The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-09 00:00:00

TURNER.

Mr. PHILMMORE applied to the Court upon the motion
which had been made in this petition for an advance of 500/. for
her Ladyship's subsistence, the Committee men feeling that they
had not yet sufficient authority to warrant them in advancing the
money.
The LonD CnaxcELLon said, that pahaps Mr. Philli-
more was not aware that notice was given of an intention to tra-
verse the commission, and that the case would be tried at the
next Bedfordshire assizes. If the commission should be over-
turned,, he did not know how he was to authorize the payment
even of the Money already advanced.
Mr. Part.UssottE'said that the Committee would in that
case be most awkwardly circumstanced, as they had co autho-
rity for the 1,9001. already advanced to liar Ladyship.
The Solicitor for Lady Turner then stood up, and entreated
that his Lordship would consider the very needy and uncom-
fortable state in which her Ladyship was placed, and that he
would give such orders as would enable her to draw the means
of subsistence from the property. The sum which she had re-
ceived was only 9001. for more than two years ; the two sums
of 5001. each, included in the statement of Mr. Phillimore,
were for her own pin-money. She was in the utmost distress,
however, and the Court ought immediately to give orders for
her relief, There could be no danger or impropriety in doing
so, because, whether the commission were to be traversed or
not, the family of the lunatic must be maintained out of the
estate.

The Loan CHANCELLOR required the affidavit which
stated' the necessitous condition of the petitioner to be handed
up, and he would, after reading it, tell them further what shoud
be done.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 2.
bIONTRION V. JEFFRIES.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a respectable attor-
ney, against the defendant, a fanner, to recover 941. the amount
of a bill of costs. It appeared that Mr. Montrion was con.
suited by the defendant in behalf of himself and eleven others,
in respect of a claim set up for payment of small tithes in Long
Melford, in the county of Suffolk. A claim had been made
before the Justices, of payment of these tithes in kind. The
plaintiff undertook the business of defending the parties. A
meeting took place beforie the Justices, and a Mr. King, the
agent of the plaintiff, attended to conduct the business for the
-defendant. The objection to the payment of the tithes in kind
rested upon a modus, and Mr. King wished to have the hearing
postponed on the ground that lie was not prepared to prove his
case. The Magistrates were ready to agree to the proposal, but
a Mr. Walford, the attorney in support of the demand for
tithes, refused unless he received payment of his costs. The
Magistrates having made an order for payment of the tithes,
plaintiff advised an appeal to the Sessions for a rehearing. The
Magistrates on receiving the appeal, thought as no evidence
had been brought before them to sustain the modur, they ought
nut to re-hear the case. A mandamus was then applied for,
and the Court of King's Bench held that the Justices had come
to a right conclusion. The proceedings occasioned costs, which
the plaintiffsought to recover.
The defence was, that the plaintiff had not given proper ad-
, vice:to his clients, and that the costs had been unnecessarily
incurred.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Jury to say whether
the plaintiff had sheivn that skill and caution in the manage-
ment of the business which the defendant had a right to expect.
Mr. SCARLETT' after the Judge's charge, said his client
the plaintiff would submit to a nonsuit. He did not wish th!
Jury by their verdict to draw any conclusion which might pre-
judice his conduct.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Olen told the Jury they were
not called upon to give a rerdict.—The plaintiff was nonsuited.