The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-22 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT,-(TITIS DAY.

IN THE MATTER OF THE LUDLOW CHARITY.
This being the day upon which the Lord Chancellor has
ordered that Mr, Ldelitnere Charlton should attend person- 1
ally before him to show datlid hy. he should not be com-
mitted to the Fleet. for contempt, in writitlg a threatening
letter to Master Brougham, long before his Lordshlpt took hie
scat the Court was crowded to excess by barristers and
persons anxious to hear in what manner Mr. Charlton
would vindicate the course he had pursued. By some
it was stated that he would not attend, as he had not
been served ; others said that he would put on his wig
and gown, and fearlessly advocate his own case ; and another
rumour was, that Counsel were instructed on his behalf to
question the jurisdiction of the Chancellor on the subject.
All these rumours were, however, set at rest immediately
upon his Lordship taking his seat, when he stated that he had
received a certificate from the officer, directed to serve the
order of the Court upon Mr. Charlton, desiring him to
attend personally, and shew cause why he should not be
committed, in which he stated that he had not been able to
serve him. The only course, therefore, left for his Lordship
to adopt was to substitute other for personal service ;
he should, therefore, now direct that the order should
be enlarged to Saturday, and that the service of the
order at Fendal's Hotel, from which place one of Mr.
Charlton's letters had been dated, and at Ludford, from
which another letter had been sent ; and upon the solicitor
who appeared for Mr. Charlton before the Master, at least
for the parties he advocated, should be deemed good service.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL intimated that Saturday would
be after term. _

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then let the order be en-
larged to Friday.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The VicE-CHANCELLOR was occupied the whole morn-
ing with causes of no general interest.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BROAD V. ANDREWS.
The Court was occupied the whole of the morning with
this part heard case, which was devoid of interest.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. THE INHABITANS OF CAMBERWELL.

This was an indictment for the non-repair of a road in
the West Riding of Yorkshire, leading from the township
of Clayton West, to the township of Denby, and the
road had been made under the provisions of an Act of Par-
liament passed in the year 1825, for making and maintain-
ing a turnpike road from 'Wakefield, to join the Shepley-
lane turnpike road in Denby Dale. The case had been
heard at the last York Assizes, and a verdict had for the
Crown.

A rule nisi to set aside the verdict and enter a verdict
for the defendants had been subsequently obtained, on the
ground that the trustees not having completed a branch
leading from the main trunk, had not complied with the
provisions of the Act of Parliament, and as the formation
of the branch road was a condition precedent to the parish
being called upon to repair the road, they could not be held
liable.

Mr. CRESWELL (with whom was Mr. Adolphus) now
appeared to show cause against the rule. The Learned
Counsel contended that the defendants must be held liable,
inasmuch as the main trunk to which the Act of Parliament
applied having been completed by the trustees, the circum-
stance of some branch not being completed did not relieve
the defendants from their liability. Several authorities
were cited in support of this view of the case.
Lord Ds:num, in pronouncing the judgment of the
Court, observed that they must be guided in their present
decision by the principle which regulated similar cases,
otherwise much public inconvenience would result. It ap-
peared to the Court that the whole undertaking was that
by which the trustees were bound, and which they must
perfect before they could call upon the parish authorities to
relieve them. In the present case they could not distinguish
between the branches that had been perfected and those
that had been- left undone, because, if any were left un-
done, the whole undertaking was imperfect. The verdict
found for the Crown must therefore be set aside, and a
verdict entered for the defendants.—Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT..
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)
LAW REFORM—FEES OF COURT.

Sir W. FOLLETT said he was instructed by the Law As-
sociation to apply to the Court relative to a rule granted,
calling upon an attorney, named Lewis, to show cause why
he should not be suspended from practice, in default of pay-
ing certain fees alleged to be due to the Clerk of the De-
clarations. The Law Association were anxious to substi-
tute the name of their own solicitor in place of Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said that as the case was one
in which all the profession were deeply interested, he should
grant the application, provided there was no objection on
the other side, and the case would be argued before the full
Court.—Rule granted. _

Mr. Rim-JARDS applied for a rule, calling upon an attorney
named:Griffith to chew cause why he should not give up to
the Corporation of Clunn, in Shropshire, the Corporation
seal and certain papers now in his possession. It appeared
from the affidavits that Mr. Griffith was the town clerk of
the Old Corporation, and when he was desired by the New
Corporation to deliver up to them the seal and papers, said
he had a lien upon them for a bill of costs due. The New
Corporation therefore requested an order to deliver his
bill, that it might be taxed, and all papers of the Corpora-
tion delivered up, within fourteen days.—Rule granted.