frey might be obtained by a twentieth parfaVseinterrogatori'cs.
He is very much distressed by this mode. ,Ijet it stand in the
paper for Friday morning.
CLAY V. I.ADBROKE.

(No person appeared.):
The LORD CDANCELLOR.—Is that gone to Cambridge?
Don't strike it out, for the parties may have been taken by stir-
prise. Ills Lordship rose at one o'clock. -

VICE-CI;IANCELIIOR'S COURT, N0v.26.

EX FAII7E GIIIMSTEAD IN TILE NATTER OF HOWARD AND

G

„
The v ICE-unAxcELL OR observed, that he had stated on
Saturday that he _would decide the.question of costs in this case,
after the action at law had been tried ; but upon reconsideration
he thought it Would be best to dispose 'of it now, when the facts.
were fresh In the minds of all parties concerned.
Mr. BELL stated, that he had been instructed to inform his
Honour, that if M. Grimstead had agreed, at the suggestion
of the- COurt, to change the action at lawinto a suit, the ques-
tion could not have been tried at the time fixed, because a new
record and a new jury process would have been necessary :
otherwise, none of the witnesses could have been prOsecuted for
perjuryif they had falsely sworn:

The- VlcE:CitiNcEi..rion thought it necessary that some in-
quiry should be made into the .correctness of this statement.—
If it should-turn out to- be true, the assignees must pay:the
costs of the application which he was called upon to decide on-
Saturday : if otherwise, they must be paid by Mr. Grinistead.
M r. Mo NTAGUE assured hislionour the conseht of Mr. Grim-
stead to the proposed change of the nature of the trial would
have been unavailing. If, however, the assignees thought other-
Vase, Grimstead would now consent to what was asked:- •
His Ho s'Ou it said, that it would save expence, if tile assig-
nees woirld accept the consent.
Mr. -HonNE, on the part of the assignees, agreed to take
the consent of Mr. Grimstead.

The case stands' over to the last day of term.
EX PARTE SHAW, IN TUE HATTER OF HOWARD & GIBBS
Mr. HORNE if tated, that this was a petition from the present
assignees of the bankrupts, praying that the defendant;- Mr.
Bowen, who had been the messenger under theformer commis-
sion, might account for the wines and spirits which remained
under his care in the cellars of the bankrupts, from the month
of February to the month of August, 18-21,;• and also that he
might be restrained from proceeding in an action at law against
the present assignees, for-a- debt which -he'alledged to be'due to
him for services performed under the former 'assignees. The
Learned Counsel
.was proceedin„q.to open the case, when - •
. Mr. Mox'racluE objected that the former assignees ought to
have been made parties to the suit.
The Vic E-CIIANCELLOIL thought that the objection must
be sustained. It might appear that the defendant had acted in ,
all-that he'had done under the directions of the former assignees,
which he - was.bound to obey. The forinet.aesignees, and iiot
the defendant,' were liable to account to the plaintiff:
Mr. IlottirE admitted that if this had,been 'a.Bill, it would
bare been necessary to make the former assignees 'parties, but.
he maintained th4.it was not requisite on the presentation of a
petititin to fix -upon more than one party. The defendant must
defend himself as he would in an action at law.' • •
The Vic E-CRANCELLOR directeddhe petition to stand over
until he had an opportunity of talking the subject over with the.
Lord Chancellor.

• BAILEY 17. SNETHAJI. •
In this case his Honour -the V3cr-Citaxcm.r.oß decided
that Jane Snctham (the widow of the deceascdJohn Snethain),
is entitled to the estate devised to•her by the will of the de-
ceased, fonher life, with remainder to her children ; and stated
that this would have been his decision, even if it had been
proved that by the law of Scocland the marriage was illegal.

ANGEL v: ANGEL.

His Honour in this case maintained the demurrer of the
fendant, and :lismissed the bill which had been filed for•per-
prtuating flip evidence of persons now residing in America..

COURT OF KING'S BENCH', Nov. 2G.

THE KiNG v. ANDERSON.
The consideration of this case, adjourned from Monday, was
resnmed, and the defendant again appeared on the floot-of,the
Court. • .
The affidavits originally filed on behalf of the prosecution
Were first read. They stated that the defendant had voluntarily
continued in the Office of surveyor of the highways within the
hundred, for nine years, and that, during that time,. he had
sometimes distrained for the amount of rates, which he after-
wards converted to his own use. Mr. Peppercorn, and two
other persons, who had taken an active part in the concerns of
the district, stated their belief that he had not embezzled less
than 1,800/. during his continuance in office. Affidavits were
then readin answer to the affidavit of the defendant, in which
Mr. Peppercorn-denied that he ever proposed to the defendant
to apply 100/. td build a wall for the Rector, and in which he
'and others asserted that the proceedings had been dictated by no
malice towards Mr. Anderson, but by a mere desire for public
justice. It was set forth that the defendant enjoyed an income
in right of his wife; and that he had removed the indictment by
certiorari from. the Sessions, and had applied for Special
Juries, but that just before the trial he had abandoned the Special
, Juries, and when the cases were called on, consented to verdicts
of guilty.
Mr. Comm 0 -1.1. SERGEANT addressed the Court in mitigation
of punishment. He trusted that when the importance of the
issue was considered, and when the prejudice excited against Mr.
Anderson among that class of persnns who formed the juries at
'sessions was weighed, he would not be regarded as culpable for
removing the indictment, althoUgh ultimately he was advised to
plead guilty. It was exceedingly difficult to, answer a prima
facie of 'this kind ;, to explain transactions extended through
a considerable space of time, especially when irregularity had
arisen' in the mode of keeping accounts ; • and therefore the
Counsel for the defendant, feeling that they could give no
satisfactory answer to the charge, advised. him to submit to
the verdict without resistance. The hostile feelings of the party
opposed to him in the district had anticipated the result of the
prosecution—had visited him prematurely with that infamy
which was its worst consequence--;and had emblazoned ,his
name to the public as a delinquent. • • The Court would consider
the defendant's age rendering imprisonment dangerous ; his in:.
'ability to pay any heavy fine •; the sufferings he had already an_
llergone ; and that punishment, far heavier than they could in-
flict, which he must suffe.r in the loss of that character which he
had maintained through a long and honourable life.
Mr. ADOLPHUs and Mr.tiftT TY fbllowed on the same side.
Mr.- GURNEY addresed the Court in reply to the topics
urged on behalf of the defendant. He contended that all. the
imputations cast on the pitsecutor were completely refut-
ed, and that •he had only exerted himself moderately,
though firmly, to 'effect. what few had - the courage -Or the
virtue to attempt, -the bringing a great public delinquent
to justice: - The defendant had pleaded guilty to two indict-
ments----one charging him with embezzling money in fourteen
particular instances ditrinc, the years 1819 and 'lB2O, and with
taking •an oath to verify the accounts in which these sums were
falsely stated; and `another, applicable to the year 1821, omit-
ting the statement of the oath; not because the conscience of the
defendant refused to take it, but lecause the Magistrates re-
fused to administer it. His good clisracter, instead of a pallia
tioni was a high aggravation of his criminalityi because it
proved that during the years in which he carried on his pecula-
tions he 'had worn a mask of.sanctity, • the better to conceal
theni. Under these circumstances, as Counsel for the public, •
he prayed for judgment, feeling sorrow thata man in a respect-
able rank of life should be placed in so disgraceful and distress.
ing a• situation, • hut at the same time feeling that the Conduct
of the defendant—far more common, he feared, than many sus.